Cutting the size of government: the great structural challenge

"The growth of 'big government' and the appropriate 'limits to government' are leading issues in contemporary society, at both popular and academic levels ... government today intervenes widely, deeply and in detail in private decision-making;  private pressures are exerted on government to act to discriminate in favour of special groups, at times intensifying conflict and at other times constraining it:  by no means paradoxically, government now seems less and less able to solve many of the problems that it purports to deal with or which private interests seek to have solved by public (government) action;  yet private interests often appear to be dependent on government to 'solve' their problems by non-market means without full consideration of market possibilities".

N.G. Butlin, A. Barnard, J.J. Pincus,
Government and Capitalism,
George Allen & Unwin 1982

"Wise government will make use of the knowledge and planning capacities of businessmen, volunteers, individuals and provide ways for people to reconcile and harmonise their different priorities.  It will not overburden itself by trying to take away the capacity to plan from individuals and grows and locate this authority in government itself.  For when this happens, we experience not a greater confidence and certainty that we know what policy is -- on the contrary we experience a disruptive and ineffectual government which breeds uncertainty and by undermining predictability or increasing the difficulty of independent action, stultifies decision-making in other social and economic institutions".

Professor David Kemp,
"Problems with Government Planning,"
Autumn 1984.

INTRODUCTION

RESTRUCTURING THE GOVERNMENT SECTOR

The rapid growth in the government sector over the last decade is the most significant structural change in the Australian economy since the Second World War.

Between 1973/74 and 1983/84 government increased its share of national output from almost 32 per cent to just under 42 per cent.  Much of the employment growth during this period has been in the government sector and government subsidised activities.

This paper summarises some of the key aspects of this major structural change in the Australian economy:  measures of big government, forces promoting the on-rush of government, the adverse consequences of government expansion and what can be done about it.  For those wishing to pursue this matter further a brief reading guide is provided.

It has to be pointed out that there is no measure that can adequately indicate the enormous impact of government -- especially government regulation -- on private decision making.

The need to reduce the size of the government sector is now a bipartisan issue.  This reflects the view that government growth and interference are having an adverse effect on our economic performance as well as harmful social consequences.

Governments have responsibility primarily in the provision of services assisting the needy and in providing a framework of laws within which our society can function.

Economic debate over the next decade will certainly focus on such issues as how government can be made more efficient and responsive to community needs, what is the appropriate role for government in the economy, and how community needs can be better met through a more vigorous private sector.

Australia's relatively poor economic growth compared with the more dynamic economies in part results from the stifling effect that big government is having, on private enterprise.  Restructuring and reducing the size of the government sector must occur if our economic health is to be fully restored.

GOVERNMENTS ARE SPENDING MUCH MORE

In the last ten years total government spending has increased almost fivefold -- from $16,147 million to $77,428 million.

• In real terms government spending increased by 70 per cent in the ten years (far outstripping the economy which grew by 28 per cent).

Government Outlays *

	$M
1953/54	2472
1954/55	2681
1955/56	2944
1956/57	3084
1957/58	3278
1958/59	3560
1959/60	3872
1960/61	4195
1961/62	4545
1962/63	4799
1963/64	5321
1964/65	6001
1965/66	6668
1966/67	7359
1967/68	8105
1968/69	8625
1969/70	9685
1970/71	10487
1971/72	11952
1972/73	12312
1973/74	16147
1974/75	22622
1975/76	27521
1976/77	31634
1977/78	35680
1978/79	38567
1979/80	43220
1980/81	49763
1981/82	57318
1982/83	67931
1983/84	77428

* Commonwealth, State and Local governments together with public authorities.

Government outlays have risen sharply -- from 31.6 per cent of GDP in 1973/74 to 41.8 per cent in 1983/84.  In the current year the share of government will rise to over 42 per cent.

All levels of government have contributed to this upsurge in government spending.

SPENDING HAS PUSHED UP TAXES

The massive upsurge in spending has forced governments to increase their overall levels of taxation rapidly.

The tax burden in 1983/84 averaged $3600 per head, compared with $2700 (in 1983/84 dollars) a decade ago.

Income taxes, excises and sales taxes are the most important revenue raisers at the Commonwealth level.  At the State level the most significant taxes include payroll tax, stamp duty, motoring taxes and business franchise levies.

* excluding some minor taxes.

Personal income tax is the fastest growing tax at the Commonwealth level.  It has risen from 54 per cent of total tax revenue in 1980/81 to an estimated 58 per cent this year.  At the State level payroll taxes and, more recently, payments in the nature of a dividend by statutory authorities have grown very rapidly.

GOVERNMENT SECTOR DEFICITS HAVE CLIMBED

Despite the rapid growth of taxation, governments have needed to borrow extensively to finance their activities.

Government Deficits *
(all levels of government)

	$M
1953/54	193
1954/55	279
1955/56	360
1956/57	196
1957/58	159
1958/59	431
1959/60	365
1960/61	229
1961/62	511
1962/63	559
1963/64	583
1964/65	514
1965/66	654
1966/67	926
1967/68	1002
1968/69	671
1969/70	618
1970/71	471
1971/72	556
1972/73	896
1973/74	754
1974/75	3257
1975/76	3923
1976/77	4007
1977/78	5396
1978/79	5511
1979/80	4659
1980/81	4513
1981/82	6006
1982/83	11444
1983/84	14807

* public sector borrowing requirement

Over the years to June 1984, the borrowings of governments and their authorities have accumulated a national debt of $73,000 million -- almost $5000 for each man, woman and child in Australia.  $16 billion of this debt is owed overseas.  The debt is expected to grow by about 40 per cent to $105,000 million in the next two years.

The interest bill to service this debt is one of the fastest growing items in the budgets of governments and statutory authorities.  The Commonwealth government interest bill in 1984/85 will account for 8.8 per cent of Commonwealth budget outlays.  Ten years ago it accounted for less than 5 per cent of outlays.

"... borrowing, through swollen Budget deficits and the like, merely serves to push up or hold up interest rates, inflate further the now very rapidly growing stock of debt, add further in turn to the now leaping cost of servicing that debt, defer further the day when meaningful reductions in taxation can be made and above all defer -- if not fundamentally impair -- the chances of lasting recovery in the longer-run".

J.O. Stone,
Shann Memorial Lecture,
27 August 1984.

THE TAX BURDEN ON INDIVIDUALS HAS SOARED

Three decades ago the individual receiving average weekly earnings paid some 10.2 per cent of his earnings in income tax.  Today he pays nearly 24 per cent.

For every extra dollar earned the marginal tax rate for the person on average weekly earnings was 19.2 per cent in 1953/54.  Today it is 47 cents in the dollar.

The impact of taxes on the individual can be gauged from the following example:

An individual on average weekly earnings who decides to undertake overtime work in order to buy a $10,000 car would have to earn an additional $18,870 -- $8,870 being tax at the rate of 47 cents in each dollar.

But his or her tax burden is in fact higher than the $8,870.  The car carries a sales tax of some 20 per cent at the wholesale level so that around $1,300 of the purchase price also goes to the government.  Thus in order to purchase the car the prospective buyer must work more than one hour for the government for each hour he works for himself.

MORE PEOPLE ARE WORKING FOR GOVERNMENT

Most of the increase in employment in the last decade has been in the area of government or government subsidised jobs -- the "non-market sector".

• Some 533,000 jobs were created in the non-market sector, compared with 177,000 in the market sector.
• Over a quarter of all employed persons are in the non-market sector.

Market and Non-Market Employment (000's)

	1974	1984	% Annual Change
Market Sector   Agriculture   Mining   Manufacturing   Construction   Wholesale & Retail   Transport & Storage   Communication   Finance   Recreation & Other Services	404.8 73.8 1374.3 506.3 1165.7 243.9 130.7 429.4 355.5	411.5 94.8 1159.2 441.8 1311.7 263.9 138.1 609.9 430.9	0.2 2.5 -1.5 -1.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 3.6 1.9
Total Market	4,684.4	4,861.8	0.4
Non-Market Sector   Electricity, Gas & Water   Public Administration   Community Services   Rail Transport	104.1 250.5 746.7 69.5	142.4 318.3 1157.5 86.0	3.2 2.4 4.5 2.2
Total Non-Market	1170.8	1704.2	3.8
Total	5855.2	6566.0	1.1

Note:  The figures are based on ABS data.  In several categories precise separation between market and non-market employment is not possible because of limitations of the available data.

The non-market sector is that part of the economy -- where the earnings of workers are not (mainly) derived from the sale of goods and services in a competitive environment.  The output of the non-market sector is either sold by a monopoly (e.g. electricity and water supplies) or more often paid for by government out of consolidated revenue and distributed "free" or at below cost to consumers (e.g. education and public health services).

The market sector encompasses that part of the economy where the sale of goods and services must yield receipts sufficient to meet the wages (and other) costs involved and adequately service the capital invested to ensure continued employment in the enterprise concerned.

"At almost every point of comparison of minimum salaries within the clerical and administrative structure ... [those] for the private sector are markedly less than those from the public sector ... This fact lends very strong support to the view that there exists two separate albeit interconnected markets -- one for the public sector and the other for the private sector".

Arbitration Commission decision on Public Service Union Claims,
10 January 1985.

"... the real underlying issue for our society is the increasing division between the circumstances of those people who produce goods and services which are sought and priced in competition in the marketplace, and those who produce nothing of the kind, but who nonetheless are sustained, rewarded and guaranteed their security by governments.  These are the 'two nations' of the 1980s".

Charles Copeman, Chief Executive, Peko-Wallsend,
"Two Nations",
Spring 1984.

INFLATION HAS BEEN FASTEST IN THE GOVERNMENT SECTOR

In recent years the price of goods and services under the control or influence of the government has risen more rapidly than for items where prices are determined in the market place.

This trend reflects three factors:

• Indirect taxes on items that already carry a heavy tax burden, (petrol, cigarettes, and alcohol) have been further increased and are now raised automatically every six months.
• Public sector suppliers are generally monopolists in their fields and as such are not subject to the discipline of market competition.  They, therefore, have little incentive to resist wage and other cost pressures, with the inevitable consequence of high costs which are passed on to consumers.
• Governments are increasingly using pricing policies as a means of general revenue raising.  The outstanding example is the "dividend" requirement imposed by the Victorian Government on its major authorities.

"... Governments agree to exercise, as far as possible, restraint in their charges".

National Economic Summit Communique,
April 1983.

THE NETWORK OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION

Statistics of government outlays, employment and taxation only measure part of the impact of government on the economy.

Governments have enacted laws concerning minimum wages, maximum interest rates, employment conditions, building regulations and virtually every other area of enterprise.  Some regulations may be so severe as to discourage certain activities entirely.

Some indication of the burden of regulation can be gauged from a survey conducted in 1979 by the Confederation of Australian Industry.

• In the twenty years 1969 to 1979, the Federal and State Governments passed 16,631 Acts of Parliament and 32,551 regulations, making a total of almost 50,000 statutory instruments created in 20 years.
• For every dollar the Federal Government spends on business regulation the private sector must spend at least three dollars just to comply with the regulation.
• The cost to the private sector of Federal and State business regulation in 1978/79 has been estimated at $3720 million.  This was equal to 10 per cent of the outlays of all governments and their authorities and 3.6 per cent of GDP.
• The private sector at that time was estimated to have had to provide 16,000 people to comply with Federal Government regulations and a further 38,000 people to comply with State government regulations.
• Such estimates however cannot hope to capture the true cost of regulation in terms of its influence upon the whole process of business and personal decision-making.

"I am convinced that after eighty four years of Federation we have accumulated an excessive and often irrelevant and obstructive body of laws and regulations. ... We see the removal of unnecessary regulations as contributing significantly to improved economic growth performance".

Prime Minister Mr. Hawke,
Speech to Business Council of Australia,
21 September, 1984.

"... Our company is the largest jam maker in Australia.  A few years ago we were going to make a really high quality jam -- it would have contained 65% fruit and a very low sugar content.  We believed we had a very innovative product that would sell at a premium and meet market demand.  We went to the Victorian Government to obtain the permission to market the product.  We found we couldn't call it jam.  The reason:  the product did not contain 45% sugar.  This law was introduced in the 1920s to help stimulate the sugar industry.  We would not be able to have it repealed for another two parliamentary sessions and to sell it outside Victoria we would have had to get all the States to agree.  It would have taken us three years expense and work to do so, without any guarantee that we would be successful.  So we dropped the product, lost potential profit growth and jobs."

John Elliott,
"The Need for Deregulation in Australia",
The James N. Kirby Paper, 1983

"The Victorian Government in its ten year plan published last year set out its intention to critically review economic regulation.  The Commonwealth supports that approach and has itself made important moves in that direction.  The uncritical belief that regulation necessarily enhances justice and efficiency should never have been accepted and is indefensible in the face of decisive evidence that in some areas it does neither."

Senator Peter Walsh, Minister For Finance
The Optimist,
March/April 1985.

BIG GOVERNMENT BUSINESS UNDERTAKINGS

Some of Australia's largest business undertakings are owned by governments.

• 19 out of the top 100 business undertakings (on the basis of revenue) are government owned.
• Government business undertakings dominate in the areas of power generation and water supplies, and governments own some of the major gambling operations (TABs).
• Governments also own:

  6 of the top 10 transport undertakings
  4 of the top 10 insurance undertakings
  3 of the top 10 banking and finance firms
  3 of the top 10 communication undertakings

In 1984 the major government businesses were:

	Revenue $M	Employment
Telecom	3,636	88,524
Commonwealth Bank	2,505	31,713
Elcom (NSW)	1,441	11,120
Qantas	1,340	11,612
State Rail (NSW)	1,280	40,367
SEC (Vic)	1,274	22,798
TAB (NSW)	1,226	1,361
Australia Post	991	32,583
Government Insurance Office (NSW)	989	1,541
TAB (Vic)	903	n/a

"... the problems of controlling state enterprises are serious ones, but they are problems of our own making.  Private enterprise coupled with competition and a variety of other protective measures can surely provide a more satisfactory outcome than state enterprises can ever hope to achieve".

Professor C, Littlechild,
"Problems of Controlling State Enterprises", State Enterprise and Deregulation,
Centre for Policy Studies, Monash University, 1983.

THE COSTS OF BIG GOVERNMENT

The most obvious costs of big government are the increased levels of taxes and public sector borrowings required to support it.  But some of the most important costs are non-monetary.  These are the distortions introduced into private decision making by government regulation which reduces efficiency, growth, jobs and opportunities.

There is no dispute that governments can benefit particular sections of the community and they of course play a vital role in assisting the disadvantaged.

The real cost of government expenditure is rarely weighed in the balance and often there can be more efficient ways to provide government services.

INEFFICIENCY

• Government provision of some goods and services reflects special interest group pressure with little regard to market forces.  Resources employed in response to political pressures are more liable to be used inefficiently.
• Even where government services are sold in response to market demand, the absence of market discipline causes the provision of these services to be more costly than similar services produced in the market sector.

WRONG INCENTIVES

• Regulations and subsidies change the relative costs of resources to business and hence obscure the real costs of inputs.  This induces businesses to use an inefficient mix of inputs.
• Some welfare payments and high taxes can discourage work effort.

REDUCED PRIVATE ACTIVITY

• Large deficits financed by borrowing from the public, raise interest rates and "crowd out" private investment.
• A rising burden of taxes and charges tends to reduce business profits and inhibit entrepreneurial activity.  Many regulations have the same effect.

SOCIAL EFFECTS

• Big government creates enormous incentives for corruption.
• Young people are particularly hard hit by the expansion of government.  Most jobs in government are not suitable for the young and people with little training.  In the past decade teenagers have missed out on tens of thousands of jobs because of the growth of government.

INEQUITIES

• Government employees have become a privileged section of the workforce enjoying unjustified benefits not available to the rest of the community such as tenure and excessive retirement benefits.

THREATS TO FREEDOM

• Big government with its excessive powers to impose sanctions and grant benefits has increased the scope for compulsion and, inevitably, the use of that scope by bureaucracies.

CORRUPTION

"One of the features of 'Big Government' is that it creates enormous incentives for individuals to exploit 'the system' whether in their role as taxpayers, or as receivers of public funds such as doctors, lawyers, public servants, politicians, pensioners or other welfare beneficiaries".

Sir Jams Balderstone,
November 1982.

FREEDOM

"Newspaper managements have, I fear, put themselves and their editors at hazard.  The interconnection between newspaper ownership and investment in other activities subject to government control or influence (radio, television and films, agriculture and mining and civil aviation, to say nothing of organised gambling and property development) has left active editorial independence vulnerable to political pressure".

Creighton Bums, Editor, The Age,
Speech at Conference of Australian and Japanese editors,
8 March 1984.

WHY GOVERNMENT HAS GROWN

The simplistic view is that the growth of Government merely reflects the wishes of the people.  But when they face the people directly governments rarely, if ever, promise to increase taxes.

A growing body of academic work argues that our system of government has a bias towards excessive expenditure.

An important reason why government grows is that the benefits to special interests are concentrated on relatively few (in each case) while the costs are diffused among large numbers of individual taxpayers.  In order to build support politicians have an incentive to distribute favours and benefits to special interests.

As a result growth in the size of government does not come about through deliberate decisions that there should be a larger government sector and smaller private sector.

Another defect in government policy making is that there is no way in which private priorities can be properly weighed against government priorities -- the growth of Government is largely unplanned.

Rather than responding to the will of the electorate as a whole much of the expansion in Government reflects:

• new pressure groups and lobbies demanding government action (environmental, consumer and so on)
• special interest groups demanding government props and finance
• the increased power of government bureaucracies to expand themselves
• growth of welfare entitlements
• monopolistic statutory authorities using their power to grab resources

"In view of the growing deficits, why do we keep doling out huge sums to aid special interests -- and let the general public go hang?

Special interest groups are well-organised;  they fight to guard their benefits.  The general taxpaying public, on the other hand, is unorganised;  it doesn't protect its interests.

Each concession to a special interest group costs relatively little.  But the spending pile-up for these groups propels the government into consuming greater shares of the economic pie -- and to increased taxation of the general public."

The President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (The Grace Commission)

"... if you are an interest group that doesn't want to get hit, here is some advice:  scream very loudly.  If you haven't a loud voice or some clout, well, that could be bad luck".

Michele Grattan, on the Government's attempt to settle the doctor's dispute,
The Age,
3 April, 1985.

THE FUTURE

If governments continue their spending patterns of the last twenty years then more and more of the community's resources will be diverted to or through government.

• By the year 2000 the government sector will be spending some 55 per cent of the community's resources (today the figure is almost 42 per cent)
• Taxes and borrowings will have to rise sharply to finance this expansion in outlays.

Government in the Year 2000
(in l983/84 dollars)

	1984		2000
	$M	% of GDP	$M	% of GDP
GDP	185,235		340,822
Government outlays	77,428	41.8	187,718	55.1
Government Receipts	62,621	33.8	145,809	42.8
Deficit*	14,807	8.0	41,909	12.3

* public sector borrowing requirement

If government outlays were restricted to an annual growth rate of 2 per cent they would increase to $108,418 million in the year 2000 (in 1983/84 dollars).  This would bring the government's share in total outlays down to 31.8 per cent of GDP.  This figure is certainly achievable;  indeed a lower average growth rate would be desirable.

The table below shows that in the life of the previous government Commonwealth budget outlays were restricted to an annual rate of 2.2 per cent.

PAST PERFORMANCE

Expenditure trends have varied significantly between various governments.

Government Expenditure Performance

	Years	Average Real Growth in Budget Outlays (p.a.)
Menzies	16	3.2
Holt	2	7.7
Gorton	3	4.7
McMahon	2	3.9
Whitlam	3	11.1
Fraser	7	2.2
Hawke	2	7.1 (e)

Note:  The Menzies figures have been adjusted to exclude the distortions arising from the Korean War (the unadjusted figures would be 4.0 per cent for budget outlays).

THE GROWTH OF GOVERNMENT CAN BE HALTED

Restraining and ultimately reducing the size of the public sector will require not only changes in community attitudes but also major institutional reforms.

No political party as yet has a comprehensive programme to reduce government.  Elements of such a programme would be:

• elimination of waste and extravagance (the approach of the Grace Commission in the U.S.A.)
• abolition of excess privileges of public sector employees (Grace Commission)
• subjecting government commercial activities to market pressures by removing monopoly privileges (e.g. Telecom, Australia Post, public transport)
• selling government business undertakings (e.g. TAA, Qantas) to the public ("privatisation")
• fixing deliberate limits to overall government spending (of which the trilogy represents a small first step)
• changing the constitution to place limitations on government spending
• substituting private contract work for government employment
• deregulation to cut excessive direct and indirect costs
• more careful testing and review of new regulations
• policies to reward and stimulate private enterprise

"The impact of big government on the economy is especially striking.  A recent cross-national study by the World Bank of the link between taxation and economic growth has suggested that each additional $1 in government expenditure today may cut the standard of living of Americans by nearly $5 (measured in constant dollars) only ten years in the future.

"During its first four years, the Reagan administration met with defeat after defeat in Congress on budget votes because it took the position that the only way to reduce government spending was to reduce services.  It is not the only way.

"Private firms, for instance, can provide many Government services -- either under contract or completely within the private sector -- much less expensively than Federal workers.  The Reagan administration must offer the American people the alternative prospect of a reduction in spending with the same, or even better, levels of service."

Mandate II,
The Heritage Foundation,
November 1984.

"... a government determined to reduce the share of government spending in the economy does not need to make any large immediate cuts in spending programmes.

"What is required is a determination not to introduce new programmes (at least without offsetting savings) or more extensive services than currently exist.

"... even relatively small differences in the real growth of spending can lead to budgets of vastly different sizes over a comparatively short period."

"Government Expenditure Control ... the first steps:  stop new programmes",
Summer 1985

BIG GOVERNMENT BY INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

International comparisons must always be treated with caution because of different methods of statistical collection.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT

On this basis Australia has a very large government sector indeed.  The OECD indicates that some 25.4 per cent of the Australian workforce is employed by government.  The figures for some other countries are:

	%
Canada	18.8
Denmark	28.1
France	15.1
Germany	14.9
Italy	15.1
Japan	6.6
Netherlands	14.9
U.K.	21.7
U.S.	16.7

• The bulk of the difference between the outlays of Australian Government and those of other countries can be explained by expenditures on pensions and benefits, health and housing.  These three areas of expenditure account for virtually the whole of the difference between Australia's expenditure and that of the average for the major OECD countries.
• It does not follow that Australia is less well catered for in these areas than other countries.  Indeed, Australia's standards in these areas are among the highest in the world.  The reason is that Australia's public sector outlays form only a part of the total community provision in the fields of health, housing and welfare.
• In any case, most of the European economies are suffering from the same problems (summed up in the term "Eurosclerosis") of economic inflexibility, lack of innovation and growing unemployment from which Australia today is also suffering.  That a larger public sector might exist in these countries than in Australia does not mean that we can be complacent about our own case.  Indeed, the trend of events in these countries provides the clearest possible warning to any country, such as Australia, which might be tempted to follow their footsteps.

SHARE OF G.D.P.

This measure is often used to suggest that Australia has a smaller public sector than many countries.

Note:  The figures in the chart are compiled from an OECD study which used the latest figures available.  They relate only to the budget sector, off-budget authorities are excluded.  The table on page 4 refers to total outlays, budget and off-budget.

A READING GUIDE

There is a vast range of literature dealing with the problems of big government.  This selection should give readers a useful introduction to the range of issues which must be addressed.

GOVERNMENT AND EMPLOYMENT

"Achieving Full Employment", by Professor P. Dixon, Autumn 1984

"Barriers to Youth Employment", Winter 1984

"Legalise Full Employment", by Professor M. Porter, Spring 1984

"How 50,000 Youth Jobs Were Lost", Spring 1984

"Public Sector Employment", Spring 1984

"Special Interest Protection & Unemployment", by Professor H. Arndt, Spring 1984

"Life Without an Arbitration Commission", by Peter Samuel, Spring 1984

"Governments & Job Destruction", by Jacob Abrahami, Summer 1985

GOVERNMENT REGULATION

"Economic Regulation", Autumn 1984

"Economic Crimes", Autumn 1984

"Government & Small Business", by Professor G. Meredith, Autumn 1984

"Busting Monopolistic Practices:  The Budget Story", by Bob Ansett, Autumn 1984

"The Current Attack on Private Property", by Barry Maley, Winter 1984

"Attacking Excessive Government Regulation", by Senator A. Missen, Spring 1984

"Nationalising Workers Compensation", Summer 1985

"The Interfering Itch", Summer 1985

GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES

"Railways:  Haemorrhage of the Body Politic", Professor P. Swan and J. Nestor, Winter 1983

"Public Authorities as Taxing Mechanisms", by Jacob Abrahami, Autumn 1984

"Privatisation:  Agenda for the Next Decade", Autumn 1984

"Two Nations", by Charles Copeman, Spring 1984

"On the Buses", by P. Kain, Summer 1984

"The Bicentenary:  Celebration or Apology?", by Dr. K. Baker, Summer 1985

"Marketising the Mail", by Dr R. Albon, Summer 1985

"Costs of the Telecom Monopoly", by Chris Trengove, Summer 1985

"Turning Cheap Resources Into Expensive Energy:  The Role of the State Electricity Commissions", Dr. P. Hartley, Summer 1984

AUSTRALIAN ATTITUDES TO BIG GOVERNMENT

"The Middle Ground", Winter 1984

"Do Australians Want Freedom or Security?", by Michele Levine, Spring 1984

GOVERNMENT PLANNING

"Problems with Government Planning", by Professor D. Kemp, Autumn 1984

"A Major Failure of Policy", by John Stone, Summer 1985

GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND TAXES

"Malcolm Fraser and the Size of Government", Spring 1983

"Constitutional Expenditure Limitation", by Professor A. Wildavsky, Spring 1983

"Welfare Illusions", Professor R. Parish and L. Gropp, Summer 1984

"Government Expenditure Targets", Spring 1984

"Welfare Lobbies and Taxes", Winter 1984

"Risk Taking and the Resource Rent Tax", by Professor R. Ball and J. Bowers, Winter 1984

"Government Expenditure Control", Summer 1985

EQUITY AND GOVERNMENT

"Commonwealth Superannuation:  Time to Restore Equity", Summer 1984