Tag Archives: election promises

SA Election, March 2018


SA Best pledges $7.5M for something so Labor promise $8M, then the Libs promise $10M for something else and SA Best promise $11M… it’s basically a bidding war to see who can buy your vote, especially as these promises are not legally binding and therefore meaningless.

Please, use your own judgement and vote for who you think deserves it, not just because of some promise that will most likely never be honoured.

It is monumentally stupid that political promises are not legally binding, and until they are I’ll call it for what it is – a laughable vote auction being presided over by a clown (yes, red nose and all).

So many times in the past, at both State and Federal levels, politicians have ignored their pre-election promises. My first experience of this was when Paul Keating got elected on his tax cuts which he said during his campaign were already in “L-A-W law!” and yet never happened.

Laws can be changed, and his was.

If they want our respect (and the party that earns it will also win our vote) then they have to stop making promises they have no intention on keeping (“We didn’t realise how tight the budget was so can’t deliver on everything” – heard this before?).

The only way they will earn our respect is by making their promises legally binding, with penalties if they do not deliver.

They also need to pass laws that stipulate that all political advertising has to be subject to the same rules as all advertising – that is they must be true, and penalties of $100,000+ should apply.

If I went on TV and said lies and made false promises I would end up in jail. The same fate should apply to all politicians and their parties.

RAH HELL!


No wonder Jack Snelling left when he did. This is the disgusting state of health care in SA and after Labor spent $2.6bn!!! Waiting times longer than before, no beds available… basically a complete disaster!

And we have the most expensive hospital in the southern hemisphere!

They should all hand their heads in shame and all the heads of the Health Department should be fired immediately! No excuse for such complete incompetence in looking after our most vulnerable!

Office Of Business Within Government


The common statement “the business of governing” is detrimental, as the focus should be upon providing government with the best efficiencies private business experience, and expertise, has to offer. The statement should read “implementing business within government”.
This involves implementing within government the best efficiencies of business by identifying process improvements, removing duplication of effort, improving inter-departmental coordination, reviewing and assessing key personnel (always with the goal of ‘best fit’) with positions allocated by merit, and producing budget savings through operational efficiencies, all with a focus on customer (public) outcomes and improved service.
Quantifiable achievements would include

1. Designate and decide on all areas of Departmental and Ministerial responsibility so no-one can “pass the buck”.

2. Allocate responsibilities and targets to ensure the desired and clearly stated outcomes are achieved within set time-frames.

3. Ensure all cost savings achieved are ongoing, no one-off savings included in targets, by implementing guidelines, overseeing their implementation and educating management.

4. Allocation of necessary resources (from those existing within government), setting applicable Key Performance Levels (KPL) and managing staff to complete set objectives and achieve all desired outcomes.

5. All reports produced to be concise and written in plain English, with detailed analysis provided only when requested.

6. The emphasis will be on outcomes, results, savings, improved service and efficiency not on unnecessary documentation, sub-committees or meetings.

This proposal would require minimal personnel for it would

allocate additional resources from other Departments (not exceeding an agreed limit), and investigate and set goals, priorities and outcomes in simple terms.
Initial targets would be;

1. Documented ongoing budgetary savings through reduced red tape via improved coordination, demarcation and processes.

2. Improved accountability within government departments creating efficiencies and gains in timelines and processes.

3.Improved ‘connection’ between wants and needs of the public and what government provides.

4. Improved public service in all areas, with all agreed objectives (including time-frames) being met.

5. Overall improved perception of government efficiency, thereby attracting a higher class of personnel and additional budget savings through their specialist knowledge and experience.

6. Improved performance measurement and ongoing guidance to ensure operational efficiencies are maintained.

Is the above business-like approach really outside the capabilities of our elected officials? When every vote counts decisions can be compromised. This is an unfortunate fact since Democracy (or what we now know as Democracy) began.

It would therefore be prudent to appoint a successful business person to head such a Department with powers level with that of a Minister, to ensure success.

The saving of hundreds of thousands of dollars would result, if expedited correctly, an amount equal to hundreds of people not having to pay tax for a year. As the appointee would be on a contract they would have no fear of losing votes, leading to decisive and correct decisions being made.

Surely a winner for everyone, especially as the above savings figure is extremely conservative. In fact savings of millions of dollars would be the set target, anything less being regarded as a failure, over the term of implementation (years).

But would politicians have the courage to give someone the power and authority to achieve this? Unfortunately I fear not, for once again they would wonder if introducing such a system might anger some minority groups and lose them votes. Or potentially cause disgruntled public servants to voice discontent. The right person for this role would take note of any such discontent and target them for removal.

Change is far easier to implement when you have new employees who are unaware of ‘old’ procedures, and are more willing to accept new ways of thinking.