Earlier this month I presented proxy measures for the size of the Australian public sectors (comprising commonwealth, state and local governments) since 1901.
The first measure – total revenue as a share of GDP – revealed that the amount of revenue acquired from businesses and individuals, relative to the economy, had doubled since Federation. Events which contributed to the increase included the imposition of land taxes, corporate taxes and personal income taxes by the commonwealth prior to 1930, the takeover of state income tax powers by the commonwealth in 1942, and a ratchet up in revenues during the post?war ‘Keynesian consensus’ period.
The second measure – number of pages of primary legislation as a proxy for regulation – showed that the taste of the political class to control private behaviour and conduct has increased significantly during the period decried by critics of markets as ‘the age of neo?liberalism.’ The advent of new economic, environmental and social regulations has played a key contributing role toward the observed trend.
In this post I present a third proxy measure of the size of the Australian public sector – the numbers of employees engaged by commonwealth, state and local governments.
While the data is drawn from different sources, it remains reasonably consistent in the sense that it at least covers general government sector employment (in other words, the core departments and agencies that are largely financed by compulsory taxation, and provide outputs not subsequently sold in markets at full cost). The data presented here also include employment in major government?owned corporations.
That said the data presented does underestimate the total size of public sector employment. For example, employment in universities and public hospitals are excluded from the data presented by Barnard, Butlin and Pincus, but are included in the more recent ABS series. Information concerning the extent to which persons in the private sector are engaged to undertake government work, an obviously important issue in the modern ‘mixed’ economy and which should arguably be included in the public sector employment count, is not considered here.
What we see in the data, again, is a general trend of an increasing size of government over the course of 110 years despite periodic fluctuations in public sector employment numbers. Some of the key events contributing to an increase include an increase in employment by governments during World War II, and the upward inflection in public sector hiring during the early to mid?1970s (in part, due to a significant duplication of governmental functions that occurred across levels of government as a result of the Whitlamite centralism project).
By the same token, governments have also shown an occasional, but not frequent, preparedness to significantly reduce the numbers of people they engage.
In response to the Great Depression, Australian governments reduced their employment by eleven per cent from 1930 to 1933 as part of a broader fiscal austerity program that aided Australia’s economic recovery. As clearly illustrated in the diagram, governments also reduced their employment from the late 1980s to the late 1990s through, amongst other things, a reasonably comprehensive privatisation program that I would argue continues to deliver clear benefits to the Australian people as a whole.
As I have argued previously with respect to state government employment, and which also applies to other levels of government, the political class over the last decade had largely lost the will to consolidate upon the early gains from reform and continue to rationalise public sector employment. This is evidenced by the significant upward spurt in public sector employment from 2000?01, and despite the occasional promises of wielding ‘meat axes’ and the like against this growth trend.
While the public sector employment share has dropped over the past two decades or so, the growth in the actual numbers of people hired by governments poses a number of risks from a size of government perspective.
The proportion of government operating budgets absorbed by wages and salaries, superannuation benefits and labour on?costs have been larger than what otherwise could have been the case. The influence of public sector unions as a bulwark against much?needed economic and public sector management reforms tend to become further entrenched with greater numbers of union members. Finally, the double role of public servants as government employees and voters, and the conflicts of interest this may entail, should also be acknowledged.
While there are a variety of measures used to quantify the size of government, I would argue that public sector employment is one that deserves more thorough scrutiny by those with an interest in Australian liberty.
Sources for diagram: Barnard, Butlin and Pincus; RBA; ABS.
Julie :
Does this diagram knock out these:
This is truly a horrendously large number. Furthermore the bigger it gets the more concern there should over conflicts and voting.
After watching the election result for the two Canberra seats and the way one candidate openly voted to protect and expand those jobs, I am more and more convinced these people should not be allowed to vote. I also believe anyone in the private doing a certain mount of work for the government should not be allowed to vote.
This would include all full-time hospital staff, teachers but I would exclude essential services.
JC.
24 Jan 11 at 12:51 am
The ACT is a sovietized arrangement:
The ALP two party preferred received 62% of the vote which essentially means they vote en masse for the party that offers the public sector workers the best deal.
This is appalling.
It appears the most difficult thing for an ALP candidate to achieve is simply party endorsement as the election is a shoe in.
JC.
24 Jan 11 at 1:01 am
By the same token, recent Labor governments have also shown an
occasionalsubstantial,but not frequent,preparedness to significantly reduce the numbers of people they engage.Fixed that for you. If you’re going to lambast Whitlam for a small rise, you should at least give Hawke and Keating credit for the big sustained decline.
PSC
24 Jan 11 at 1:17 am
PSC.
Stop raising ancient history. We’re concerned with the here and now.
Your knee-padding is really starting to appear quite disgusting.
JC.
24 Jan 11 at 1:36 am
Do these numbers include local government employees. In our city the annual population growth rate is 2.6% with high infrastructure demand. Rates increased 26.6% between 2006-07 and 2010-11 yet budgets for roads, bridges and drains show only a slight increase from $15.5 million to $16.2 million, just 4.3%. In the same period, staffing costs ballooned from $31 million to $40.6 million – 31% increase (excludes consultancy costs).
Ted Coleman
24 Jan 11 at 6:42 am
Actually, it is very important to highlight the public servant cull under Hawke, to remind Labor of its glory days and Neoliberal traditions. I think Gillard still has a fair bit of these Labor traditions in her, but somehow lacks the bottle at the minute.
Peter Patton
24 Jan 11 at 8:12 am
Once half plus one of the electorate are directly and totally dependent on the state for their livelihood, it’s over. Would be interesting to know what the number is. I think we are very close.
Pickles
24 Jan 11 at 8:19 am
It is interesting to raise these sorts of statistics, but I am not sure what they achieve (other than the curiosity factor).
I spent two decades in the public sector, and the last decade working less and less for more and more in the private sector.
So I have some suggestions for those that think it a good thing to change the mix of public vs private employment in the economy.
First, I assert from my experience in both sectors is that both sectors have their strengths and weaknesses. I have seen appalling incompetence, waste and mismanagement on both sides of the fence. This is also, I believe, the insider knowledge of people in the middle ground of politics who work in both sectors and talk to each other. The import of this is that mere idealogical posturing of ‘four legs good, two legs bad’ from either side of politics is not going to get any traction in the electorate – they have seen both sides stuff it up badly. For everyone that brays ‘what about the insulation debacle?’, there is someone else who brays ‘Well, it was much worse under the private sector before that!’ So as much as both the right and left of politics regard the average Australian voters as ‘sheeple’, it is in fact, far from the case. Most voters in the centre just shake off both right and left as being loonies, given the own life experiences of centrist voters of the follies of both sectors.
That leads to the second point, that if someone really truly wishes to move the composition of the public sector one way or the other, then voters need to be given a specific agenda. Waving one’s arms and saying the public sector should be smaller/larger depending on whether one is right/left of politics won’t do it. Such arm waving may be good for letting off steam, but won’t achieve anything other than a feeling of martyrdom as one retires for the night dreaming of Ayn Rand/Karl Marx.
The third point is that the size of the public sector tends to grow when voters out there give the message to politicians that ‘aorta do something about it’. The minute you want government to do something, it generally means more public servants – even if that is only to administer payments to the private sector.
So, unless one can identify those areas of public sector work that can and should be done by private enterprise, one is wasting one’s time. The spin off of Qantas was a good one, Telstra not so good. Similarly, simplification of the tax and super systems would be good, privatisation of the police might be a bit inadvisable given the private police thugs we see around hotels with the dubious title of ‘bouncers’. Privatise the defence force anyone? Checked out the price gouging of government coming from defence suppliers in the US where such things are public??
So, how about a list of things that could go folks?
Marks
24 Jan 11 at 9:39 am
Why on earth would you think that? Look at the graph – we’re at 15% public sector employment. Add to that the unemployed 5% of the total population… where are these other 30% plus one going to suddenly spring from Pickles?
FDB
24 Jan 11 at 9:41 am
Marks – public transport would be a good start in most states.
I defy anyone to say that in NSW transport is run well and efficiently. And keep a straight face while saying it.
By the way, I posted some time back about Sydney Ferries. The Manly Fast ferry, which the government gave up as impossible to cover costs, now supports two private competitors.
ken n
24 Jan 11 at 9:45 am
FDB, there’s also DSP, OAP, Youth Allowance…
Peter Patton
24 Jan 11 at 10:10 am
Not to mention all those churn payments.
Peter Patton
24 Jan 11 at 10:11 am
I want to know why with a social welfare system and extensive military build up AND a balanced budget, why GDP ought to ever exceed 15% of GDP.
http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1156/PDF/01_Brief_History.pdf
p2, Chart 1.
.
24 Jan 11 at 10:49 am
PP:
I read, I respond.
FDB
24 Jan 11 at 10:52 am
FDB
If that 15% weren’t allowed to vote (except for essential services) leftism would be a historical relic in the country judging by the ACT’s soviet like voting patterns.
JC.
24 Jan 11 at 10:54 am
Interesting irrelevant garbage there, JC. Thanks for that.
FDB
24 Jan 11 at 11:12 am
Yes well I’ve linked to something ENTIRELY relevant.
If we’re going to embrace social democracy, let’s do it efficiently then, and contrary to the likes of the dopey left, keep the pie big/make it bigger for all and maintain some incentives for those who don’t need it.
.
24 Jan 11 at 11:34 am
Sorry Dot, but with non-sequiturs like “…why GDP ought to ever exceed 15% of GDP” and “maintain some incentives for those who don’t need it”, I for one am having trouble seeing your point or its relevance.
I’m assuming it’s something to do with taxation being bad.
FDB
24 Jan 11 at 1:14 pm
The problem is most people mean “socialism” when they say “social democracy”.
Peter Patton
24 Jan 11 at 1:21 pm
A year or so old, but come to pass.
“Large-scale public sector expansion is underpinning healthy growth in the ACT property market.
Canberra is the emerging star performer on the Residex charts and chief property analyst John Lindeman puts it down to one overriding factor – federal government employment.
“The ACT is a very, very different market to the state capitals,” he notes. “It directly responds to the amount of government spending that then produces more [or fewer] public servants required in Canberra.”
It would be interesting to place another outline of Canberra housing prices against that spending graph as well.
Its a huge ponzi scheme based on productive states money.
thefrollickingmole
24 Jan 11 at 1:21 pm
No you economic iltterate. What he’s saying is to enact policies such as the ones the LDP is advocating like negative income tax for support payments to those in need asit would help remove a large number of these tax eaters off the payroll.
Dot’s point is that only a tiny % of the money taken in gets to where it’s needed because of the humongous churn that goes on.
JC.
24 Jan 11 at 1:33 pm
Taxation is bad FDB. Some are accommodating and refer to it as a necessary evil. They are not non sequiturs. If they are, say why.
Do you think taxes are costless or are beneficial on their own accord?
If you’re going to demand a proportion of services be publicly produced, there is no point in spending too much on them and reducing overall welfare with inefficient and usurious taxation.
.
24 Jan 11 at 1:34 pm
I’ll out it another way FDB. Would prefer if we had all of the same net services and transfers with a total tax bill that was 55% of what it is now?
Can’t you see the advantage in distorting consumption and production decisions less? Allowing more retained earnings? Allowing workers to have higher real disposable income?
By the 1950s we had publicly funded universities (done differently though, arguably better than what we have now, actually being based on merit – i.e an ATAR of 60 would NOT have gotten you a scholarship), social welfare and a large cold war, post WWII military.
Around 1958-1963, tax to GDP was about 15%.
What have we done wrong since then to get roughly the same level of services for double the price?
.
24 Jan 11 at 1:37 pm
Don’t walk away from this comment FDB, as it real.
JC.
24 Jan 11 at 1:42 pm
Why are they non-sequiturs?
Well, firstly I personally think that GDP should always be in the vicinity of 100% of GDP. This is not so much an economic argument as an unwillingness to overturn basic arithmetic without a very good reason for doing so.
In the second case, I think that to maintain “incentives for those who don’t need it” would produce poorly-targeted incentives. I think that incentives, as with all other things, are most efficiently provided to those who do need them. Again, not so much a complex economic disagreement as a keenness to preserve the basic elements of logic.
FDB
24 Jan 11 at 1:43 pm
What have we done wrong since then to get roughly the same level of services for double the price?
I can remember my bank accounts provided interest and no charges. I can remember when bank managers would check every overdrawn account before deciding to dishonour a cheque, now it is automatic. I can remember when it didn’t take so long to stand in lines at various commercial entities to get service or spend ages waiting on the phone only to speak to someone whose accent and lack of knowledge make it near impossible to understand. Methinks there may be a universal trend here that is not just confined to the public sector.
John H.
24 Jan 11 at 1:43 pm
JC – if you think we’re receiving “roughly the same level of services” as we were in the ’60s, then this argument probably hinges on what you mean by ‘roughly’.
FDB
24 Jan 11 at 1:46 pm
Come on. The 60s were a Randian/Nozickean libertarian paradise compared to 2011!
Peter Patton
24 Jan 11 at 1:49 pm
“Well, firstly I personally think that GDP should always be in the vicinity of 100% of GDP. This is not so much an economic argument as an unwillingness to overturn basic arithmetic without a very good reason for doing so.”
WTF?
“In the second case, I think that to maintain “incentives for those who don’t need it” would produce poorly-targeted incentives”
Maybe I wrote utter garbage beforehand. What I meant was, if you employ three people, you hardly need all manner of social welfare. It is for the good of everyone that middle class and corporate welfare be cut, so that you go on to be an innovative business owner.
“Methinks there may be a universal trend here that is not just confined to the public sector.”
Maybe the culprit is regulation…
.
24 Jan 11 at 1:55 pm
They are about the same, Adolphus if you care to “think” about it more carefully.
JC.
24 Jan 11 at 1:56 pm
“JC – if you think we’re receiving “roughly the same level of services” as we were in the ’60s, then this argument probably hinges on what you mean by ‘roughly’.”
Well then out with it. What is so bloody different?
1. Stupid people (sorry) get to go to uni, as a function of “helping” the deserving who got to go anyways on scholarships. Which were once more common.
(Kevin Rudd tightened the tax system to clamp down on philanthropy).
2. We have about $90 bn in welfare churn annually.
3. Our welfare/tax system traps some in poverty.
4. Our defence forces are pathetically under-resourced.
5. You get paid to have children, which is either encouraging poverty or entirely cynical by the well off recipients.
.
24 Jan 11 at 2:02 pm
‘Sactly. I went to uni and even though I’m not stupid, it was a free ride on the taxpayer as I didn’t deserve it nor really want it bad enough. How many of me are doing the same thing?
JC.
24 Jan 11 at 2:11 pm
Maybe the culprit is regulation…
Has to be part of it DOT. Before Keating began his taxation legislation mania the CCH volume was mostly sufficient. Then great huge volumes of taxation rulings, the ITAA came to occupy a whole bookshelf. Friends who worked in Centrelink told me they are often overwhelmed by the policy changes. One can no longer talk about a “taxation specialist”, one talks about “superannuation specialist” etc.
We are drowning under a complexity of our making. Consider FBT. It was introduced as a separate act. In the ITAA there was Section 26eeee, which basically asserted one had to declare and value in kind income. People didn’t do that and employers kept moving to in kind income. What was the govt supposed to do? Let the tax base continually erode?
We need an entirely new way to dealing with these issues and simply arguing to get rid of regulation in the absence of other strategies don’t cut it. If people think they can get away with something they will try it on. That is the dilemma.
John H.
24 Jan 11 at 2:16 pm
One of my pet hates with FBT is that it is levied against market value, not the actual cost of providing a fringe benefit.
The inefficiency or greed of other firms can make employer generosity too expensive.
.
24 Jan 11 at 2:18 pm
Well to be fair, the huge expansion in university enrolments has meant a substitution of Austudy for the dole.
I don’t know whether Austudy + Youth Allowance + Cost of uni/per student minus HECs contribution is greater or less than what the dole payment would have been in addition to other social costs.
Peter Patton
24 Jan 11 at 2:19 pm
One striking metric is comparing Law degree curricular in say 1980, compared to 2010.
Peter Patton
24 Jan 11 at 2:27 pm
One striking metric is comparing Law degree curricular in say 1980, compared to 2010.
Interesting. I have no idea how to address this issue Peter so feel free to speculate and make a fool of yourself.
John H.
24 Jan 11 at 2:48 pm
“One striking metric is comparing Law degree curricular”
Law degree curricular what? Maybe you mean English?
FDB
24 Jan 11 at 3:05 pm
Despite the feeble attempts of John H and FDB, a valid point has emerged here. Our public services were better when government spending was lower. Why? Could it be the fact that the Government is interfering so much in our lives that it has lost its ability to do well what it has to do because it continues to expand into areas where it doesn’t need to be.
And John H. Do you remember when you couldn’t get money from the bank on weekends; you had to pay cash for everything; bread was always stale in 2 minutes after opening; shops were shut most of the Weekend; there were far fewer choices as to the food we could eat, the films we could see, the books we could read and the music we could hear? Private enterprise got better, but governments got worse at providing services. It is this lack of balance that causes much of our current unease and unhappiness.
Rococo Liberal
24 Jan 11 at 3:28 pm
No. The differences over 30 year reveal the stunning expansion of the leviathan over even that short period..
Peter Patton
24 Jan 11 at 3:33 pm
Do you remember when you couldn’t get money from the bank on weekends;
Irrelevant. I don’t go to banks on weekends and why should that increase the costs for doing banking in the banking hours of 9-3? If you want that extra service you should pay for it, not me. Why should I be penalised because some people want such a service? And why should an increase in the range of foods lead to an increase in the traditional staples?
You can now get a tax refund cheque in days, not months. Go figure.
John H.
24 Jan 11 at 3:38 pm
I was just pointing out your poor grammar Greenfield, not bothering to actually discuss anything substantive with you.
What would be the point?
FDB
24 Jan 11 at 3:43 pm
How are you penalized?
Peter Patton
24 Jan 11 at 3:49 pm
Dot,
In one word, because it is one of the biggest components of taxes.
Health.
How are things better, you might ask?
In 1950 if you had almost any cancer – death.
If you had a heart attack – death.
Remember polio, smallpox, tuberculosis?
If you had arthritis in the hips, your life was a misery from the time you contracted it till – death.
If you were injured playing sport, or in a road accident, that was normally the end of your sporting career. Most workplaces did not accommodate wheelchairs, and if you were injured and needed a wheelchair – that was the end of your career.
And, of course travel was to such exotic places as the Blue Mountains, or *gasp* interstate. One blessing was: no television! And things were much simpler in restaurants. Roast beef or lamb, fish and chips, chops or steak with veg, spaghetti out of a can. Of course an upmarket restaurant would have the added sophistication of those exact same menu choices – but in French.
Oh, how I long for the fifties.
The reality for most people is that, yes, they pay more taxes than they did in the fifties, but their lives are so much better. Ok, gotta go put the sheets through the wringer and into the trough to soak.
Marks
24 Jan 11 at 6:55 pm
Of course, Marks. It wasn’t technological/medical advancement that allowed us to see all those improvements.
It was the fucking medibank levy.
Is leftism really this moronic?
JC.
24 Jan 11 at 7:07 pm
That’s a novel way to debate. Make a list of private enterprises achievements and then give the credit to increased taxes and growth of government.
Infidel Tiger
24 Jan 11 at 7:16 pm
Or most specifically the Medibank levy, because without the levy we would never have seen any of the medical advancement since the 50′s.
Leftism is a silly belief system. it’s actually quite primitive.
JC.
24 Jan 11 at 7:21 pm
I think there are more people than just the public service and the unemployed dependent on the state. Tally up the rest of the forms of welfare assistance and then the NGO’s, NPO’s and others that are funded by various levels of govt. Be generous and don’t count the dependents of all these.
Then look at Mal Brough as an example of what happens to a pollie who advocates changes tomthe welfare state.
“I read and respond” – there should be a step between these, but never mind.
Pickles
24 Jan 11 at 10:44 pm
JC: “Of course, Marks. It wasn’t technological/medical advancement that allowed us to see all those improvements.
It was the fucking medibank levy.
Is leftism really this moronic?”
Ah JC, I see you are a graduate of the Paul Keating Charm School.
Personally I prefer the approach and attitude of Menzies, who merely had contempt for those who employed the argot of the gutter.
Perhaps your parents should have employed some of their money to schooling that allowed you to use your brains. Mind you, if they had spent that money, they should be seeking a refund. They could use your post here to substantiate their claims.
You see, old fruit, it is quite simple, even though technology has improved, you still have to pay for it via your taxes, and you have to employ, on the public payroll, those qualified to operate those machines and apply those procedures. Just go to any hospital lab and see the range of tests and lab equipment, and the number of people and the higher qualifications needed to operate that machinery etc etc.
But hey, you can go to the good ole USA and pay more than twice as much for, er, well, not sure what, but whatever it is they get extra for all their extra cost it certainly does not show up in such measures as life expectancy.
Marks
24 Jan 11 at 11:16 pm
Why do we have to pay for any of it via taxes? Why do we have to employ them on the public payroll?
Infidel Tiger
24 Jan 11 at 11:20 pm
“you can go to the good ole USA”
an expression only ever used by people who detest the USA. You might want to consider the fact that most of the medical technologies you enjoy were developed by Americans.
“pay more than twice as much for, er, well, not sure what, but whatever it is they get extra for all their extra cost”
You’re admitting that you don’t know, but assuming that it’s nothing worthwhile. that’s not correct.
“it certainly does not show up in such measures as life expectancy.”
only a fool would think that government programs can have total control over life expectancy.
The US has a great, albeit flawed, health system, but the health system is not the reason for the life expectancy stats you’re referring to.
daddy dave
24 Jan 11 at 11:32 pm
Infidel Tiger. That is a good question. Worthy of debate. It just was not the question I was answering.
For the record, I think we should always be looking critically at how services are delivered and making changes as necessary – but NEVER EVER allowing ideology to get in the way. We have had enough cycles of overbloated unions/public sectors, followed/preceded by private contractors price gouging and exploiting to the point where it becomes cheaper again for the public sector to do the work. Repeat cycle. The whole public sector arose in the UK (and we inherited it) purely because the private sector was so bad in doing some things.
The problem is, that once some systems are set up, either public, or private, they develop into slow moving bureaucracies. BHP was a classic case of this if you ever visited head office in the seventies. The US health system looks to be a similar situation where for there is so much complicated and interwoven bureaucracy and vested interest allowed to develop over time that it probably could do well to have Jeff Kennett go over and sort it out. All these systems, private sector and public need shakeups from time to time unless they can demonstrate on an on-going basis that they are top performers. One of the most disastrous things that happen is that advocates for both sides will never admit the failings of their particular side, so we see public sector bureaucracies resisting any efficiencies until it becomes so bloated and blatant that blind freddy can see it, and similarly private sector companies robbing the public blind (eg road tunnels supposedly built at private risk suddenly being bailed out by the public sector – savings where?) Yet even when these stupidities are being sorted out, there are partisan ideologues arguing that they need to stay.
Daddy dave, you make the mistake of thinking that because I think the US health model stinks, that extends to anything else from that great country. Bollocks. The US has done and is doing a lot to be proud of, but that does not stop its friends from shaking their heads at that monster that is the health care system there.
Also, if life expectancy is not a key performance indicator of the health system, then that in itself says something about the health system. May as well not have a health system if you cannot use life expectancy as a KPI.
Marks
25 Jan 11 at 10:40 am
Marks
JC may have been a wee bit brusque in his response, but his point is a valid answer to yours. The improvements in health care since the 50s were not achieved though the fact that we have government-owned hospitals.
Rococo Liberal
25 Jan 11 at 12:46 pm
John H
In answer to your strange question: why should we who want to use ATMs to get money on weekends have to pay for the ridiculous 9-3 service that you want?
And btw, you obviously weren’t about last year when the ATO computer went into meltdown and refund cheques were delayed for months.
Rococo Liberal
25 Jan 11 at 1:33 pm
May I be the first to suggest mass sackings as a remedy?
Tillman
25 Jan 11 at 1:45 pm
Michael Costa thought much the same thing. About 20% in NSW.
.
25 Jan 11 at 2:03 pm
Rococo liberal. “…but his point is a valid answer to yours.”
I beg to differ. I was merely responding to a point further up which queried whether or not we really are better off than we were in the fifties.
Of course it is well open to debate as my comment to Infidel Tiger pointed whether or not there could have been a different structure to the health system. But that was not the point I was originally arguing.
As for JC’s brusqueness, I do not mind at all. As long as those who hand it out can take it when it is served back at them, I am not the least bit perturbed. I must admit, however, that I do prefer the incisive wit of Menzies and Churchill to the yobbo genre. (But I do that too, – sometimes it is the only thing some people understand
Marks
25 Jan 11 at 3:32 pm
ATAR of 60 gets a scholarship? How? Where? This is scandalous, I need to know this.
TE
25 Jan 11 at 8:02 pm
If demand is low enough, they let in you with ANY ATAR…which means a “scholarship” of tuition free study, ala HECS.
.
28 Jan 11 at 10:09 am
[...] 110 years of public sector hiring Julie Kirsten Novak at Catallaxy This entry was posted on Friday, January 28th, 2011 at 3:32 PM and filed under Missing Link. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback. [...]
Club Troppo » Missing link Friday – Bad mother edition
28 Jan 11 at 6:33 pm