Tag Archives: Politics

Centrelink policies a DISGRACE!


Centrelink is there for the needy, sick and disadvantaged, and yet provides the worst service of any government agency.

The top level of management needs to be sacked immediately, along with their middle management that publish outrageously incorrect phone answering statistics.

Then, and I know this will cost us, but there needs to be a Royal Commission into the whole Department and the policies currently in place. It could easily be a case of the right people being tied up by stupid beaurocracy. Until such a public, complete investigation is done those most in need of help in our society will continue to be treated with disdain.

We should all be ashamed, especially the policy makers who make it so difficult for Centrelink staff to do their job, for treating our people so badly.

To read the original story click here.

Centrelink payments should take into account your net, NOT your gross income! – Petition


To The Hon Christian Porter MP: Centrelink payments should take into account your net income, NOT your gross income.

Counting your gross income is plain crazy, as you don’t get to keep it all, you pay taxes! And yet your “support” from Centrelink is reduced by every GROSS dollar you earn.

Just another way to cut people’s benefits and save the government money so they can spend big on wasteful promises and gain votes!

You can sign the petition here at ChangeAUS.

Adelaide more expensive to live in than Melbourne!


Adelaide is now more expensive to live in than Melbourne?? Thank you politicians and greedy utility companies, way to go!! We are so over-taxed in SA it’s a disgrace.

Desalination plants that never get turned on, expensive non-functional hospitals, mounds of money spent on reviews that have gone nowhere…thanks Labor!!

Visit the printed story here.

Labor approved friends $757,000 grant in just one day! ICAC investigation needed!


They should repay the lot out of their own pockets…to approve a grant application in one day when so many worthy health and art causes get constant rejections is disgusting and outright corrupt in my opinion.

This is more than I will pay in income tax during my lifetime, and they just give it away.

If they don’t lose their jobs (which they won’t) then corruption is proven and jail should follow!

Why is Common Sense so Uncommon?


Committees, Studies, Senate Reports and PhD’s all have one thing in common…90 percent of them are never read and produce nothing we did not already know.
Politicians and business ‘leaders’ speak in clichés, and when a real answer is demanded escape to ‘as I understand it’ or defer the question entirely to ‘after a Committee has reported on the issue’.
One of the reasons Common Sense is so Uncommon is the need to appease every minor voice, dissenting or otherwise. Unless of course it is the vast majority of PhD’s whose sole purpose are to meet quotas and lift University rankings.

Everyone knows Nokia failed because they stopped watching the mobile phone market (now the smartphone market, but they missed the name change) and yet their top executives believe they did nothing wrong, and cry themselves into stupidity at press conferences.

Everyone knows that government departments, on the whole, are top heavy and waste millions of dollars on salaries not required to meet their core functions. Arrium knew it needed to significantly upgrade its equipment years ago but did nothing. Holden knew people were buying smaller fuel efficient cars yet did not build one (until it was too late).

Yes, stupidity is a factor, yet those pesky minority folks (which include, in addition to car manufacturer executives, the senior people who presided over Polaroid, BP safety, multiple -speed limits in Adelaide city streets and the Frome Street super-hyper bike-way built for an Airbus) who sternly and stubbornly believe they are right and have the right to be heard.

Unfortunately they are heard way too often and, also way too often, are completely wrong.

Please, I understand the need for diversity of views and am the first to listen and consider seriously all new ideas, but the squeaky wheel now receives a million barrels of oil instead of just the needed drop.

The excess energy spent on debating, studying, researching and reporting on aspects of our lives that can be solved by the time-old equation of Common Sense is worth more than our total GDP, yet we spend it willingly in the name of ‘consultation’.

Consultation be damned, give me common sense any day.

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.