Well, the number of federal public servants is expected to increase by twenty percent by the end of next year. Figures from the Institute of Public Affairs shows taxpayers will be forking out about fifteen billion dollars to hire bureaucrats dedicated to enforcing regulation. Now, the Institute of Public Affairs Director of Research Morgenberg joins me and I'm Morgan. Good morning to you, Mordan Graham. Can you make some sense of these figures for us?

Well, the number of federal public servants is expected to increase by twenty percent by the end of next year. Figures from the Institute of Public Affairs shows taxpayers will be forking out about fifteen billion dollars to hire bureaucrats dedicated to enforcing regulation. Now, the Institute of Public Affairs Director of Research Morgenberg joins me and I'm Morgan. Good morning to you, Mordan Graham. Can you make some sense of these figures for us?

Although it's very difficult to make sense of these figures because you must remember that this is just at the federal level. So this is on top of the various and the multitude of state regulations that are already imposed in particular on people in South Australia. And in the last few years you've just seen a massive increase, a massive influx of employment by the federal government dedicated to managing people, regulating businesses, and just being a burden and restraining productivity and prosperity in Australia.

Although it's very difficult to make sense of these figures because you must remember that this is just at the federal level. So this is on top of the various and the multitude of state regulations that are already imposed in particular on people in South Australia. And in the last few years you've just seen a massive increase, a massive influx of employment by the federal government dedicated to managing people, regulating businesses, and just being a burden and restraining productivity and prosperity in Australia.

So what you're saying, effectively, it's not only is a cost to the tax payer, it is actually impacting on the economy in terms of getting things done exactly right.

So what you're saying, effectively, it's not only is a cost to the tax payer, it is actually impacting on the economy in terms of getting things done exactly right.

You know, you refer to the fifteen billion dollar costs that tax payers are on the hookboard just to employ them. But the actual cost, which is so much harder to measure, is the delays the businesses space in filling out extra paperwork in regulatory compliance, as the businesses that never get started because the conditions are actually operating a business have become so difficult. And it's the added cost that's incurred by consumers because of all these delays and costs that are added along the production chain. So, you know, in some ways, some people see red tapes more of a theoretical or sort of somewhere out there, but it's actually impacting everyone every day.

You know, you refer to the fifteen billion dollar costs that tax payers are on the hookboard just to employ them. But the actual cost, which is so much harder to measure, is the delays the businesses space in filling out extra paperwork in regulatory compliance, as the businesses that never get started because the conditions are actually operating a business have become so difficult. And it's the added cost that's incurred by consumers because of all these delays and costs that are added along the production chain. So, you know, in some ways, some people see red tapes more of a theoretical or sort of somewhere out there, but it's actually impacting everyone every day.

And what areas of government is this principally impacting.

And what areas of government is this principally impacting.

We've seen it pretty much across the board, but there are some areas that are impacted more than others. In particular, the portfolio of climate change, energy, environment and water as increased by some seventy two percent over the past three financial years. This is you know, this has been a hallmark, a key area of concern clearly for the federal government, where you've seen the introduction of new agendas relating to the nature positive frameworks we've just seen in the most recent federal government that they've revisited and they've reignited the idea of the Nature Positive laws. And this means a new federal Environment Protection Agency in order to create and manage more regulations. And this is on top of the state epas which South Australia already has. And it also means things like the thirty by thirty targets. And you know, many people don't know about this, but this is this is an objective under the Nature Positive agenda, which is the thirty percent of Australia's land, of thirty percent of Australias laws will essentially be locked up for preservation. And no one knows and no one knows about this that this is happening at the federal level.

We've seen it pretty much across the board, but there are some areas that are impacted more than others. In particular, the portfolio of climate change, energy, environment and water as increased by some seventy two percent over the past three financial years. This is you know, this has been a hallmark, a key area of concern clearly for the federal government, where you've seen the introduction of new agendas relating to the nature positive frameworks we've just seen in the most recent federal government that they've revisited and they've reignited the idea of the Nature Positive laws. And this means a new federal Environment Protection Agency in order to create and manage more regulations. And this is on top of the state epas which South Australia already has. And it also means things like the thirty by thirty targets. And you know, many people don't know about this, but this is this is an objective under the Nature Positive agenda, which is the thirty percent of Australia's land, of thirty percent of Australias laws will essentially be locked up for preservation. And no one knows and no one knows about this that this is happening at the federal level.

It's news to me, I must say, and that's quite a shock indeed on the overall looking at this, I mean, the Federal treasure Jim Chalmers has said, we've got to make productivity key focus and that will be what it's all about in our second term. But what you're suggesting these numbers, that productivity is going to be impacted negatively.

It's news to me, I must say, and that's quite a shock indeed on the overall looking at this, I mean, the Federal treasure Jim Chalmers has said, we've got to make productivity key focus and that will be what it's all about in our second term. But what you're suggesting these numbers, that productivity is going to be impacted negatively.

Absolutely, it's quite revealing that the Treasurer could make these comments, could say these words about productivity at the same time that the government has overseen this massive, massive increase in workforce which is actually dedicated to restraining productivity and restraining economic dynamism. And it actually reveals something about the way government sees economic growth. We've seen under the current government that essentially government has sought to achieve economic growth through population growth through government spending. In the last term of parliament there was approximately a net intake of one point three million people through net overseas migration. And of course the government is comfortable with this because on paper this leads to economic growth, but what it means is at a per person level, Australians they've actually been in an economic recession. They've actually been getting the smaller slice of the pie, and so they don't really so they see regulation as just part of doing part of their business model. It's just part of them doing government. And I don't think they quite understand the link between regulation on the one hand, and and how businesses actually operate and how they actually are able to get things done to be more productive.

Absolutely, it's quite revealing that the Treasurer could make these comments, could say these words about productivity at the same time that the government has overseen this massive, massive increase in workforce which is actually dedicated to restraining productivity and restraining economic dynamism. And it actually reveals something about the way government sees economic growth. We've seen under the current government that essentially government has sought to achieve economic growth through population growth through government spending. In the last term of parliament there was approximately a net intake of one point three million people through net overseas migration. And of course the government is comfortable with this because on paper this leads to economic growth, but what it means is at a per person level, Australians they've actually been in an economic recession. They've actually been getting the smaller slice of the pie, and so they don't really so they see regulation as just part of doing part of their business model. It's just part of them doing government. And I don't think they quite understand the link between regulation on the one hand, and and how businesses actually operate and how they actually are able to get things done to be more productive.

But we do need regulation, don't we. You can't just slid businesses just go without some sort of control.

But we do need regulation, don't we. You can't just slid businesses just go without some sort of control.

And of course this is absolutely true, and there is there are certain social, social community goals that are associated with some regulation. But the question is what is the amount of regulation? You know, there is a what is the minimum amount of regulation that is required to achieve a regulatory objective? And I don't think I think it would be impossible to say we've got that balance right because what the object is, what rational objectives is tied to this extra seventeen thousand federal work is dedicated to regulation. You know, no one's actually explained that, and I don't think that can be justified at all. So it's that question of you know, where is the balance, and the balance is lay off.

And of course this is absolutely true, and there is there are certain social, social community goals that are associated with some regulation. But the question is what is the amount of regulation? You know, there is a what is the minimum amount of regulation that is required to achieve a regulatory objective? And I don't think I think it would be impossible to say we've got that balance right because what the object is, what rational objectives is tied to this extra seventeen thousand federal work is dedicated to regulation. You know, no one's actually explained that, and I don't think that can be justified at all. So it's that question of you know, where is the balance, and the balance is lay off.

The figures are quite revealing and it's enlightening to us all. But do you expect the government to take any any notice?

The figures are quite revealing and it's enlightening to us all. But do you expect the government to take any any notice?

Well, well, you know, it's an interesting question because the product the Treasurer has made these comments about productivity. The Productivity Commission is undertaking a range of inquiries into how to improve productivity, and productivity in this country is in the dumps. And the question is, well, will the wills the government actually listen? You know, we're going to keep talking about we're going to make the case that you need to you need to take the sum off the off the scales and let business see business and let Australians actually posts. But you know, this is this is this is the question. You know, we've just come out of an election, you know, and this really wasn't on the agenda. Will they change course? Well, we just have to wait and see.

Well, well, you know, it's an interesting question because the product the Treasurer has made these comments about productivity. The Productivity Commission is undertaking a range of inquiries into how to improve productivity, and productivity in this country is in the dumps. And the question is, well, will the wills the government actually listen? You know, we're going to keep talking about we're going to make the case that you need to you need to take the sum off the off the scales and let business see business and let Australians actually posts. But you know, this is this is this is the question. You know, we've just come out of an election, you know, and this really wasn't on the agenda. Will they change course? Well, we just have to wait and see.

Yeah, well, if you've posed more questions and answers. But I think if we had a stronger opposition, or if we had an opposition that was in some way coordinated, they might be able to put pressure on the government that I don't know that we're going to get too much pressure from an opposition in the foreseeable future, do you.

Yeah, well, if you've posed more questions and answers. But I think if we had a stronger opposition, or if we had an opposition that was in some way coordinated, they might be able to put pressure on the government that I don't know that we're going to get too much pressure from an opposition in the foreseeable future, do you.

Oh, that's a that's a very good question. And one of the challenges is, you know, for the last probably couple of elections, the opposition really hasn't had a had a strong, okherent line on these issues either. And one thing I am hopeful for is, you know, we're seeing this this dissolution of the coalition, so things are all a bit up in the air. What I'd like to see is maybe that this is an opportunity for both of the opposition parties to reflect on their values and to reassess, you know, what do they stand for and what and what are the values that they want to promote in public policy, and to see more of a and more of a coherent line and coherent thinking about these critical issues. So I'm I'm somewhat optimistic that things, you know, maybe things will get worse, but then things will get better.

Oh, that's a that's a very good question. And one of the challenges is, you know, for the last probably couple of elections, the opposition really hasn't had a had a strong, okherent line on these issues either. And one thing I am hopeful for is, you know, we're seeing this this dissolution of the coalition, so things are all a bit up in the air. What I'd like to see is maybe that this is an opportunity for both of the opposition parties to reflect on their values and to reassess, you know, what do they stand for and what and what are the values that they want to promote in public policy, and to see more of a and more of a coherent line and coherent thinking about these critical issues. So I'm I'm somewhat optimistic that things, you know, maybe things will get worse, but then things will get better.

Sot me, hope you're right. Good on you, Morgan, Thanks for your time today. Thanks Graham Morgan beg ip A director of research. On the fact that they've unearthed the fact that the number of federal public servants is expected to increase by twenty percent by the end of next year, figures that they've put together, so we the take expayer will be forking out about fifteen billion dollars to hire bureaucrats dedicated to enforcing regulation. Five Double A Mornings with Graham Goodings

Sot me, hope you're right. Good on you, Morgan, Thanks for your time today. Thanks Graham Morgan beg ip A director of research. On the fact that they've unearthed the fact that the number of federal public servants is expected to increase by twenty percent by the end of next year, figures that they've put together, so we the take expayer will be forking out about fifteen billion dollars to hire bureaucrats dedicated to enforcing regulation. Five Double A Mornings with Graham Goodings