[LINK] Building the Australian National Health Network

[Richard Chirgwin]

Kim Holburn wrote:
> On 2010/Mar/11, at 9:15 AM, Roger Clarke wrote:
>   
>> The fiasco in the Dept of Environment demonstrated the total
>> incapacity of federal bureaucrats to run anything more complicated
>> than a turkey raffle.  And, even in matters of policy, they're so far
>> removed from the real world, and so committed to simple-minded
>> centralisation and top-down management, that little that they
>> initiate bears fruit.
>>     
>
>
> What I don't understand is that we have three levels of government  
> which control all these things.  From state governments which control  
> working conditions, right down to local governments which control  
> building approvals and building works.  I still don't understand why  
> with all these layers of government we blame it all on the top level.   
> Where were the other two levels?  Federal government is supposed to do  
> top level policy.  State and local are supposed to be there at the  
> implementation. What went wrong with them?
>
>   
Well: in this case, local government wasn't involved; and actually, my 
reading of the problems with the insulation scheme is that some were 
caused by the states. I'm pretty sure that Queensland got in the way of 
some requirements to do with licensing and training (but will stand 
corrected if I'm wrong).

I don't have any particularly strong feelings about getting rid of state 
government. Some things are bigger than local council but smaller than 
national government - think railway networks for example.

But I like the principle outlined by Gittins yesterday, the "organising 
principle of subsidiarity" - give the job to the "smallest competent 
authority".

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/think-small--and-other-capital-ideas-20100309-pvpd.html

RC