The federal government has expanded significantly over the past half century, taking on more roles and responsibilities, and adding new departments and agencies. While some of these may be needed, many are not. Some simply duplicate functions already designated for the states.
The Agriculture portfolio is a prime example. An approximate $2 billion is spent by the taxpayer on the department annually, with over 5,000 public servants employed.
Each state and the Northern Territory has their own agricultural portfolio tasked with industry regulation and assistance. So there is no need for the federal government to get involved. But that is exactly what they do.
Duplication across state and federal governments adds more regulation on to industry, creates inefficiency, and raises costs for taxpayers. It also removes workers who would otherwise be more productively employed in the private sector, and consigns them to needless tasks for the government.
The federal Department of Agriculture has six agencies doling out subsidies for 'research and development.' There's one each for cotton, fisheries, grains, grape and wine, rural industries, and sugar.
Government funding for research and development is often a front for corporate welfare. It's easy to extract funds from the government if you can claim that you are contributing to innovation and keeping the industry ahead of your global competitors.
But much of the R&D funding is directed to projects in which companies would invest anyway if government wasn't involved. If companies can reasonably expect to make a profit from investing in new technology, there is a clear incentive for them to do so.
But even if you assume the R&D projects are not profitable or too risky, and that government should be funding them, there's no need for both the state and federal governments to be involved.
There is no justification for an Australian wine marketing body which is tasked with the development and promotion of Australia's winemakers to be subsidised by the taxpayer.
The Department of Agriculture contains two important regulatory agencies that need to be preserved – the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority – but these two agencies could easily be transferred to the Department of Industry.
The Agriculture portfolio could then be abolished, along with the taxes and fees they collect from the industry, at a saving of approximately $1.3 billion every year.
Alexander Philipatos is a Policy Analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Cut waste by cutting departments
Cut waste by cutting departments
The Agriculture portfolio is a prime example. An approximate $2 billion is spent by the taxpayer on the department annually, with over 5,000 public servants employed.
Each state and the Northern Territory has their own agricultural portfolio tasked with industry regulation and assistance. So there is no need for the federal government to get involved. But that is exactly what they do.
Duplication across state and federal governments adds more regulation on to industry, creates inefficiency, and raises costs for taxpayers. It also removes workers who would otherwise be more productively employed in the private sector, and consigns them to needless tasks for the government.
The federal Department of Agriculture has six agencies doling out subsidies for 'research and development.' There's one each for cotton, fisheries, grains, grape and wine, rural industries, and sugar.
Government funding for research and development is often a front for corporate welfare. It's easy to extract funds from the government if you can claim that you are contributing to innovation and keeping the industry ahead of your global competitors.
But much of the R&D funding is directed to projects in which companies would invest anyway if government wasn't involved. If companies can reasonably expect to make a profit from investing in new technology, there is a clear incentive for them to do so.
But even if you assume the R&D projects are not profitable or too risky, and that government should be funding them, there's no need for both the state and federal governments to be involved.
There is no justification for an Australian wine marketing body which is tasked with the development and promotion of Australia's winemakers to be subsidised by the taxpayer.
The Department of Agriculture contains two important regulatory agencies that need to be preserved – the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority – but these two agencies could easily be transferred to the Department of Industry.
The Agriculture portfolio could then be abolished, along with the taxes and fees they collect from the industry, at a saving of approximately $1.3 billion every year.
Alexander Philipatos is a Policy Analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: