If the unions get off their knees, privatisation can be stopped

The reason that privatisation of public assets is bad is that instead of encouraging the 'innovation' and 'expertise' trumpeted by government PR, all it does is set up a cosy arrangement between private operators and the government bureaucracy, where both parties have an incentive to collude against the public's best interests. Profits become the main reason for continuing, not management of public funds to provide a public service. In the operator's case an aim is to minimise its costs, and in the bureaucracy's case to protect the government from political damage. Jeff Kennett started privatisation in Victoria as an 'easy way out' of debt. He privatized public transport, electricity, favoured private education by cutting funding to schools, closed a lot of schools, and other public services. But then people realise he didn't get rid of the debt. He just let someone else take over these things so there's no debt. And now we are paying more while the government says they are in 'surplus'. Some government activities may be unsuited to outsourcing. It means we have a "skills shortage" due to lack of apprenticeships and jobs. A decade after the Kennett privatisation push - which extended to hospitals, prisons and toll roads - the radical changes are showing mixed and questionable results. Public debt was cut from a crippling 30 per cent of Victoria's gross domestic product to 1 per cent. The problem is that there has been very little independent evaluation of the real benefits or otherwise that have resulted from privatisation in Victoria. Victoria's state debt was slashed, and history has shown the Kennett government negotiated exceptional prices for many of the assets sold. Most of the private investors that bought assets have subsequently struggled to generate an acceptable return on them. Fifty-thousand public servants were retrenched in the privatisation process. As well, 350 government schools were closed, 7,000 teaching jobs removed. At the same time, reforms were made in state education including self-management, increased use of technology and greater emphasis on literacy and numeracy skills. The government forced through amalgamations of local councils, and also reduced their powers. The social cost of the Kennett reforms was considered high by many commentators, academics and those who suffered economically and provoked a campaign of demonstrations by trade unions and community groups. The government's sharp cuts to government services were particularly resented in country Victoria, The 1999 election meant that the Liberals lost 13 seats to Labor, most of them in regional centres such as Ballarat and Bendigo, and to three Independents in rural areas. Maybe Anna Bligh should take a lesson from Victoria's history!

Could not agree with you more James. I am utterly against the privitization policies of Anna Bligh. My attempts to draw attention to my concerns about her asset sale policies failed, but I will persist. I remain seriously concerned and believe that this particular Head of Government should be urgently replaced within the Labour Party. The Council of Australian Governments needs to have a different Queensland representative on it. I have concerns about energy policy in several States including Victoria, Queensland, NSW, ACT and South Australia. These concerns are closely associated with policies for disaggregation and sale of assets, property development and asset management practices that are common practice but not necessarily consistent with a range of laws already in place and those proposed, including generic laws, tenancy laws, owners’ corporations provisions; trade measurement provisions (proposed and pending lifting of remaining utility exemptions). In the case of Queensland certain warranties and assurances were made to purchasers of both contestable and uncontestable assets. See Energy (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 2006 reported in Hansard 11 and 12 October 2006, and the warranties and guarantees made during the sale and disaggregation of energy assets. See the Queensland Auditor-General's 2007 Report with emphasis on energy asset sales and policies. Today I had occasion to write to the Prime Minister drawing attention in the first place to dissatisfaction with the governance and accountability of Anna Bligh as Premier of Queensland, copying that correspondence to other including the Queensland Auditor General. Though the Queensland matters are in some ways unique there are similarities with regard to the adoption and application of certain policies that also apply to other States including Victoria. I will elaborate further at a future stage. There seems to be nationwide dissatisfaction with the governance and accountability of Anna Bligh as Queensland Premier and a member of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). Dissatisfaction with Anna’ Bligh’s governance and accountability appears to be reaching feverish levels despite some supporters. Something needs to be done to stem the ebbing confidence in the current Government. Last night I read an article online published by Inside Story.com authored by Jane Goodall, an independent writer and Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Arts, University of Southern Queensland. The article pictures Julia Gillard as Prime Minister beside the Queensland Premier Anna Bligh. I endorse the succinct views expressed by Stephen Le Page as follows: Hate campaign”?…”Media vilification”? Because Bligh is a female politician? Hardly. Most -if not all – the criticism is being leveled at someone unable to come up with realistic policies. The Labor government in Queensland is tired and Bligh seems unable to cope with the challenges. It has nothing to do with gender and it is a pity Goodall discloses her own bias right at the end of an otherwise balanced article. http://inside.org.au/the-bligh-factor/ My attempt to respond to the article awaits moderation. Perhaps it was censored. I am keen to provide some public feedback and also to alert the Prime Minister and Jane Goodall personally as to my concerns. I share the view that the otherwise worthy article was compromised when the author revealed her biases. In addition I am copying this for the attention of the Queensland Auditor-General who will undoubtedly recall his 2007 report and reservations expressed therein. There has been long-standing unrest about Anna Bligh and her policies, especially with regard to her privitization schemes and accountability. Many would like to see a different leader in Queensland. When can the public expect that? On November 2009 in an article entitled “Anna Bligh admits failure to communicate” Andrew Fraser had reported in The Australian that Ms Bligh has been under strong attack from unions as well as the Liberal National Party (LNP) over the asset sale program. Fraser reported on Bligh’s concession that that “she could have better explained her government’s decision to sell $15 billion worth of state assets. I am not of the view that there is room to place any confidence in Anna Bligh's decision-making processes. Perhaps the new Prime Minister will see fit to address widespread and long-standing concerns about governance and decision-making in Queensland. I would be extremely sorry to see Anna Bligh remain in politics - anywhere. It is more than time for someone else to take her place within the Labour Party. I cannot possibly support her decisions, especially the manner in which she has handled the sale and disaggregation of energy and other assets. There is nothing new in concerns about accountability under Anna Bligh's governance. Her policies regarding disaggregation of public assets without any due regard for minimal levels of accountability have been topics of heated discussion since she took the charge and well before that during her time as Treasurer and Minister for Mines and Energy. See for example decisions associated with the inappropriate sale and disaggregation of energy assets under the Energy Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Bill 2006, which was rushed through the Queensland Parliament on 11 and 12 October in the face of considerable opposition. As to the inappropriate “bulk hot water policies” adopted in Queensland and in other states, apparently violating the fundamental principles of government and non-government owned monopolies – that is another story – see my widely published material within the public consultation arena. Otherwise contact me directly to ascertain what the concerns are about. At a larger scale, these policies as adopted are contributing significantly towards detriments and alleged flaunting of existing legislative provisions including under s47 (exclusive dealings) of the Trade Practices Act 1974, which will be renamed Consumer and Competition Policy 2010 when all amendments are complete. I have uncovered rorts and inappropriate market conduct, specially within the energy arena, associated with policies perceived to be grossly flawed and am in the midst of exposing some of these practices with particular reference to Victoria’s “bulk hot water policies” as impacting adversely on large sectors of the community. I have already extensively published on this issue in the course of my public consultation participation. Many issues that have repeatedly been raised with the AER, ACCC, AEMC, MCE, AEMO, and other arenas, and though much of that material is re-submitted in the context of further material that has come to light, I make yet another attempt to call attention to my concerns, not only from the perspectives of residential tenants, but also that of many Owners’ Corporation entities (Bodies Corporate) who either occupy as owner occupiers or lease out their property to tenants; as well as those of shop-owners and many others who are apparently frequently exploited by practices and policies adopted by market participants, either licenced or unlicenced, including “metering data service providers” (MDS), property developers and others who see room in the marketplace for practices that should not be condoned. The national energy laws and rules have failed to appropriately clarify matters that will continue to facilitate rorts and misinterpretations as well as unacceptable conduct. The AER is on the brink of further facilitating the granting of exemption licences in the on-selling associated with alleged sale and supply of gas and electricity. Water meters are effectively posing as gas and electricity meters, whilst licenced and unlicenced providers normally known as “Metering Data Providers” are purporting to sell energy in caloric value, where for sale of goods , generic and energy laws the term energy means either gas or electricity. Many States mimicked Victoria’s inappropriate ‘bulk hot water policies” policies adopted in 2007, with Queensland adopting these discrepantly to most others, but in all cases the practices are unacceptable in terms of policy, consumer and business protection and compliance with various laws. Refer to Arrow Asset Management Case reported by Gary Bugden, Barrister I repeat: Queensland needs a new Leader for the Labour Party. When can the public expect at least that - and beyond that more responsible public policies generally? Madeleine Kinston Concerned Australian Voter [email protected]