Home > Economic policy > After the Budget

After the Budget

May 14th, 2010

* Budget lockup low point: Only instant coffee, had to get my caffeine hit from Diet Coke. High point: Asked for autograph by Treasury officials. Also, a fun dinner with Robert Gottliebsen, Alan Kohler, Natasha Stott-Despoja, the Crikey crew and others. Not quite as lively as some accounts suggested, but a good time was had by all.
* One thing I missed: Got through some of the confusion on the aid budget but wasn’t able to work out if the money for Copenhagen commitments was additional new money (as promised) or old money taken from elsewhere in the aid budget. Unsurprisingly, it was old money
* A bigger thing I missed: What Possum’s Pollytics correctly calls the most important chart in the budget, a graph showing a regression of the size of economic stimulus against economic growth relative to IMF forecasts. The relationship is highly significant, and the coefficient is approximately 1. That is, each dollar of stimulus resulted in (roughly) a dollar of extra output. No doubt this will be subject to reanalysis, but it’s a striking result.

* Tony Abbott’s reply: predictably weak. Freezing public service recruitment is silly symbolism, not a serious way of cutting spending.

Categories: Economic policy Tags:
  1. Jarrah
    May 14th, 2010 at 12:18 | #1

    “a graph showing a regression of the size of economic stimulus against economic growth relative to IMF forecasts. The relationship is highly significant, and the coefficient is approximately 1. That is, each dollar of stimulus resulted in (roughly) a dollar of extra output. No doubt this will be subject to reanalysis, but it’s a striking result.”

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/05/13/did-the-stimulus-work/

    The problem with the Treasury analysis is that it only makes use of 11 observations, when they could have used 19 observations. … This is the graph making use of the full dataset. [graph] The slope coefficients are positive in both cases. The t-stat for the slope coefficient for the full data set, however, is 0.50 well below the generally accepted levels for a t-stat to indicate statistical significance. In layman terms the slope coefficient is not statistically significantly different from zero and we cannot conclude that there is a relationship between the size of stimulus packages and the forecast error.

  2. Uncle Milton
    May 14th, 2010 at 13:16 | #2

    “High point: Asked for autograph by Treasury officials”

    I knew, just knew, that Treasury has been overrun by socialists.

  3. Tony G
    May 14th, 2010 at 13:20 | #3

    “Freezing public service recruitment is silly symbolism, not a serious way of cutting spending.”

    Straight out sacking a lot of useless bureaucrats is a “serious way of cutting spending”; to bad Abbott hasn’t got the balls to do that.

  4. Uncle Milton
    May 14th, 2010 at 13:42 | #4

    @Tony G
    There are about 100,000 federal public servants. Let’s say 10% of them are surplus to what is really needed. Let’s say they cost on average $100,000 to employ (probably an overestimate, but let’s say). Sacking the surplus bureaucrats will save $1 billion out of annual expenditures of $350 billion. The savings are peanuts.

    A serious cut in federal spending would be in the order of $20 billion. If you want to do that you’ve got to cut the big programs: health, social security, defence.

  5. Chris Warren
    May 14th, 2010 at 13:48 | #5

    @Tony G

    Straight out taxing a lot of useless magnates is a better way to fund spending. Too bad Abbott hasn’t got wit to do that.

  6. Jim Birch
    May 14th, 2010 at 13:50 | #6

    Someone described Abbott as “flaky” the other day. Spot on. He’d be good running a gym, not a country.

  7. Fran Barlow
    May 14th, 2010 at 13:58 | #7

    @Tony G

    Straight out sacking a lot of useless bureaucrats is a “serious way of cutting spending”; to bad Abbott hasn’t got the balls to do that.

    That’s exactly what Abbott would propose if he were sincere. He is trying to pretend that a random process of attrition will cause the PS to shed 12,000 useless time-servers, when this is likely to shed those who actually have valuable and marketable skills. If they really aren’t worth a cracker (which is the only way he can claim savings of the size he says), he should vow to sack them immediately.

    Of course, he is not sincere. He is a huckster playing to public ignorance of administrative process and that simply talking about “bureaucrats” rather than specific people doing specific jobs makes them sound like deadwood. He spent this morning on Fran Kelly’s Soapbox for Liberals segment on Breakfast saying he didn’t want to talk about the details. It’s so much easier to imply bureaucrats are worthless than to say any specific bureaucrat is worthless. For him, the work people do is a mere detail.

    It would be lovely if someone could ask him why timeservers in ASIO or Customs or the Navy should be treated any better than any other timeserver, but of course, the mainstream media today is pretty much a vacuous conservative playpen.

  8. Socrates
    May 14th, 2010 at 14:06 | #8

    Paul Krugman did some analysis of the size of stimulus needed for the USA in November 2008 that matched Possum’s conclusions closely.

    There is another excellent piece of analysis today on Possum’s blog that further undermines the case for rapid cuts. He looks at the time it takes for employment to recover after past recessions:
    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/05/14/what-if-unemployment-was-as-forecast/

    In each previous case (1980s and 1990s), the answer was 8 to 10 years! The cost of supporting these people without jobs, even limiting it to dole payments alone (there are really many other costs) over this time would be many billions. So not only are such cuts insufficient to deal with the big ticket debt causes, they don’t work: you wind up paying people social security instead.

  9. djm
    May 14th, 2010 at 14:38 | #9

    Mr. Quiggin, I’m disappointed in Possum and now you. The regression analysis is on the thinnest of data, is against only a single variable and doesn’t include any control for confounding factors. I know that you would never consider publishing based on such a dataset alone, so why highlight it in your blog?

  10. Jarrah
    May 14th, 2010 at 14:44 | #10

    “There are about 100,000 federal public servants. Let’s say 10% of them are surplus to what is really needed. ”

    Probably closer to 20%.

    “Sacking the surplus bureaucrats will save $1 billion … The savings are peanuts. ”

    A billion here, a billion there, and soon you’re talking REAL money.

  11. Uncle Milton
    May 14th, 2010 at 14:49 | #11

    @Jarrah

    How do you know 20% of them are surplus? Or any particular number for that matter? I don’t think anybody knows.

  12. Tony G
    May 14th, 2010 at 14:54 | #12

    Fran & UC,

    Australia’s bloated public sector is about 33% of GDP, it needs to be reduced to 25% of GDP ASAP; this would redirect about $70 billion a year that is being wasted. Basically 7% of GDP is being piss up against the wall employing people akin to glorified parking officers, bureaucrats who collect fees and ‘create’ work simply to justify their own existence.

  13. Socrates
    May 14th, 2010 at 14:58 | #13

    Tony G

    On what basis can you say Australia’s public sector should be 25%? Government spending in Australia is in the smallest third among OECD nations. We are not Greece. Most of the places who spend less have lousy services and are generally poorer than us.

  14. Uncle Milton
    May 14th, 2010 at 15:02 | #14

    @Tony G

    Tony, you could fire every public servant, including every teacher, nurse and policeman in Australia and you wouldn’t get close to $70 billion in savings.

  15. Tony G
    May 14th, 2010 at 15:17 | #15

    Socrates,

    Governments are self regulating monopolies that legislate themselves a pay rise every year; and they have done so most years since federation see table 27.19 TAXATION REVENUE AND GDP PER HEAD here;

    http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article472001?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2001&num=&view=

    In the mid 1970s we had free health care, free tertiary education and more affordable housing, life wasn’t to bad then and it was done with a public sector of about 25% of GDP.

    If the elite political ruling class (public sector) continues to grow unabated eventually a situation like what occurred in France in the late 1700s will cull it.

  16. Socrates
    May 14th, 2010 at 15:22 | #16

    Tony G

    Most of the government spending goes on health and welfare payments. You keep banging on abotu the public sector as though it is all public servants. It isn’t. Transfer payments make up a large chunk of the cash.

    Your 1970s analogy is irrelevant. I dare say if we had todays demographic profile back in the 1970s (lots of aged retirees and people needing medical treatment) we would have had much higher government spending too.

  17. Ernestine Gross
    May 14th, 2010 at 15:54 | #17

    Tony G seems to be arguing that the dismissal of the Whitlam government was a monumental mistake as was the subsequent micro-economic reform known as economic rationalism, including his own prescriptions.

  18. Tony G
    May 14th, 2010 at 15:59 | #18

    SOC & MU,

    “Most of the government spending goes on health and welfare payments”

    I disagree, less than half of it does!

    There are about 1,700,000 total public sector employees in Australia.
    figures here (I cant find any later);
    http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1997-98/98rn17.htm

    If we use Uncle Milton “Let’s say they cost on average $100,000 to employ (probably an overestimate, but let’s say)” that equates to $170 billion; more than half the Governments $300+ billion) revenue goes on public servants.

    A cull of bureaucrats could easily cut the $170billion pay roll by 10% saving $17billion per year.

  19. Uncle Milton
    May 14th, 2010 at 16:09 | #19

    Tony, on your figures only 1 in 5 public sector employees works for the Commonwealth Government, and only half of those are public servants.

    On the glorious mid 70s, in 1975/76 Commonwealth government expenditures were 24.2 per cent of GDP. In 2010/11 they are budgeted to be 25.1 per cent.

  20. Tony G
    May 14th, 2010 at 16:18 | #20

    UC, are you denying there is 1.7 million public servants in Australia costing tax payers $170 billion a year?

  21. Chris Warren
    May 14th, 2010 at 16:27 | #21

    @Tony G

    So what evidence does this Tony G fellow have that Australia has too many;

    garbage collectors,
    quarantine inspectors,
    judges,
    National Art Gallery staff,
    nurses,
    train drivers,
    firefighters,
    pasture protection officers,
    food inspectors,
    contract clerks,
    parliamentary draftsmen,
    hansard reporters
    ABC staff
    etc
    etc

    It would be better if we increased our public sector. We would then have, for example, fair banking, cheaper housing, more accessible legal services.

  22. jquiggin
    May 14th, 2010 at 16:35 | #22

    Tony G plays straightman again, calling all public sector employees “bureaucrats”. I’d be tempted to think of him as a Poe, if it weren’t that Tony A is almost equally clueless.

    It’s silly, to take just one example, to suggest that teachers are bureaucrats if they are paid with public money to work in a state school and dynamic members of the private sector if they are paid with public money to work in a church school.

  23. May 14th, 2010 at 16:35 | #23

    Pr Q said:

    * A bigger thing I missed: What Possum’s Pollytics correctly calls the most important chart in the budget, a graph showing a regression of the size of economic stimulus against economic growth relative to IMF forecasts. The relationship is highly significant, and the coefficient is approximately 1. That is, each dollar of stimulus resulted in (roughly) a dollar of extra output. No doubt this will be subject to reanalysis, but it’s a striking result.

    I didnt miss it, and I got not prompt from Possum. In fact if you check your inbox you will find my analysis of the result.

    George M. from the Oz briefly referred to the result, not the paper itself. In a nutshell, the graph indicates we got a far bigger output bang for our fiscal buck.

    So far as I recall Pr Q was a good deal more pessimistic than me, in line with general OECD projections depicted in the Treasury graph. Its clear that other factors beyond the fiscal stimulus are responsible for our good result.

    I have maintained from the start that measuring the fiscal stimulus alone is misleading as the other economic stimuli were at least as important:

    - financial: 4% cut in RBA base interest rates from MAR 08 through DEC 08 delivering a big cash injection to borrowers and
    - factoral: 150 to 300k net immigration rate from 2003-09, housing shortage making our mortgages blue-chip rather than sub-prime

    The re-analysis should be interesting. We bear comparison to CANADA who did much worse in their recovery.

    A big problem I have with the Treasury comparison of AUS to the US is that the US stimulus was $750 bill on a GDP of $15 trill. This is obviously ~ 5% yet the Treasury graph indicates that the US fiscal stimulus was only 2% of GDP compared to our 4% of GDP.

    Either Treasury have done their sums wrong (doubtful) or the US stimulus was not nearly as big as advertised, perhaps owing to being mixed up with the bail-out or being dependent on the vagaries of federal-state relations. Perhaps Pr Q could clear this up.

    In any case, I think the result indicates that AUS outperformed the RoW because the underlying strength of our economy (and its NE Asian relations) was much greater than generally predicted.

    EXCEPT BY ME. I always argued that the strength of AUS’s property market was the key to our surviving the GFC without a domestic recession. On OCT 2008 on this blog, I predicted that AUS was less likely than not to go into recession, mainly on the basis of the financial and factoral stimuli indicated above.

    At the moment an [AUS] recession appears to be odds-off. Although a slow down in Asian growth and a rise in global interest rates might cause property market capitulation.

    Even then the govt and populace will throw everything at the property market to keep a high floor on prices. More home grants, tax breaks, bail-outs, raids on super, infrastrucure splurges – you name it.

    The Great Australian Dream will not go down without a fight. Neighbours Home and Away last stand.

    Its high time that economists started to take my argument about immigration-property prices a little more seriously, since their own models obviously dont explain things so well. [sniffs haughtily]

  24. Uncle Milton
    May 14th, 2010 at 16:38 | #24

    @Tony G

    Tony, there are public servants and people employed in the public sector. The latter are the vast majority of the numbers you cite. They include teachers, nurses, police, the armed forces, customs officers, prison guards and a whole lot of others that deliver services.

    The actual number of people that you have in mind, the “bureaucrats”, is quite small.

  25. Chris Warren
    May 14th, 2010 at 16:39 | #25

    God, don’t you just love these keynesians:

    This from John Quiggin’s citation to Possums Pollytics

    “Debt was the cost of growth – growth was and always is the provider of jobs. Pretending that less debt could have provided the same jobs is fairy floss economics. ”

    Maybe someone should explain to these vandals that ratcheting debt is driving Greece, Spain, Japan, UK, USA into at least austerity if not destruction.

    They may also have a look at the current accounts of Australia, UK and USA.

    You cannot rely on debt to produce jobs because it just ratchets up. Debt theory is for Keynesians only.

  26. Doug
    May 14th, 2010 at 16:58 | #26

    If people are serious biggest savings can be found in the capital purchasing programs in the Department of Defence. Cost overruns are rampant, delays are endemic and it will never change due to the characteristics of the market – few suppliers, no clear purchasing frameworks in terms of outcomes sought and assymetry of knowledge between the suppliers and the purchasers.

    You could get some big savings there. Go small government gurus.

  27. Chris Warren
    May 14th, 2010 at 17:04 | #27

    @Doug

    With current US and Russian arms reductions, and in the absence of any comparable threat then Defence cuts may be possible, on this basis, not on the capo-anarchist basis of small government.

    While cost overruns may be rampant – claims of cost overruns are even more rampant.

  28. Tony G
    May 14th, 2010 at 17:08 | #28

    JQ To suggest that bureaucrats are teachers, indicates that all the government funded degrees you obtained were a waste of taxpayers money. 10% of the public sector (170,000) is surplus bureaucrats and they need to be sacked. If you can not distinguish between teachers and bureaucrats, then maybe, that indicates you are one of the latter group that should go.

    JQ said

    “It’s silly, to take just one example, to suggest that teachers are bureaucrats if they are paid with public money to work in a state school and dynamic members of the private sector if they are paid with public money to work in a church school.”

    Answer me this then JQ;

    Why does a public school student cost $11000 pa of total government money and a church school does the same job with $7000 pa per student of total government money; and the church schools with the same demographics get ‘much’ higher NAPLAN results; at 2/3s the cost to taxpayers?

    UM;

    “The actual number of people that you have in mind, the “bureaucrats”, is quite small”

    UM where is the evidence to back up that statement?

    Back tomorrow.

  29. gregh
    May 14th, 2010 at 17:40 | #29

    @Tony G

    El sueño de la razón produce monstruos
    http://tinyurl.com/23mafm6

    is it sleep though Tony G?

  30. Michael of Summer Hill
    May 14th, 2010 at 19:52 | #30

    Update, Update, Update, the latest report from Phillip Coorey confirms what many suspect that Tony Abbott & the Coalition have a real credibility problem dodging and weaving the truth about a plan to pay $10,000 to stay-at-home mums. As for the public service recruitment freeze Lyndal Curtis also put it to Abbott that ‘Simple mathematics says that 12,000 employees into $4 billion puts each employee at about $330,000′. Abbott is all bull.

  31. John
    May 15th, 2010 at 08:25 | #31

    Good to know I am a total waste of space. Federal Public Servant. Small department reduced from 2200 in the late 70′s to 1300 now and still falling. Work in an office of 3, 1 retires, down to 2, a cut of 1/3rd, a little excessive maybe?

  32. Alice
    May 15th, 2010 at 09:00 | #32

    @John
    John…which arm do you want to lose in the ideological pursuit of “cutting bureacrats”?…Have you heard about Mona Vale Hospital operating theatres? Last upgrade was when Menzies was prime minister. Seems the liberals (and their ilk in State Labor) cant do anything constructive these days but “oppose” and suggest more cuts to ” public structures”…same tired old record…until our infrastructure is on the operating table unable to be resuscitated. The great dismantlers need to stop pretending they have solutions when all they have is a plan for further destruction.

  33. Michael of Summer Hill
    May 15th, 2010 at 10:12 | #33

    Update, Update, Update, this week iron man Tony Abbott’s Report Card is a disaster as
    his own party turns against him on top of the failed budgie reply and having angered public service bureaucrats. Abbott is all bull.

  34. Michael of Summer Hill
    May 15th, 2010 at 10:42 | #34

    John, it seems like Tony Abbott is totally wrong about Australia’s future prospects for the Lowy Institute’s annual survey results show a vast majority of Australians, 86 per cent, are optimistic about Australia’s economic performance over the next five years.

  35. Alice
    May 15th, 2010 at 14:39 | #35

    @Uncle Milton
    says

    “High point: Asked for autograph by Treasury officials”

    I knew, just knew, that Treasury has been overrun by socialists.”

    On the contrary – I dare say Treasury officials are so sick of who they have been working for ten years under UknowWho before Rudd, thats why they asked for JQs autograph. Anyway I thought you had been permanently banned Uncle Milton…some time ago? Im happy to have some socialism back in Treasury and the greed is good mob kicked out.

  36. Freelander
    May 15th, 2010 at 17:25 | #36

    The graph is supportive of the value of the stimuli. Timing and detail I imagine would have also have been important determinants of their effectiveness. Also, some Federal systems, for example, the United States had their federal government stimulus blunted by their state governments implementing contractionary policies. I haven’t seen the data but some have claimed that many US state governments used the federal governments stimulus largesse as a chance to withdraw expenditures and, hence, fix up their balance sheets.

    It is a pity that the government doesn’t seem to have sold that the result we escaped a recession was directly attributable to the stimulus.

    As far as JQ’s autograph goes, why wouldn’t they want his autograph? After all, they are economists in Treasury and regardless of whether their political views coincide with JQ’s, he is, after all, widely recognised as one of Australia’s most accomplished economists – much to the chagrin of those who despise ‘fairness’. And, being economists they may have also thought getting his autograph, without cost and in the circumstances, was simply an investment they couldn’t resist.

  37. Alice
    May 15th, 2010 at 18:52 | #37

    I fully agree Freelander…JQ shows admirable objectivity in running this blog and keeping the discussion open…despite trolls, antagonists and downright lunatics. For that alone he deserves the Order of Australia in my opinion.

  38. Jill Rush
    May 16th, 2010 at 00:38 | #38

    The problem with natural attrition is that those who actually do the work go whilst those who manage and cost a lot stay in their jobs. The SES has become bloated but this is unlikely to change anytime soon as the people who decide who stays and who goes are ….the SES. It would be a great doctoral thesis to compare the cost of the CES with the cost of the current system where there are not only providers such as the CES was but now there are also many bureaucrats who don’t add value but do add to the cost.

    Unfortunately the systems set up by the Howard government across the board means that the public servants who used to perform the tasks are now ensuring that others do the work “accountably and with transparency”. This adds to business red tape and costs to government and the taxpayer. It is probably too late to unscramble this omelette. It is not too late to decentralise decision making to empower local communities – however this is a risk and the current government is unlikely to take this step until it is too late.

  39. Freelander
    May 16th, 2010 at 01:41 | #39

    @Jill Rush

    Yes. You are perfectly correct.

    The SES is particularly bloated. A great example of that is the Productivity Commission which, when John Howard got in was a lot larger (then called the Industry Commission) and had as well as its SES band ones, two FACs (band twos) and no Head of Office. Now if you look in their last annual report, the organisation is smaller, certainly as far as those below SES are concerned, but has in addition to two FACs, two other band twos whose functions, and what they are needed for is entirely unclear, probably to the staff themselves, as well a Head of Office and a Deputy Chairman. And of course the SES’s salaries have been extremely inflated and they have gotten in the habit of giving themselves huge performance bonuses (with no prospect of three strikes and you’re out stopping that practice).

    Their remuneration really makes it sound as if they have some value other than occupying large tracts of floor space, but such speculation would be entirely baseless. But at least these ‘management’ SES have some some nominal responsibilities. Commissioners on the other hand… There have been very valuable contributions from Commissioners and some excellent Commissioners in the past, but if you look in that organisation and wider through the public service, and subject the current appointments to close scrutiny, you will find that under the Howard regime those sorts of positions have been stack with well connected and not suitably qualified ‘mates’ who find their public position provides them with a very considerable stipend. Unfortunately, if one manages to get into that sort of position and is either incapable of making any effective contribution or simply decides you cannot be bothered doing so, you are almost never removed, in fact, you almost never receive sanction of any kind. With far to many of the Howard government appointees, they are so incapable of positive contribution that staff must hope they don’t even make an attempt, as any attempt would involve staff in even more work dissuading them from what could become either an embarrassment or a disaster or both.

    One can probably get a good idea of the calibre of Howard appointees by considering that faithful party stalwart, Godwin Grech, who one imagines, had everything gone to plan would have found himself vastly elevated in the SES following another change of government.

    Fortunately there are still people of integrity left in the SES, people who could earn more elsewhere but are motivated to contribute to the good of the country, but the increasing politicization of the public service sees politicians like Abbott trying to drag those remaining into the political arena by ‘verballing’ them so they are compelled to defend themselves.

    A problem with excess baggage in an organisation is that they do not simply add to cost. Rarely are those appointed at a high level, for no apparent reason or purpose, happy to sit in their offices and read the dailies. No, they feel they must justify their existence by doing something. And not only does that something, in the case of the SES and appointees, cost the taxpayer a lot more money, but inevitably they also interfere with those who were doing important work.

    The consequence is that excess baggage not only adds to cost, but always diminishes effectiveness.

  40. Freelander
    May 16th, 2010 at 09:29 | #40

    @Jarrah

    “Full data” set is simply cataleptic nonsense. All the catalepers demonstrate is that if you introduce sufficient noise in the form of lots of irrelevant data from economies that are not developed and are, therefore, not comparable to the other economies, you can make any statistics ‘insignificant’. They hardly needed to do that to demonstrate this principle.

    Nelson demonstrated a similar principle at the battle of Trafalgar.

    Perhaps, Nelson was the archetype for the neoliberal ‘researcher’.

  41. Freelander
    May 16th, 2010 at 09:34 | #41

    In case you are unaware of this example from the history of science…
    Horatio Nelson was famous for researching the conjecture that his superior was signalling orders not to his liking.

  42. Donald Oats
    May 16th, 2010 at 10:05 | #42

    While we are smacking the previous government’s bottom for its stacking of various public institutions with – ahem – more congenial staff – at the board level, its effect upon the ABC is quite apparent now. Where a perception of left wing bias in the news and political analysis was a debatable point, the quality of the news and political analysis, in terms of research and line of question for example, was substantially higher in my opinion. The news feed on the ABC website is useless now, for it provides bugger-all depth in terms of fact, but even worse, bugger-all relevance to this generation of Aussie, at least. It is like taking a bite into the old Show’s fairy floss as a kid, only to find that there is nothing there.

    Now I don’t know the reasons for changes to their news production, or whether it is the upstream new sources they now rely upon that are changing from inane to entirely vacuous. The decisions of adopting so much outside news sourcing are no doubt partly budget driven. However, there has been (to me) an observable shift towards a more right wing spin upon the in-house news stories, and (to me) that is just as frustrating as a perceived left wing bias. The ABC should be scrupulously clean in their reporting of political news and stories that are indirectly of a political nature; the level of factual analysis and reporting of the results objectively needs to be lifted back towards what the ABC has shown in the past could be achieved. I don’t care whether a given journalist is Green, Labor, Liberal or CNP life member; if they ask fair but probing questions and do the legwork on researching subject matter, then I’ll be rapt with their performance (and that of the team behind a full news/analysis production).

    The ABC should be able to rise above board stacking, and that means the government shouldn’t place the ABC in such a position in the first place. Government’s should not be able to stack – diversity of opinions matters. Supplying a decent triennial budget commitment and funding for the ABC would help too, of course.

    Of course, if we follow the Tony G model of sacking the whole government and law apparatus, everything will be all right.

  43. Freelander
    May 16th, 2010 at 10:26 | #43

    @Donald Oats

    Yes. The Howard government did a remarkable job of stacking ‘our’ ABC which is now, top to bottom, over-represented with neoliberals and murdoch media mouthpieces. Even Media Watch has been neutered with its present chump happy to focus on trivia instead of anything that might pique that American media emperor. Lateline has even employed an extreme neoliberal nutcase who is also an editor of the WSJ. If ‘our’ ABC is now part of the Murdoch media empire, why do we, as taxpayers, still have to pay for it?

    The bias now displayed is bad enough, but the new staff they have employed are also incompetent, and their frequent gaffs are somewhat grating.

  44. Alice
    May 16th, 2010 at 11:02 | #44

    I tried valiantly to watch “underbelly” last week only too find the commercial breaks almost matched the content making a one hour show almost two hours….it was infuriating to the point of hair pulling exasperation…the ABC had been my last refuge Don and Freelander against the instrusive commericals of the commericals. (If I wanted to watch a 24 hour shopping channel, I would select that but instead it was foisted upon me).

    Alas the slow but steady shift towards commercialism by the board stacking of the ABC is showing…lost its sincerity….adopted the swirly slick fast moving (epilepsy inducing) graphics of the infortainment world of the commercials, “branded” its own logo, moved to segment times that are a set up for ads later….But instead promotes its own shows over and over… for now…until direct digital downloads from Rupe are finally allowed. Wont be long.

    So that when its coming of age as a true commercial station is allowed…. its really important, according to the doctrine of the Murdoch empire, that we all get to know more about what happens in outer Turkmenistan than Australia; that the programmming implies and employs and a distinctly vapid pro market conservatism (like the commercials) and avoids controversial commentary.

    God forbid, questioning politics or economics not welcome in Rupesville unless you are questioning a US democrat. Just be good little kiddies and watch the ads.

    Its so obvious – I agree…but isnt it strange…its still better (for now) than the rubbish on other channels…even if the ABC is heading in the same direction…and when the ABC finally comes of age as a “mature” private sector business minded citizen…Television will have become obsolete (wonder why?) and Ill be here just after my dinner every night. Poor JQ!.

  45. wilful
    May 18th, 2010 at 11:08 | #45

    Tony G, you have to admit, you have pulled the ten percent figure from your arse. Unless you can point to some actual jobs, some actual programs, that are a waste and should be the target of cuts, please just give it a rest.

    I’m not disagreeing there’s waste and mismanagement in the Federal bureaucracy and lots of make-work, however the suggestion that this is unique to public servants is so far from the truth that I wonder where you’ve ever worked in any decent sized organisation anywhere. Any organisation over a certain size, particularly where the employees are divorced from the goals of the company, has bureaucratic processes.

    I trust this government and this Minister for Finance to deal with PS waste, as ineffectively as may be, far more than the previous lot.

  46. Tony G
    May 18th, 2010 at 23:02 | #46

    “you have pulled the ten percent figure from your arse. Unless you can point to some actual jobs, some actual programs, that are a waste and should be the target of cuts, please just give it a rest.”

    Uncles Milton above reckons
    “10% of them are surplus to what is really needed” not me so leave my arse alone. (for the record the actual number is probably closer to 25% and it is up to you Wilful to prove otherwise).

    Uncle Milton also reckons the average public sector employee costs about $100k giving us an annual cost of about $170 billion.

  47. Tony G
    May 18th, 2010 at 23:04 | #47

    Wilful, as per the dated above linked figures here we estimate that there are about 1.7 million public sector employees in Australia and as per table 27.19 here the total public sector is about 33% of gdp or $330 billion.

    So if we use Uncle Miltons figures above, we could easily save $17 billion pa by culling 10% of the TOTAL public service;170,000 bureaucrats.

    “can point to some actual jobs, some actual programs, that are a waste and should be the target of cuts”?

    Doh… for starters abolishing the states and local government would entail the shutting down of heaps of waste in the form of replicated bureaucracies and chambers. (this type of cull would effect much more than a 10% cut).

  48. Rabbit
    May 19th, 2010 at 11:31 | #48

    @Jarrah

    The IMF splits predictions into G20 advanced economies (which Australia is) and G20 emerging economies. The Treasury report rightly compares our economy with other advanced G20 economies. The only debate should be is if China should have been included but from the look of the graphs the exclusion of China won’t make a difference. China was probably included as it’s mentioned a fair bit in speil following the graph.

  49. Peter Whiteford
    May 19th, 2010 at 18:46 | #49

    A couple of observations.

    According to the most recent ABS figures there were around 1.7 million workers in the public sector in Australia in 2007, but these are not all bureaucrats unless you count nurses, teachers, bus drivers, garbage collectors etc as bureaucrats. The federal government employs about 230,000 out of those 1.7 million.

    Abolishing states and local governments would require a referendum, and I feel confident in predicting that such a referendum would probably get the lowest yes vote in Australian history – I can imagine the no campaign – ” Do you want Canberra to be responsible for collecting the garbage?”

    On the size of the stimulus, the chart in the Budget paper appears to refer to the stimulus in the 2009 year, and the stimulus in Australia was more timely than in the United States, i.e. it does not include the effects of spending in 2010.

Comments are closed.