TRANSCRIPT - 2GB
14 November 2024
E&OE
Topics: Public Service Waste
Michael McLaren
James, good to talk. Thank you.
James Stevens
Thanks, Michael. Good afternoon to you and all your listeners.
Michael McLaren
Thank you. Look, I must admit, in my ignorance, I didn't even recall back in March that you'd been given this title. But it does sound as though you're going to be a little bit like our Elon Musk, perhaps without the extraordinary cutting scale that he is speaking of, but that's not because there's a shortage of fat here that can be trimmed.
James Stevens
That's right. Michael, look Elon's a very impressive public profile, but you're quite right. Peter Dutton gave me the great honor of appointing me to the shadow ministry six or seven months ago, and he's asked me to look at government waste. You know, we're spending more than $700 billion a year now, that's just the Commonwealth Government. And I don't think any of your listeners would think that every single cent of that is completely necessary. It all comes out of your pocket and my pocket in taxes, and every dollar the government spends is one that has to be justifiable. And there's important things that the government spends money on, but there's some pretty questionable things as well. And I'm undertaking the process of really looking for ways in which we can get rid of waste and put money back into people's pockets, because we trust them with their money much more than we do the government, frankly.
Michael McLaren
Well, quite right. Look, I mean, we have these efficiency dividends every year or so. And, you know, someone sort of freezes the hiring in the public sector for 12 months. Or we, you know, we take 1% off. It's tinkering at the edge. What this country really needs is someone to step back, take the Constitution with them, and with the benefit of distance, look at the entire system, not just federal but the way that the state and the federal government interact with each other and say, where is the waste, where is particularly the duplication, and start making some pretty tough calls, right?
James Stevens
Oh, spot on. I mean, if you read the Australian Constitution, you would be quite confused as to why we seem to have to have three levels of government, all tripping over each other all the time and at times, really duplicating a lot of our processes within the bureaucracy. I mean, the Commonwealth Public Service has increased by 36,000 people since Labor came to power. So this is bureaucrats behind desks in Canberra, and that's $24 billion of additional cost over the forward estimates. And we really wonder what in the world those people are all doing, because I don't think that government's got any better for us in the couple of years since those extra people were employed. We've got countless examples of government expenditure that's not about serving the people of this country. In fact, you know, a good example, Michael, we've got this Environmental Defenders Office that Labor created. They're actually actively trying to sabotage economic development opportunities for this country to grow our economy and create jobs. I mean, that is one of the most outrageous examples of the taxpayer footing the bill for this mob to go to court and try and prevent businesses from undertaking projects that are going to grow our economy.
Michael McLaren
It's a bureaucratic circular firing squad, right? This is one of the ultimate examples, isn't it, James, because you've got state environment departments, so they look at some things, things then end up in the federal environment realm. So their department looks at it. And then you get these other government funded bodies that then say, oh, no, that shouldn't go ahead. So you then go to court, where it's again funded by the taxpayer, to have the legal case, one arm of government fight the other arm of government. And of course, in all of this, all you've got is a private business who's trying to go and mine something and employ some people and make $1. I mean, this is where the duplication is.
James Stevens
And they can take their money anywhere in the world. We've got to be competitive. And when people are in boardrooms talking about where they're going to invest, we want them to be thinking about Australia as a great destination for their money. We don't want them thinking, oh, I've heard about that horror story where someone had a great mine or some kind of development they wanted to pursue. They spent years in court, they spent millions of dollars on regulation, and jumped through all these hoops, and then after all of that, it didn't go ahead. You know, why would we invest in Australia when there are other places saying, please, come and put your money with us. And of course, investment means jobs, it means economic growth, it means a better standard of living for all of us. So, you know, government's bad enough when it's wasting our money, but when it's actually sabotaging our future, it's particularly galling.
Michael McLaren
Now, without getting too technical in sort of governmental and constitutional terms, Professor Anne Twomey and Glenn Withers, back in April of 2007, put together a paper that was called 'Federalist Paper 1: Australia's Federal Future'. And the thrust of their argument I think, essentially, James was this. That we have clearly delineated responsibilities in the Constitution. However, over the last so many decades, rather than federalism, centralism has become the order of the day. And yet, federalism, where the individual jurisdictions have their roles and they compete against each other, that has been allowed to effectively wither and die, and as a result, this is one of the aspects of this that isn't spoken about, but it translates economically, and that is, if you get rid of the competition between the different jurisdictions, and you move to a centralist, sort of big blob model out of Canberra, you take away a lot of the incentive to find the efficiencies, to beat the competition, to attract the best candidates and to drive down prices at the governmental level. And so that's been the second layer of the sandwich, really, hasn't it?
James Stevens
I think you're spot on. I mean, competitive federalism, for all the reasons you just outlined, is what we want in this country. And you think about whether it's the education system, whether it's the health system, we want all the different states trying different things, using their own ideas and expertise, and the one that's the best, if it's the school system, the ones that get the best grades and have the best student outcomes in the most efficient way, then everyone else can go, wow, let's go and do it like they do it in Queensland or Victoria or South Australia. But as you say, we have had a real centralisation of the way in which services are delivered, and there's no incentive for being competitive. In fact, Michael, there's a disincentive, because if you educate people more efficiently, or have a more efficient health system in one state, you might lose some of your funding, like losing your GST, as opposed to a less efficient state.
Michael McLaren
So that's a big discussion, that one, and I don't expect you or Peter Dutton to necessarily go to the next election advocating and we change the way we carve the GST. You need some clarity to fight the nuclear fights and things like this, but I'm glad we're speaking. We're going to have to keep doing it, James, because look, this is really a very important thing. You know, time just allows government departments at all levels just to get bigger and more blob-like. Occasionally you need someone to go in there and blow it up a bit. Right? Now, I think everyone listening agrees, except perhaps those who are getting a stipend from being part of the blob. But the rubber will hit the road, should you form government, when it comes to your ability to actually enact this? Because it's one thing for you and I to talk about it, but for this to happen, there will be job losses, right? There will be public servants in underperforming or non productive or duplicated areas of the economy that will have to go and find a job somewhere else. So that's going to be a tough call. Does the coalition have the metal to follow through?
James Stevens
Well, that's part of my job, Michael. And as Peter Dutton made clear by appointing me, we recognize that the government needs to be efficient. It needs to be streamlined. And every dollar that the government is taking, as I say, and I'll say until I'm blue in the face, it is a dollar out of the pockets of an Australian through taxes. So you know, the pressure's got to be on us. It should be, and we need to be held accountable. And I'm very keen to keep this conversation going with you before the election, and if we're lucky enough to be successful after the election and be held to these things we're talking about right now, because people pay a lot of tax, we've got a very big government, and we want government that is efficient and is delivering for Australians. And where it isn't, i'm sorry, but, we have to cut that back, and we need to make sure that people are paying the lowest amount of tax necessary to have good government, not blighted government.
Michael McLaren
Well we've got Musk and Vivek over there in America. We've got James Stevens, maybe here in the near future, doing the same sort of thing. And it's needed. Good to speak, James. Thank you for your time.
James Stevens
Thanks, Michael.