Privatisation - Has This Been A Benefit to The Consumer?

Lwd41 on 06/08/2017 - 10:06
Last edited 06/08/2017 - 11:12 by 1 other user

I've been trying to think of an instance where Privatisation has ended up being of benefit to the consumer?
Not having any luck really, l can think of plenty of instances where it has led to us bring worse off e.g

  1. Household Gas supply - excessive profiteering by suppliers
  2. Electricity - excessive profiteering
  3. Water - excessive profiteering
  4. Toll Roads - excessive profiteering
  5. Airport short term parking - excessive profiteering.

Can you think of any that have gone the other way and improved service at a lower cost?

General Discussion

Comments

  • dcep on 06/08/2017 - 10:19
    +18

    NBN … ohh wait'

    privatisation only works when there is healthy competition.

    • Kangal on 06/08/2017 - 15:13
      +3

      Well that, or when the government is stupidly incompetent.
      Case in point; telephony connectivity in USA. Was government owned and did nothing for the public, and resulted in losses from the revenue. Privatisation allowed citizens to have advanced communication, and it was developed cheaply, and provided revenue to the government via taxation.

      However, it needs competition to be viable in the practical sense. Monopolies almost always ruin the industry.

      • D C on 06/08/2017 - 19:28
        +5

        Governments (Australia at least) tend to be a bit useless, but at least you don't wind up with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haImi4cWau0&t=0s

        5 NBN 'providers', all with their own fibre etc, and all of them crap.

        For large projects like telephony you need the government to do it, private companies usually aren't big enough or cherrypick and only install where there's a profit to be made. And like the video says, they duplicate infrastructure.

        Mind you the NSW government is so useless they built a new railway line in Sydney incomparable with the rest of the network, and thought it was such a good thing repeated it with trams. One city, four rail gauges. Thanks Gladys!

        • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 19:44

          Multiple train tracks is common in Europe. Norway operates three different types in their capital Oslo with a population of only ~630k.

        • D C on 06/08/2017 - 20:12
          +4

          @whooah1979:

          Norway operates three different types

          That's sounds a little misleading, from what I see almost all of it is one gauge (same as Sydney actually), with all new lines being built to match.

          Sydney of course builds a tram line, decides to build a second one so why not make it different? Let's dig a tunnel and make it too narrow for any existing stock to fit. What could go wrong there?

          I honestly think our politicians are so corrupt (not incompetent) they deliberately screw things up to promote privatisation, plus guarantee themselves a job the day after resigning from cabinet. Hello Mike Baird!

          (I suspect the tail will wag the dog in Sydney, so goodbye double-decker trains.)

        • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 20:22

          @D C:

          That's sounds a little misleading, from what I see almost all of it is one gauge (same as Sydney actually), with all new lines being built to match.

          Three types. Tbanen, trikken and nsb. They all crisscross the capital, both above and underground.

        • D C on 06/08/2017 - 20:34
          +3

          @whooah1979: Still misleading.

          The NSB (trains) & Tbanen (metro) use the same gauge rail. trikken is a tram line, so of course it's a different type.

          Oslo has two types, rail and tram. Sydney has four when we should only have two as well.

          But we're dumb, so that's ok. Vote for whoever you did last time, they're doing a great job!

        • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 21:18

          @D C:

          The NSB (trains) & Tbanen (metro) use the same gauge rail.

          hmm. tbanen, trikken and the nsb all use the 4' 8 1/2" standard gauge. no surprise there being the most commonly used gauge in the world.

          where they differ is the power feed. dc third rail for tbanen, dc overhead for trikken and ac overhead for nsb. the carriages all look different, and if you ever have the chance to ride them you'll also feel the difference.

          But we're dumb, so that's ok. Vote for whoever you did last time, they're doing a great job!

          we normally vote for the party with policies that are in line with our views.

        • D C on 06/08/2017 - 21:40
          +3

          @whooah1979:

          all use the 4' 8 1/2" standard gauge

          The gauge isn't the problem, as you say it's the rest of it. For trams we should have copied Melbourne, but we didn't because we're dumb. Then the two tram lines have different platforms etc so you can't connect the two.

          I don't think we can even move the trams on normal rails lines (for maintenance etc). Probably true because we're dumb.

          The trains are same. Sydney trains run in loops, but that breaks when most of the trains won't fit thru the tunnel. We did that because we're dumb. Requiring special trains for just one line puts up prices (buying & fixing) and guarantees poorer service - if there a breakdown or a special event you can't 'borrow' one from somewhere else as there's nothing to borrow. Dumb? You got it.

          we normally vote for the party with policies that are in line with our views

          Lol. "Same again, thanks - because I'm a rusted-on lifelong loyal supporter dumb".

          I wonder what job Gladys has lined up when she leaves in a couple of years. I'm sure she's doing them proud.

        • [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 08:53

          @D C: I think it also doesn't help that state governments tend to change every 3 years or so

        • ninetyNineCents on 07/08/2017 - 19:44

          @DC

          Mind you the NSW government is so useless they built a new railway line in Sydney incomparable with the rest of the network, and thought it was such a good thing repeated it with trams. One city, four rail gauges. Thanks Gladys

          All sydney trains are the same gauge or standard gauge. The incompatibility is actually in the carriages, most countries dont run double decker systems, the new north west is single level or metro style.

          Unfortunately double decker trains are shall we say troublesome when there are lots of people trying to move about and get on and off frequently because of the steps and distances and people int he way.

          5 NBN 'providers', all with their own fibre etc, and all of them crap.

          I think its more accurate to say they are all re-sellers. ALL of the main bits of NBN are owned by the au government, the only differences is of course who sends you and me the bill. The competition facade is a farce, i will agree there.

        • SydBoy on 08/08/2017 - 21:32

          @ninetyNineCents: sydney already has network for double decker trwin….govt. could have built bigger tunnel atleast incase in future they can accommodate bigger train…if needed….

          Decision to built metro is driven by liberal philosophy to privatise and screw-up working class public…!

        • ninetyNineCents on 08/08/2017 - 21:35
          -1

          @SydBoy:

          Decision to built metro is driven by liberal philosophy to privatise and screw-up working class public…!

          Well Labor has privatized just as many projects …

        • D C on 09/08/2017 - 00:48

          @SydBoy:

          govt. could have built bigger tunnel

          But that would require or at least imply competence.

    • Yotta00 on 07/08/2017 - 09:55
      +16

      NBN was going great (despite a few hiccups) before liberal gov molested the company, sack the board and replaced with their puppets and gave their telstra buddies a few bucks.

      • BartholemewH on 07/08/2017 - 14:22
        +2

        Not really, they didn't know their elbows from their a***holes from early on. I live in an NBN trial area. Getting a straight answer on anything was excruciating from the beginning. I don't agree with the Liberals' actions but it was never 'great' or even 'good'.

        • Yotta00 on 08/08/2017 - 07:06

          At least you have fttp, I am still on ADSL after two years fttn has been announced in my area. The reports in my area that has fttn has been terrible, the area is suffering from a 27hr drop out and it bearly reaches speeds above ADSL speeds. I am staying ADSL until they force me. Thanks to NBN the adsl exchange is uncongested and got rock stable speeds.

      • ninetyNineCents on 07/08/2017 - 19:45
        -2

        @Yotta00

        NBN was going great (despite a few hiccups) before liberal gov molested the company, sack the board and replaced with their puppets and gave their telstra buddies a few bucks.

        Going great says who ?

        How can it be going great when next to nobody had it ? Thats nobody to criticize and everybody was waiting for their turn.

    • DangerNoodle on 07/08/2017 - 19:34
      +2

      There is competition. I'm using nuskope wireless and getting a solid 30/5 connection with 9ms ping, no dropouts. For the first few weeks before they rebooted the connection, I was getting 80/40 so I know they do have potential if they let up on the capping a bit. That being said, uniti wireless sells speeds of up to 50mbps if you need it.

      Whilst it's not as high as the promised speeds of the nbn, these two companies do deliver on their speeds.

      At the rate the government has been going with their overblown expenses on their failed nbn attempts, they may have to privatise it in future to recoup their losses. Fttp would've been cheaper in the long run but politics have screwed it up.

    • mohan76 on 08/08/2017 - 15:49
      +1

      healthy competition want last for long , one will buy other :p

  • try2bhelpful on 06/08/2017 - 10:39
    +18

    Completely agree. The only beneficiaries of privatisation are the Government and the people who are getting the contracts. The customers, and tax payers, are victims. The prices go up and the Government says they have no control over what is happening. A similar thing happens when they Government decides to fire all their employees and bring in high priced consultants (or any organisation decides to do that). We are played for suckers by our Governments.

    Remember the last census debacle when they outsourced to IBM?

    • altomic on 06/08/2017 - 10:46
      +41

      consultant - "you can save $5,000,000 by firing 90 employees. The bill for my services is $6,000,000".

      Newspaper next day - "Government saves $5,000,000 through essential cut cutting".

    • Diji1 on 06/08/2017 - 12:37
      +12

      Exactly.

      When is the braindead Australian population going to wake the (profanity) up and stop voting for Liberal and Labour politicians who make these decisions to benefit the entities that pay them to do it?

      When are you going to stop putting the same parties back in power that have enslaved you with these utility prices because someone paid them to?

      When are you going to stop believing people that have continuously lied to you as they enslaved you?

      Do not vote Liberal or Labour if you want this bullshit to stop.

      • Baysew on 06/08/2017 - 12:42
        +4

        Who should we vote for?

        • fruit on 06/08/2017 - 17:57
          +5

          Scott Ludlum

        • Wystri Warrick on 06/08/2017 - 19:20

          Dave?

        • Kempe on 07/08/2017 - 10:40
          -3

          Vote for no one don't encourage the bastards

        • tryagain on 07/08/2017 - 12:55

          @fruit: You can't now, and he was one of the only reasons you would vote for that party.

        • fruit on 07/08/2017 - 16:19

          @Kempe: I see your graffiti around Sydney, please stop being an ass and defacing crap.

      • BertieBrown on 06/08/2017 - 18:10
        +4

        It's basically a matter of not enough people 'feeling the pinch'. It's easy to dunk your head in the sand and pretend like everything is OK if you're not necessarily directly affected by something.

      • TheBilly on 07/08/2017 - 12:57
        +1

        About half of human society is of average intellect. If you ponder this statement, then half of humanity will actually be more stupid than the most average person you have ever met. That's a lot of stupid.

        • airzone on 07/08/2017 - 14:07

          Most of the people I know who are below the line are so far below the line that they can offset many people above..

      • BartholemewH on 07/08/2017 - 14:24
        +1

        I voted for the Motoring Enthusiast Party and they got in lol. The two party preferred system is a joke.

        • smartazz104 on 07/08/2017 - 17:08
          +7

          They got in and we lost our automotive industry; careful about voting for the Sex Party…

      • RefusdClassification on 09/08/2017 - 01:01

        What is One Nation's stance on public infrastructure?

  • holdenmg on 06/08/2017 - 10:47
    +17

    I think the Qantas privatisation was a success.

    Airfares under the old duopoly were prohibitively high on many routes.

    • tonyjzx on 07/08/2017 - 10:44
      +3

      that's only a part story

      allowing virgin and jetstar and other (poor) competition on the domestic front

      and others on the international front

      as an aside, for a very short time in NSW when they deregulated CTP greenslips, prices fell quite sharply.

      Then they skyrocketed. That's NSW for you.

      • aong152 on 07/08/2017 - 14:20
        +1

        Jetstar is owned by qantas. But i agree that privatization of qantas was probably a good thing.

    • ninetyNineCents on 07/08/2017 - 19:47

      @holdenmg

      YOur comparing todays prices for interstate flights aganst the bad old days. International flights have also come down considerably. I would be confident to say state flights and overseas are pretty close to the same as they always were. What has improved is all prices have dropped.

  • mskeggs on 06/08/2017 - 11:41
    +14

    I'm going to say "Yes, but" or "No, however", and point out by talking about consumers you fall into the trap of narrowly examining the issue, because that is the way politics has framed it.

    I'm old enough to remember the first wave of privatisations.
    Prior to that, there were many, many organisations run a bit like Centrelink is now. Chronically poorly staffed, with the result that many workers were disengaged, but with powerful unions making it hard to make changes like sacking staff that were under performing (please don't take this as a dig at Centrelink staff, you guys are being starved out).
    The idea of what level of customer service was acceptable was dramatically lower across the whole public and private sphere. When the bank, post office, power, water, gas, telephone, rail, bus, airline, health insurer, landlord, hospital etc. were all offering dismal service, even the private businesses rarely lifted the bar.

    When businesses were privatised, they were strongly motivated to improve their performance. I'm sure some did so by incentivising great customer service, raising wages and making the business a great workplace. I know most just sacked the bad staff, and a bunch of others too. The remainder lived in fear and began lifting performance etc. working to short term metrics and KPIs, KRAs, NPS etc. that rewarded acting like a cog in a machine.
    Once things improved, the next step was to extract further 'savings' by screwing the staff and customers with the benefits flowing to the shareholders/owners, very often offshore.

    The result now is after a generation of this, we have broadly better service, a more precarious employment situation and money being harvested from the populace by international feudal lords.

    So the "consumer" if looked at in isolation, probably received some substantial direct benefits. Owners gained very substantially financially. And society (who are workers, neighbours, tax payers, citizens, not just idle consumers) largely ended up worse off.

    The political right ran the line that the only way to deliver the performance benefits was by changing ownership. The left presented little effective counter point, even privatising things themselves. The result is Australian society is poorer for it.

    • Diji1 on 06/08/2017 - 12:41
      +4

      Seriously?

      All I can remember is reasonable utility rates due to a non profit seeking government entity providing the utility service. So no complaining about rates.

      And I can remember no one complaining about customer service because there was no reason to engage with the entity providing the cheap services in the first place.

    • [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 09:22
      +7

      Bringing up Centrelink gave me a nightmareish vision. A privatised Centrelink would kill people (like what happened in England when a private company decided thousands of disabled people were fit for work and they all starved in their homes).

      • ninetyNineCents on 07/08/2017 - 19:48
        -5

        @Mnermner

        A privatised Centrelink would kill people (like what happened in England when a private company decided thousands of disabled people were fit for work and they all starved in their homes).

        You seem to forget that for every one of those victims forced to work there are literally hundreds of bludgers and scammers.

        • crentist on 07/08/2017 - 23:46

          source?

        • [Deactivated] on 08/08/2017 - 17:06

          Literally no.

        • ninetyNineCents on 08/08/2017 - 21:36
          -1

          @crentist:

          Do i really need to provide proof that there are centerlink scammers ?

        • crentist on 08/08/2017 - 22:50

          @ninetyNineCents: that there are literally hundreds more scammers than genuine recipients, yes please

        • syousef on 09/08/2017 - 08:51
          +3

          I'm sorry but how is it in your mind that people scamming the system justifies the death of the most vulnerable people the system is meant to protect???

        • ninetyNineCents on 09/08/2017 - 16:42
          -3

          @crentist:

          that there are literally hundreds more scammers than genuine recipients, yes please

          When did i mention any ratio of any kind between scammers and genuine ?

          Here is yet another example of someone who is dishonest. Whats the bet you or someone in your family is taking money from the public dishonestly ?

        • ninetyNineCents on 09/08/2017 - 16:43
          -2

          @syousef:

          I'm sorry but how is it in your mind that people scamming the system justifies the death of the most vulnerable people the system is meant to protect??

          When did i say that it did ?

          Private companies also run hospitals and many other institutions and services we all use.

          Whats the bet you want centerlink to be scammed for personal profit ?

        • syousef on 09/08/2017 - 16:51
          +2

          @ninetyNineCents:

          When did i say that it did ?

          When your response to "a private company decided thousands of disabled people were fit for work and they all starved in their homes" was to begin a rant about centerlink scammers.

          Private companies also run hospitals and many other institutions and services we all use.

          If you're so in love with privitised health care, may I suggest you move to the US. Make sure you take plenty of cash if you get sick.

          Whats the bet you want centerlink to be scammed for personal profit ?

          Bzzzt. Wrong. Slanderously so. Never taken a cent from Centerlink in my 42 years. Not planning on it anytime soon if I can help it.

        • ninetyNineCents on 09/08/2017 - 19:25
          -3

          @syousef:

          When your response to "a private company decided thousands of disabled people were fit for work and they all starved in their homes" was to begin a rant about centerlink scammers.

          Not every private company kills disabled people thru malice or anything. There are many private companies helping the sick and disabled today, hospitals, nursing homes and more. Its completely stupid to assume that if one more private company did something for the government people would die.

          M > Private companies also run hospitals and many other institutions and services we all use.

          S> If you're so in love with privitised health care, may I suggest you move to the US. Make sure you take plenty of cash if you get sick.

          M: Here we go again, i never ssaid i loved private companies in any function, i was only showing that the connection that ONE private company in the UK working with disabled means death if ONE company does something in australia is completely stupid.

          Its pretty sad you dont understand how stupid the original comment was…and to top it off you continue to put words in my mouth that i have never remotely implied or mentioned.

          Not once did i say i loved private companies all i said was they already have responsibiities for care in australia. One more isnt a disaster.

          M: Whats the bet you want centerlink to be scammed for personal profit ?

          S: Bzzzt. Wrong. Slanderously so. Never taken a cent from Centerlink in my 42 years. Not planning on it anytime soon if I can help it.

          M: Well its your money the scammers are taking, surely you admit theres thousands scamming the system. Strange that you dont seem worried about that but you continue to believe and fail to negate the stupid assertion that private companies and disabled or healthcare means tragic and numerous deaths.

        • syousef on 09/08/2017 - 20:27
          +2

          @ninetyNineCents:

          Nice long post that doesn't address a single one of my points.

          And I'd rather my hard earned money go to scammers than live in a country where people don't get basic care because the government is too tight.

        • crentist on 09/08/2017 - 23:23

          @ninetyNineCents: right here when you said this:
          "You seem to forget that for every one of those victims forced to work there are literally hundreds of bludgers and scammers."

          so am I dishonest for quoting your own words?

          you did not back up your own claim, denied it, and attacked me and my family. all I did was ask if you had a source, because I would be interested to see those figures
          given your response, unless you can provide any source I'll have to assume that you were making it up, and the denials and attacks are because you prefer to deflect from your hollow claim
          which, ironically, would be very dishonest

        • ninetyNineCents on 10/08/2017 - 20:16
          -2

          @syousef:

          And I'd rather my hard earned money go to scammers than live in a country where people don't get basic care because the government is too tight.

          Seems you dont know how to read, the original post never said disabled people wont care, it said disabled people might die because of the change.

        • ninetyNineCents on 10/08/2017 - 20:19
          -3

          @crentist:

          you did not back up your own claim, denied it, and attacked me and my family. all I did was ask if you had a source, because I would be interested to see those figures

          Do i really have to hold your hand… ?

          Are you really that stupid that you think there are only a dozen or two scammers around Australia ?

          Google for > dole bludger scammers australia

          Caboolture dole bludger capital of Australia | The Courier-Mail
          www.couriermail.com.au/…is…dole-bludger…/e1b2f0ef1634eaa1c65…
          Jun 12, 2017 - CABOOLTURE is the nation's dole bludger capital. With 387 people failing consistently to turn up to work-for-the-dole appointments or …

          Welfare con job: Thousands of Aussies reject job offers to stay on …
          www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/…/9406583ae629023af264e10028c…
          Dec 11, 2016 - 35,000 Australians are knocking back work to remain on welfare. … Only one in five dole bludgers were penalised by Centrelink, the rest getting …

        • crentist on 11/08/2017 - 00:30

          @ninetyNineCents:

          Are you really that stupid that you think there are only a dozen or two scammers around Australia ?
          When did I say a dozen or two? Or any numbers for that matter?
          This is almost the exact same dishonesty you just accused me of, I'll even go ahead and quote you again since it fits: "When did i mention any ratio of any kind between scammers and genuine?"

          And hey, more name calling, insulting language, yada yada. All because I asked if you could provide some information. Are you that offended by the prospect of an informed discussion? Or just incapable of being civil?

          As for your sources, 36,000 potential scammers is a lot, and those guys suck, no one is defending them. But that's about 5% of the people on Newstart, less than 5% of the people on disability allowance, and less than 1% of all people on income support payments.
          So did you mean hundreds more, or less?
          Or simply that we should be prepared to let anyone in need suffer until there are 0 scammers left?

        • ninetyNineCents on 11/08/2017 - 19:37
          -2

          @crentist:

          And hey, more name calling, insulting language, yada yada. All because I asked if you could provide some information. Are you that offended by the prospect of an informed discussion? Or just incapable of being civil?

          Stories about scammers are quite regular in all Australian media. Its almost impossible to have never seen such a story or even heard of someone somewhere in your life talk about it.

          Even more disturbing is that you didnt have the brains to even try googling for yourself.

          As for your sources, 36,000 potential scammers is a lot, and those guys suck, no one is defending them

          That one article gives an ONE example of 36k scammers. It never claims nor can it say these are the only scammers. Its just some, not all. The true number is of course not exactly known but if you bothered to read more articles its apparent there are clearly more than just those 36k.

          But that's about 5% of the people on Newstart, less than 5% of the people on disability allowance, and less than 1% of all people on income support payments.

          Its not just 36k scammers in all. its far more. Your 5% figure is not the full total.

          What would you say if the figure was say 50% ?

          Or simply that we should be prepared to let anyone in need suffer until there are 0 scammers left?

          When did i say or imply that ?

          Why are you inventing ideas that i have never remotely stated here. If i have QUOTE ME…

          Its dishonest and shameful of you to imply that i have said anything remotely close to that, because i havent. You should hang your head in shame.

    • gk0r on 06/08/2017 - 12:42
      +3

      is always good in a free economy

      I agree, however, there is one important qualifier. Who is it good for? Generally speaking, it is the offshore investors who seek to increase their profit margins.

      taxpayers are better of when bge are operating for profits by charging users rather than being subsidised by taxes.

      Here is the problem I have with these statements.
      * You assume that these business were operating at a loss prior to going private (which is not true for the majority of assets)
      * You draw false distinction between Australian Taxpayers and Australian Consumers as if they were different species. They are one in the same. Who pays for Electricity? Water? The same people who pay taxes. The only difference is the tax amounts are legislated and capped and all other expenses are not. Government cannot simply increase taxes by 20% because it feels like, Electricity and Gas companies can.

      An interesting read: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-06/accc-says-consumers-go…

      • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 12:53
        -1

        Who is it good for? Generally speaking, it is the offshore investors who seek to increase their profit margins.

        it's good for us. we pay taxes and we're investors. when mnc profit, we profit.

        • You assume that these business were operating at a loss prior to going private (which is not true for the majority of assets)

        we assume no such thing. what we want is to invest directly with the entity rather than by taxes.

    • Diji1 on 06/08/2017 - 12:44
      +18

      Paying more money for utilities is not better for tax payers.

      It's like you're brainwashed by politicians who sold you the garbage (because they were paid to) so you'd vote it in.

      • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 12:46
        +1

        we use, we pay.

        some taxpayers would rather have other taxpayers subsidise their usage.

        • Protato on 06/08/2017 - 13:10
          +2

          You're assuming providing utilities was a net loss for the government when it's not.

        • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 13:16
          +2

          @Protato:

          You're assuming providing utilities was a net loss for the government when it's not.

          we're not assuming that at all. it's our opinion that the government both federal and state should concentrate on governing.

        • try2bhelpful on 06/08/2017 - 18:37
          +4

          @whooah1979: WTF is "governing". I would much prefer to get something at a decent price and hold the Government's feet to the fire to deliver it. I'm probably better off under the current system because I am a shareholder in a number of companies but I think what they are doing is bollocks because a lot of people are worse off. Government should provide essential services at a decent price - not hand things we already owned over to private companies - who then increase the price dramatically and still expect the Government to stump up the money to provide the infrastructure. If increasing my taxes means I pay less money in the long run then go right ahead and raise them. I'm old enough to remember the connies on the trams (government was responsible for "public transport", when power was owned by the Government, when the GPO was in place, etc. It wasn't all wine and roses but it was certainly better than now. You only have to look at the insanity that is the cladding on a huge number of apartments across Melbourne to know that outsourcing the inspectors was a very bad idea.

        • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 18:50
          -1

          @try2bhelpful:
          What we mean is that they should legislate, collect taxes, stamp duty, fines and royalties.

          Assets that generates income should either be sold or leased so that we can get a share of the profits.

          The government is doing exactly what they should do.

        • try2bhelpful on 06/08/2017 - 18:56
          +3

          @whooah1979: They are absolutely doing what they shouldn't be doing. They are costing the average taxpayer much more than if they were providing us with the services themselves. The privatised companies need to make a profit on top of providing the service.
          Government is more than gathering money and creating legislation. They should be creating an environment that is the best they can for their constituents. Giving money to their mates is not doing this.

        • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 19:12
          +1

          @try2bhelpful:
          This is what's great about a democracy. don't like the current government's policies? vote for the other party at the next election.

        • [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 09:07
          +3

          @whooah1979: providing essential services is governing

        • carwashhair on 07/08/2017 - 10:47
          +2

          some taxpayers would rather have other taxpayers subsidise their usage.

          What - do you mean multinationals offshoring their profit to minimise taxes on huge revenues (or individuals using complex trust structures to do the same), while large corporations are in line for tax cuts and CGT discounts reduce individual taxes for those wealthy enough to invest in multiple properties - all while medicare levies are ratcheted up?

          I think I know who is subsidising who…

        • smartazz104 on 07/08/2017 - 17:10
          +1

          @whooah1979: | Assets that generates income should either be sold or leased so that we can get a share of the profits.

          Yeah how's that going for you?

        • syousef on 09/08/2017 - 08:54

          @whooah1979:

          Ah the lie of representation…
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0BuPgrBwHU

  • outlander on 06/08/2017 - 12:24
    -4

    The real benefit of privitisation is in reducing the number of items the government has to focus on. Speaking generally the power structure of democratic government is not well setup to manage multiple large complex things. Theoretically by reducing the number of things on the governments plate, although that privitised sector sees a loss it's made up for by increased performance in other sectors.

    You see this happen is business a fair bit, where a limping company gets a new director, and the first thing he does is shave away the non-core elements of the business. When that happens it's great for us, because there's a lot of discounts to be hard, but bad for them in the short term. Long term though the losses are recouped.

    • Diji1 on 06/08/2017 - 12:49
      +9

      But you're happily avoiding the reality which is that every consumer is worse off than previously in the most measureable way: they're paying more money for services than they did before. In fact our prices are the highest in the world.

      The opposite happened to what you just claimed is the benefits of privatisation. You're repeating the garbage that policiticans told (after being paid) you so you'd vote it in.

      • outlander on 06/08/2017 - 16:15

        I don't think you actually read what I wrote. I'm not on the side of privatization. Politicians would never say the things I've said because its a world of easily measured real negatives and hard to quantify imaginary positives. Simple minds want simple answers, and winning government in a democracy depends on simple minds.

      • chillin222 on 07/08/2017 - 22:00

        This is just not true at all. Prices for airline tickets, bank accounts and phone plans have fallen DRAMATICALLY since these industries were privatised.

    • ninetyNineCents on 07/08/2017 - 19:51

      The real benefit of privitisation is in reducing the number of items the government has to focus on

      NOnsense, most of the time the original reason the gov was in said business is because nobody else wanted it and because it was a monopoly. Selling a government monopoly and making it private is almost always a disaster. Electricity for example remains a monopoly, in the end we have many facades pretending too offer different or better deals but they arent. Everybody is still buying electricity of the same providers, all that has changed is the fancy letter we get asking for money.

      FOr all its evils, the government remains the best body in charge of ANY monopoly.

  • gk0r on 06/08/2017 - 12:30
    +14

    Privatisation is the process of converting a public asset (e.g. National Parks, Ports, etc) into offshore wealth that benefits foreign investors, often at a huge cost to Australia.

    Here is the thing that most people chose not to see when it comes to privatization. Large offshore conglomerates that end up buying largest portions of public assets do not do this out of the goodness of their hearts. They only do it for one reason, and one reason only, it is to make a profit. A huge profit in a protected industry. They rely on governments to continue to protect those industries and alleviate them from having to deal with competition. These deals only make sense to foreign investors when the profits are higher than what they can achieve in other industries and risk is lower than what they are currently dealing with. It's a win/win for them. The question is, who has to pay for this comfortable deal? It's the Australian consumers.

    As for service improvements, I would not chalk that up to privatization. Telstra was first listed on the ASX in 1999. Nearly 10 years later they still offered a "broadband plan" with 400MB (that's 0.4GB) of data allowance. The only reason they changed is because they were forced to and that has nothing to do with being either private or public organisation.

    • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 12:41
      -1

      Privatisation is the process of converting a public asset (e.g. National Parks, Ports, etc) into offshore wealth that benefits foreign investors, often at a huge cost to Australia.

      every australian with a super is an investor. we invest in overses mnc, and they in turn invest in our economy. we can't have one without the other.

      • gk0r on 06/08/2017 - 12:51
        +4

        every australian with a super is an investor.

        Yes

        we invest in overses mnc, and they in turn invest in our economy.

        No. First, your super is not managed by JP Morgan (https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/w…). Second, your super is either invested locally in Australia, or invested in international markets. Your super does not magically flow out of the country and then returns as foreign investment. That's not how it works.

      • Diji1 on 06/08/2017 - 12:52
        +4

        every australian with a super is an investor. we invest in overses mnc, and they in turn invest in our economy. we can't have one without the other.

        And that has what to do with privatising public assets?

  • airal3rt on 06/08/2017 - 15:45
    +9

    Is this a serious question?

    The state gives away long-term assets in exchange for a short-term cash injection - but hey, when they get kicked out at the next election or the one after that it won't be their problem the state doesn't have any more assets, at least they got to splash around the pittance they received in exchange for pissing away the state's future. Privatization is a moronic idea, somehow even worse in execution and should be criminal.

  • wd41 on 06/08/2017 - 16:08
    +4

    Yer, well done on Qantas. Although to a certain extent l think the benifits to the consumer are largely due to more competition.

    As for the others it seems any utility that is allowed to be run by a monopoly is akin to putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank!

  • cwongtech on 06/08/2017 - 16:18
    +17

    Liberals love to pawn off everything in the name of "Budget Repair" and then giving themselves a pat on the back because their own paycheck is fat and safe.
    Labor loves to try spend on people, then get blasted for spending money.

    People. Wake up. The Government isn't supposed to save money to invest in term deposits so the bank balance looks high and do jack all.
    Money is good for nothing if its not being used for anything.
    The Government is there to ensure the building blocks of the future are there.

    Clearly Liberals aren't doing very well when it comes to building things.. the only things they build are three-word slogans and the amount of sales they can get to boost the bank balance.

    • whooah1979 on 06/08/2017 - 17:37
      -1

      The score is 6:4 with lib in front. Put alp in power and their are sure to even the score.

    • [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 09:14
      +4

      The liberals are incompetent at everything but talking themselves up. I don't understand how people get fooled, like, they hear the word economy, or stop the boats and somehow think the liberals are doing a good job. I guess they have most of the newspapers on their side so it makes sense they can influence opinion so well

    • ninetyNineCents on 07/08/2017 - 19:53
      -2

      Liberals love to pawn off everything in the name of "Budget Repair" and then giving themselves a pat on the back because their own paycheck is fat and safe.
      Labor loves to try spend on people, then get blasted for spending money.

      You do realise that spending money has to have limits ?

      Clearly Liberals aren't doing very well when it comes to building things.. the only things they build are three-word slogans and the amount of sales they can get to boost the bank balance.

      Its obvious you are a labor supporter… i take it you or someone you know has their hand out ?

      • cwongtech on 11/08/2017 - 01:28

        You do realise that spending money has to have limits ?

        Yeah, so we need to privatise healthcare, raise university fees, not improve the public transport system, or better infrastructure (like the NBN), but we have enough money for more submarines towards Building a great nation.

        If the Liberals didn't sell off Telstra, the NBN would not be needed in the first place

        When it comes to expenditure on the citizens, it's clearly a waste of money, but when it comes to defending our great nation.. from.. small boats of refugees.. we need to buy a few submarines just to make sure they get the message /s

        You do realise spending has to have limits and reason for the future?

        Is it wise to spend your money on weapons to ensure your neighbours never rob you, or to buy them lunch to keep the peace?

        Its obvious you are a labor supporter… i take it you or someone you know has their hand out ?

        I haven't got a single hand out.
        I've had a hand in paying taxes though.
        Taxes that seem to go to $5000 helicopter rides for a party..cough business meeting cough…

        • ninetyNineCents on 11/08/2017 - 19:30
          -1

          Cwongtech: If the Liberals didn't sell off Telstra, the NBN would not be needed in the first place

          What utter rubbish, does it really matter who is officially doing the NBN work ?

          Somebody had to give the company tasked with NBN the billions, telstra even if it was public would never have the funds to start the project.

          CW: When it comes to expenditure on the citizens, it's clearly a waste of money, but when it comes to defending our great nation.. from.. small boats of refugees.. we need to buy a few submarines just to make sure they get the message /s

          Submarines have nothing to do with refugee boats. No where in the world are subs used to stop any sort of non military boat.

          You really dont understand how the big world works. THe amount of nonsense coming out of your mouth is embarrassing.

        • cwongtech on 11/08/2017 - 21:14

          @ninetyNineCents:

          What utter rubbish, does it really matter who is officially doing the NBN work ?

          Telstra isn't doing the work. NBN is paying them access for the pits. Maybe you should check your facts.
          Something that would not be needed had Telstra been still under the Government. Privatisation of a Government entity responsible for communications infrastructure in a market with no competition.
          What could possibly go wrong!?

          You really dont understand how the big world works. THe amount of nonsense coming out of your mouth is embarrassing.

          Ah yes, but apparently you do. Lots of positive reinforcement on your comments by the way, almost every comment of yours is positive.
          I don't claim to be a know it all, but you do.

          The Government's purpose is not to make money primarily, it's purpose is to serve the people, to ensure the economic stability of the country and its future.

          I don't want my taxes to go towards someone's $5000 helicopter rides. Please justify the need for that action.

        • ninetyNineCents on 12/08/2017 - 18:20
          -1

          @cwongtech:

          Telstra isn't doing the work. NBN is paying them access for the pits. Maybe you should check your facts.

          Well Telstra has been maintaining those pits and the rest of the system for a long time. What else did you expect ?

          A lot of other equipment and work has gone into the NBN system, just owning the pits isnt everything…

          Ah yes, but apparently you do. Lots of positive reinforcement on your comments by the way, almost every comment of yours is positive.
          I don't claim to be a know it all, but you do.

          Wrong again. I criticize your comments because you simplify things knowing full well that any system isnt that simple. I present your comments about telstra and NBN paying for access as an example. Lets pretend the NBN didnt pay telstra, someone still had to pay for everything else.

          I don't want my taxes to go towards someone's $5000 helicopter rides. Please justify the need for that action.

          Neither do i, again you are being silly here. Im not defending every action from the government, im just trying to be practical about how the real world works. Pretending that if telstra was never sold, we would have the NBN today for free without the billons of dollars provided by the government is just silly. Over all those years, Telstra has never made profits that would cover the cost of the NBN.

        • cwongtech on 12/08/2017 - 18:50

          @ninetyNineCents:

          Pretending that if telstra was never sold, we would have the NBN today for free without the billons of dollars provided by the government is just silly

          We wouldn't need a separate entity buying back what was sold.
          Privatisation of infrastructure without any agreed future direction or competition, that's just giving a monopoly to the private sector that was and is still critical for the future.

          The NBN is not just about better communications infrastructure, it would have allowed certain roles to work from home, decreasing the need for the daily commute and thus alleviating some traffic.

          It would have helped decentralise the CBD. There are many flow on effects.

          I'm not disagreeing about privatisation of a government entities where appropriate but clearly selling off a monopoly on infrastructure is not a wise choice, especially when it is so critical to the future.

          The proceeds of the telstra sell off had no initial direction either. The Liberal government sold it for the sake of selling it at the time.

        • ninetyNineCents on 12/08/2017 - 18:57
          -1

          @cwongtech:

          We wouldn't need a separate entity buying back what was sold.

          We arent, the NBN Is a lot more than just buying access back to some pits. A lot of new equipment and cabling has been installed. Surely you can understand that, the access costs to those pits is a minor part of the total equation.

          Privatisation of infrastructure without any agreed future direction or competition, that's just giving a monopoly to the private sector that was and is still critical for the future.

          I agree with this comment. I dont agree with you implying that all the NBN money is going to telstra (i hope im wrong ab out that).

          The NBN is not just about better communications infrastructure, it would have allowed certain roles to work from home, decreasing the need for the daily commute and thus alleviating some traffic.

          I dont know why you are telling me about benefits of the NBN, this has nothing to do with your nonsense about paying telstra for the NBN.

          It would have helped decentralise the CBD. There are many flow on effects.

          Well perhaps you should tell the gov (if you live in Sydney) to stop the tunnelling and all the metro nonsense in the Sydney CBD. For the cost of all those buildings and the tunnelling you could build a CBD twice as big in newcastle. Im not sure if you have the same idea but i do agree with the waste.

          The proceeds of the telstra sell off had no initial direction either. The Liberal government sold it for the sake of selling it at the time.

          Well you can thank all the dole bludgers and refugees for that. Unfortunately the bill for those two groups of people never stops and believe it or not the money has to come from somewhere…

  • fruit on 06/08/2017 - 17:56
    +3

    LMAO why bother even making this forum post. No one, even the Liberals themselves think privatisation helps consumes. Liberals just claim is does.

    • try2bhelpful on 06/08/2017 - 18:38
      +1

      Maybe to drag the monster out into the open.

    • [Deactivated] on 07/08/2017 - 09:16
      +3

      Honestly I was expecting there to be more supporters of privatisation here. It's really heartening, so in my eyes it was worth it

  • baz3189 on 07/08/2017 - 07:46
    +3

    From what I've seen, privatisation is a means for the government to say 'look how much money we have, aren't we great economic managers'

    Benefits rarely come from this approach given it's all about making money and no one gives a shit about anything else in business. Please your shareholders and cut as many costs as possible to achieve it.

  • Peck on 07/08/2017 - 09:10
    +1

    Short Term Gain for the budget bottom line or for pork barrelling. Long Term Pain to the population.

  • dealman on 07/08/2017 - 09:48
    +2

    Governments should get out of everything apart from infrastructure, law and order and defence, Medicare and selected things critical for the nation.

    Everything else is better managed though private industry and maintaining a healthy competition.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join