On 28 December 2013 02:47, <step...@melbpc.org.au> wrote: > Frank writes, > > > .... something has to be done to stop the erosion of our infrastructure, > > assets, lifestyle and standard of living as governments 'sell of off the > > farm' to cater to current cash demands necessitated by the politics of > > selfishness that's been endemic for the last 25 years.. > > Thanks Frank. > > Good points regarding privatization, made in a powerful, persuasive manner. > > "Yet, according to recent media reports, Australia and NZ leads the world > in privatization $$" >
Is this not part of the problem? If Australia is generating world leading cash flow to external companies from its infrastructure then is it not being mined for profit and not designed for optimal infrastructure for the wider economy/business/community to use as bedrock to build from? If Australian infrastructure capacity now and future is not the primary goal of a private utility how do we make systems which do prioritise Australian infrastructure capacity and service delivery. Profit in those utilities is not bad, it is just not the main purpose. Profit which is not extracted could feed better service delivery? Eg, only privatize industries that can compete. A problem is that public assets like toll roads, airports and rail systems tend to be monopolies or quasi-monopolies. Any potential benefits of competition are extremely hard or impossible. So in such situations careful regulation is essential. Sure it's tough to fine-tune such laws, but, both a competition AND regulation vacuum will obviously be a cash-cow enemy to our longer-term public good. *The central point is, Australian governments should NOT be allowed to use privatization as an expedient source of funds* This report below seems to sum up the Au privatization situation very well: "Growth 50: Privatisation: A Review of the Australian Experience" Privatisation in Australia is bringing mixed results, this report argues. Private ownership with regulation is one option. In other cases government ownership may better achieve society's objectives. But neither option is perfect - this is the fundamental privatisation trade-off. Most contributors to the report agree that privatisation is beneficial when it results in private firms operating in a competitive market. But contentious issues can arise when natural monopoly assets are privatised. The crux of the privatisation debate lies in those areas where markets may not achieve the desired objectives. In some areas competition may not be viable; in other areas private incentives may not match public welfare criteria. While there are still many government assets which could be sold, many of these assets provide services which are not profit-making. These sectors are more likely to involve private sector participation through long-term contracts, rather than divestment. However governments will need to improve their skills in designing and managing such contracts in order to attract private capital into these areas. The report also notes that: * The overall verdict on privatisation from a consumer perspective is one of mixed success, with insufficient attention to consumer outcomes. Who is the consumer. The investor or the Australian infrastructure? * Governments are grappling with needs for a new or extended accountability model when monopoly business activities are privatised. Private companies also can be monopolies. That does not seem to be something to be concerned about? * Governments should not be allowed to use privatisation as an expedient source of funds. Private entities buying in would be using their investments as a source of funds. Why would it be ad for a government to make use of all its resources especially for service delivery and infrastructure? _______________________________________________ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
