As someone who has worked closely with (and in) Federal beaurocracy for a number of years, I can assure you that the private sector would fulfil many (most) of the functions of the public service with much greater efficiency.You are so right. There must be heaps of savings at all levels of Government. The problem is, it is not their money, so the average bureaucrat could not care less.
That is so depressing. And it permeates right down to pissy little local government. This is just a minor example.As someone who has worked closely with (and in) Federal beaurocracy for a number of years, I can assure you that the private sector would fulfil many (most) of the functions of the public service with much greater efficiency.
What you suspect is the case, I know is the case.
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ba'kuThe Greens have a strange policy on taxation. They want to tax the bejesus out of the extractive industries until they are severely weakened or go off-shore.
And then what?:dunno:
Here here Smurf! It's a wasteful racket.Having worked in the public service, my opinion is simply this.
........
The bureaucracy, on the other hand, is riddled with rules, regulations and policital instructions that preclude any chance of efficient operation. Those who desire to efficiently use the taxpayers' funds eventually get sick of banging their head against a wall.
Private contractors are another story altogether and by far the most expensive way of doing anything. There may well be exceptions, but in general they are damn good at extracting maximum $ from the taxpayer in return for the minimum possible expenditure on actually doing the work.
Consulting services - ask any public servant what really goes on and you'll find out that most consultants are nothing more than glorified typists. They produce some fancy reports but come straight back to the department that hired them the moment some real knowledge or ability is required. There are exceptions of course, but there's a lot of duds out there.
What would I do?
..............
Then realise that the bureaucracy has been inflated with all sorts of project managers, accountants, lawyers, contract administrators and the like in an attempt at holding the contractors to account.
.........
I'm very much in favour of private enterprise when it operates under normal circumstances. But private profit funded by my taxes, at far greater cost to me than if government employed people directly, is an entirely different matter. There's no justification for it other than to increase the profits of a select few. Those who get such contracts presumably do quite nicely (they ought to be - they're being paid plenty) at the expense of every other business and individual who ends up paying for it.
All that said, there is a role for contractors. But not where they end up as defacto government employees doing ongoing work. Just too wasteful...
Summed up very well here. There are some brilliant people creating some very good work that goes nowhere because the higher-ups want to play a political game to further their career."Hands on" government workers are no more and no less efficient, overall, than their private sector counterparts. That is assuming that the bureaucracy lets the workers get on with the job. Some waste occurs in some areas, offset by efficiency in others.
The bureaucracy, on the other hand, is riddled with rules, regulations and policital instructions that preclude any chance of efficient operation. Those who desire to efficiently use the taxpayers' funds eventually get sick of banging their head against a wall.
So when they get control of the Senate next year, what do you think will happen? The above is pretty much unthinkable, so is it likely the government and the opposition will vote together on such issues, rendering the Greens irrelevant?The Greens want a viable mining and mineral exploration sector that meets stringent environmental protection standards, or so the say.
They want to cease uranium mining immediately, limit coal to the winding down of existing mines and tax resource profits at 66.5%. I would like to see their modelling of the economic viability of that.
other ecological taxes and charges at a level sufficient enough that their prices reflect the full environmental cost of their production, use or disposal.
The Australian Greens will:
12.end the exploration for, and the mining and export of, uranium.
The Greens want a viable mining and mineral exploration sector that meets stringent environmental protection standards, or so the say.
They want to cease uranium mining immediately, limit coal to the winding down of existing mines and tax resource profits at 66.5%. I would like to see their modelling of the economic viability of that.
Interesting segment on Insiders (ABC) today including how they currently compare vote wise to the Democrats at their peak.Interesting to see how they handle the move from purity to political realism with the increase in power. Also how well they work as a party will be much more difficult with a larger group.
Jeez I hope they don't halt Uranium mining. They could not be that thick.
Its the future as regards clean energy.
gg
Witness the situation in Tasmania, with a Labor-Green government as such (as distinct from a Labor government relying on Green support).The Greens have weakened the Labor Party base so much that even Paul Kelly suggested on today's AM Agenda (Sky News), we could see a future coalition known as the Green Labor Party.
The Greens will stuff this great country of ours if they ever get into power.
Much of the fuel for those is coming from weapons dismantling which ends in a few years. Add to that loss of supply the reality that more nuclear reactors are under construction at the moment.Yes GG, there are now over 500 nuclear power plants in operation throughout the world. France alone has 70+.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?