nsw politics
6 May 2008
Good Idea, Crappy Execution
ALP insider and privatisation proponent Kirk McKenzie gives the scoop on the policy and personalities behind the controversial Labor Conference debate
Just what is it about privatisation and the Labor Party? Whenever a Labor government, either State or Federal, expresses an interest in selling anything, an outcry develops. The rivers will run red with blood, one tonne hailstones will fall out of the sky and card-carrying Party members are heard to say things such as, "I will never forgive Keating for the sale of the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas."The fact that both organisations had huge capital needs which could not, as a matter of priority, responsibly be outlayed by a Labor Government, does not seem to occur to them.
The debate at the NSW Labor Conference on the weekend therefore seemed to me a combination of Groundhog Day and a nasty family dispute.
As the chair of the NSW Branch's Finance and Economic Policy Committee, it is my task to present a report to the conference on economic matters, which apart from exciting the interest of a few ambitious zealots straining to move amendments, usually encourages an exodus to the canteen for a coffee.
This year was different. The opponents of the Iemma Government's plans to partially privatise the electricity industry were to move an amendment to our report calling on the government to abandon those plans.
Former Premier Barrie Unsworth kicked off the debate in support of the Government and I was due to present the report next. A few minutes before I had been asked to keep my speech to a couple of minutes due to time constraints, which I took as a gentle hint that no one would be interested in what I had to say.
One thing I do know however is the detail of NSW Labor's privatisation policy set out in the "Platform", having drafted the most recent amendments to that policy in the Economic section of the document.
I therefore proceeded to tell a startled conference that the Iemma Government's decision to lease the State's coal-fired power generators was consistent with, and not in breach of, the current State Platform, a copy of which had been supplied to each conference delegate in their conference materials. This went over quite well but jeering commenced when I suggested it was not the role of the NSW Conference to govern NSW, this being the responsibility of elected MPs who had already approved the privatisation.
A full-on debate then ensued. In one corner you had the unions, led by the avuncular and courteous Bernie Riordan, the State President, who also doubles as Secretary of the Electrical Trades Union. Riordan has been critical of the State Government, claiming it does not pay enough attention to the decisions of the Annual Conference of the NSW Party. I think that is a fair criticism.
Joining him on this issue was the determined, fearless John Robertson, head of Unions NSW, who has turned that previously faction-ridden body into a united force.
In another corner was the Premier, Morris Iemma, a quick-witted rather humorous individual in person, but whose public utterances are often stilted and appeal more to conservative working class mums and dads than middle-class Labor/union activists.
At his right hand was another character altogether, Treasurer Michael Costa. Costa is an excitable, creative, driving individual who hates wearing ties and was kicked out of the Labor Party in 1979 after Peter Costello (yes, that Peter Costello) found out that he was a member of the Socialist Workers Party in addition to the ALP. However, the hard left ideas have long been replaced by a free market disdain for privilege or rent-seeking.
In a third corner were the non-union faction leaders. Karl Bitar is the new general secretary - a friendly, watchful individual who is the real meat-in-the-sandwich in this debate. His traditional role is to provide rock hard support for an incumbent State Labor Government, but in this situation his loyalties are divided. The base of his Centre Unity (Right) faction are the trade unions lined up against the Government. As the result of a power sharing arrangement, one of the two assistant general secretaries in NSW is Luke Foley, the nominee of the "Socialist Left" - although in NSW the adjective is hardly used. Bitar and Foley usually cooperate well, but Foley's supporters' strong opposition to privatisation made his life difficult over the weekend.
Speaker after speaker stepped to the microphone. The Premier had spoken earlier in the day. He had put his case in a simple, understandable fashion, but without the cut-through passion which the best orators can employ. He wisely stayed out of the debate that followed, leaving the heavy lifting to his Right faction supporters in Cabinet. The exception was Deputy Premier John Watkins, a Left-winger, who spoke strongly with a persuasive speech in favour of the government line. Among Government supporters, there were murmurs of "good to see this", affirming the Right's view of Watkins as a respected factional opponent who has the difficult task of not appearing too conservative, too often to his own grouping.
At 6:30pm, the normal finishing time of the conference for the day, the debate was still in full flight and passions mounted. Sitting behind the speakers at the stage microphone, I reflected on the frankness of the speeches and wondered where else in the democratic world you could hear a long public debate like this. When the short, bespectacled figure of Michael Costa grabbed the lectern with both hands, there was a real air of expectation.
The whole conference wanted him to do well, knowing that his excitable nature, overlayed by the effects of his bipolar disorder, sometimes prevents his best performances. Regrettably, he went over the top and did not make a good impression. I sensed a disappointment, even among the majority who love to hate him.
It was well known that the vote would be a defeat for Iemma even before the debate started. After Costa's unrestrained performance though, there was no doubt it was going to be a crushing defeat.
At the end of the vote, it was my role to speak briefly in reply. I told the conference that three of the four amendments were acceptable to the committee. The main amendment moved by John Robertson was a resolution cast as an amendment of the report. It did not attempt to amend the Platform of the Party - not surprisingly because Platform amendments require 4 weeks notice. This subtlety may have been lost on most delegates, but not on me. Reading it, I realised that not being a Platform amendment, it would not have the binding status of a Platform inclusion.
It has never been seriously suggested that ordinary resolutions of conference which do not become part of Platform are binding on the State Government. There are some State ministers who do not even concede that the Platform is binding - I could give you an example of a current minister who in recent times has conducted a public campaign against a crystal-clear Platform plank.
I told the conference the committee would put no position on the Robertson amendment but would leave it to the conference to make its decision. I added just before I sat down that I noted it was not a Platform amendment, and that in my view, it was not binding on the Iemma Government.
It had been a tough debate and I felt it was a fairly obvious point.
As I sat down however, all hell broke loose. A senior Left-winger on the stage blew his cool and directed a tirade of abuse in my direction. It slowly dawned on me that the Party officers may have done some sort of deal to disguise the nature of the amendment to the conference, possibly to bring some greater resolution to the debate. If so, they had not told our committee.
A count was taken and the decision of the conference, ordinary resolution or not, was emphatic with a 702 to 107 vote. The delegates did not want privatisation.
It may sound arrogant to say so, but I think this decision is wrong. The NSW Government has a desperate need for funds and does not wish to borrow them. The Iemma Government has a fine record of increasing infrastructure spending and I see absolutely no reason in principle why they should not lease power stations to get the money to complete the job.
What possible good reason is there for opposing mere leases when two power stations have already been leased? Is anyone suggesting that those leases be cancelled? Of course not.
Even a kindergarten Marxist should know that control is much more important than ownership. That the State Government will retain control of this industry in an iron grip is clear. There is no issue that cannot be fixed by negotiation and the arguments about employment loss are nonsense.
Make no mistake: this is a struggle about union power. There is nothing wrong with unions. I have been a union member for 30 years and strongly oppose the diluting of union influence in the Labor Party. However, that influence must be exercised responsibly.
Iemma is right, but he's made a hash of selling the decision so far. If he wants to bring this thing off, he and his ministers, Right and Left, must tour Party branches. They should talk to members directly and thereby earn back the respect they have lost by seeming to ignore the views of those who last year worked so hard to re-elect them in NSW, and to throw out the Howard Government nationally.
Give them that respect, Morris, and you will get it back in spades.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
While private investment should be considered as a possible solution to the increasing power demands we face there is no reason why the government could not welcome it while abiding by conferences decision not to privatise (quack) the current state owned generators. While I don’t know the details I was told on Sunday that NSW already has 2 privately owned peak power generators and uses private power from other states in some areas. Private investment for new generators should not be conflated with private ownership of current generators. Keeping a certain level of generation in public hands means not only will the government be able to control prices through regulation but more directly through pricing of the significant portion of generation that would be state owned. Solutions to our current problems are possible within the current framework.
The other issue that was brought up was the need to sell power in order to fund health, education and roads, which I think we can all agree was nothing more than a cynical tug at the heartstrings. Logically the continued income of 1.5 billion a year is easily preferable to 10 billion now, especially considering it keeps the dirtiest power stations in our hands while we can bring in stricter standards for how clean new generators must be.
When you told me on Sunday about the abuse you copped I was sure it meant a deal had been struck, but looking back you were quite confrontational in the way you informed conference that it wasn’t binding and in your exchange with Doug Cameron, so that probably upgraded some stern words into the tirade you received. Judging by what was going on throughout Sunday I’m not sure if anyone knew exactly what deals had been struck with whom. Interesting times ahead.
In most democratic organisations the general assembly has the power to make it’s own process. I find this article quite hair splitting really. The headline is even more disappointing.
A good idea?
What gives you the impertinence to second guess heroic public finance experts like Professor Bob Walker and former NSW treasury official Betty Con Walker, as published in the Sydney Morning Herald in late March 08:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/electricity-inquiries-show-no-spark/2…
"There are other elements of the electricity privatisation inquiries that need questioning. Neither the Owen nor the Unsworth report presented a hard-nosed analysis of how much more electricity capacity the state would need, and when.
Instead they outlined a crude wish-list based on even cruder estimates of investment costs. For example, the Owen report cited the scary figure of $15 billion as the amount of extra investment needed, but if you look closely, this figure covered the cost of building no less than eight new power stations, retrofitting coal-fired generators and investing $2 billion in gas, yet the same report emphasised the need for only one more power station by 2013-14. It is clearly within the capacity of the state-owned energy agencies to fund the construction of one new power station. Indeed, they invested $1.8 billion in new plant and equipment in 2006-07."
Then there is Keating in the SMH today: "[in 1997} the power stations were worth $35 billion. A decade later the price discussion for the same stations is about $15 billion. That is, $20 billion in lost value; $20 billion that could have been spent on education, health and vital new infrastructure. A vast sum even by national government standards."
John Kaye MP (Greens) and Phd in electrical engineering no less stated today this was "deeply misleading"."Mr Keating has conveniently ignored the billions of dollars in the low and high voltage network that then Premier Carr wanted to sell off and was included in the $35 billion price tag. "He has wiped out the value of 12,440 km of high voltage transmission lines owned by Transgrid. "He has written down to zero the $10.9 billion assets of the state’s electricity distributors, including 2.2 million power poles and the 169 thousand substations. [end quote].
Under s.52 and state equivalents of the Trade Practices Act (Commonwealth) it is illegal to engage in conduct that is misleading and deceptive in the course of business. There may be an exemption for news reportage. However we feel that Keating may be in breach of the law of the land as regards honest business practice. Certainly if he repeats these statements outside the newspaper he will be, and he may still have done so. I do believe this is a case for the ACCC to investigate as the corporate watchdog.
In fact I’ve formally reported him to the ACCC on their electronic form late this afternoon.
What we see here, no more or less, it the expose of the spiv Labor seeking to draw down for their personal career and enrichment the profit centres in the power industry and disown the cost centres in the poles and wires. It really is as simple as that - just like the heavy rail to Bondi by Lend Lease/Macquarie Bank in 1997 was about annexing the highly profitable 380 bus service which cross subsidised the rest of the bus services in Sydney actually. Privatise the profit centre and socialise the cost.
How stupid do you think the collective NSW citizenry are. It’s no accident the front page of the SMH ran the irregular and systemic failure of the electoral donation system last Saturday. Dishonestly is a culture that is creeping through all govt policy including discussion of privatisation here.
Good idea? You’ve got to be joking. All the revenue will go into a $5B truck tunnel under Marrickville spewing ventilation stacks and leukemia onto its citizens just to service super jumbo container tankers at a dredged Port Botany. People like Michael Easson (the ABC repeatedly reports today with no declaration of former directorship within Macquarie Infrastructure constellation of companies, or current big property development gigs) are similarly grotesquely financially conflicted.
Everyone knows Roozendaal and Tripodi barracking for this were behind the branch stacks in Wollongong and where that ended up. How really stupid you must think we all are, including the ALP rank and file.
And no credit to New Matilda for giving this grub a platform either, without an equally prominent no case (not just sign in comments):
More here:
http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/blog/index.blog/1811645/paul-keati…
http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/blog/index.blog/1811561/public-ene…
http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/blog/index.blog/1811557/public-ene…
http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/blog/index.blog/1811545/burma-cycl…
http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/blog/index.blog/1811533/public-ene…
Good article Kirk, and the best explanation of the issues I’ve read so far. The problem with wheeling out Costa on any issue is that I suspect most people will instinctively oppose anything he advocates.
It is a sad indictment of the state of parliamentary democracy in NSW that someone like him has managed to bully his way into such a position of power.
"Make no mistake: this is a struggle about union power."
How many of those 702 no votes were branch delegate votes and not part of the direct union vote?
The NSW government has a mandate NOT to privatise electricity as this was an election promise. Surveys indicate an overwhelming majority of NSW voters do not want this privatisation to go ahead.
Why do NSW ALP governments always have the whiff of corruption about them whether it’s actually deserved or just the perception?
I am not sure who you are veridis but it was not Doug Cameron that abused me.
Also I did not respond at all to the abuse - that came from a colleague who resented what he saw as a hypocritical stance - talking up the Platform and then attacking someone who was defending both the process of changing it and the government for having adhered to it.
By the way after the debate and since I have received a lot of support from party colleagues including cuurent ministers, unionists and left-wingers, none of whom said the point was wrong.
I do not seek to denigrate the strong rejection by the conference of the gov/t decision - but it has to be seen for what it is - a retrospective denunciation of the Platform.
Kirk McKenzie
I agree with Tom McLaughlin. Privatization is NOT a good idea! Never has been, never will be, when the thing being privatized is a Public Utility, and can give monopoly rights to the buyer. I think of Telstra, also, when I say this.
But this whole bloody thing is about private greed. As far as I can see, all of the backers of this thing either have a private financial interest in it going ahead, or have been bamboozled, blackmailed or backed into doing so. Bob Carr is bleating on again in The Mass Meeja today, just hope he is telling people that his employer likely stands to gain massively from the sale.
How about a bit more honesty here, and less gullibility.
How about more Media outlets telling it like it is, not being a PR body for the Costa/Carr/Iemma etc. clique, and their Big Business backers.
Dazza.
Morris Iemma front of the press today 7 May 08, and outside caucus room yesterday as per tv vision last night. All smiles like a man whose hanging has been postponed possibly to be cancelled, possibly not: Iemma and backers are claiming ‘peace in our time’. Echoes of Neville Chamberlain?"
on string for Alex Mitchell, veteran Fairfax now crikey writer report:
‘Conflicted Keating’s retro-analysis does him no favours" May 6 2008
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080506-Keatings-retro-analysis-does-…
because it’s only the 5th estate blogosphere which is really flushing out the issues as discipline/supplement on the revolving door between Govt and 4th estate (more shame them).
The unions formed to protect themselves from the greed of unscrupulous employers and companies. They then formed the Labour Party to make sure that all laws passed didn’t benefit the landed gentry and the companies so that the working class had a say in how the profits of our labour were distributed.
Current Labor constantly slags off at the unions and wants to sell everything that isn’t nailed down. How come Labor believes the market is so bereft of greed now? Joseph Stiglitz said that the reason you couldn’t see the invisible hand of the market is because it doesn’t exist.
If the current crop of Labor luminaries think that the unions and the government are now both irrelevant then they should get out and give a go to someone who does give a damn about leaving some control in the hands of the people, or else join the Liberals.
Where are the details? What regulations will apply? How strictly will they be monitored? How much say will the Govt have in the operations of private companies? Will we be dealing with foreign companies? What pricing protections will be put in place to ensure the affordability of essential services? What will the Govt contracts say? What happens if there is a breach…who pays what and in what circumstances? What do the citizens of NSW want and have they been properly consulted?
How can anyone make an informed decision about this issue in the absence of detailed information. Not unnaturally people will speculate about the motives of the Govt in the absence of seeing the details.
A simple ‘trust us’ policy does not wash and nor should it.
Here in Victoria, we’ve been through this.
Kirk, arguments about employment loss are not nonsense. Thousands of jobs were lost, contracted out and/or went offshore. Even today, 16 years later, workers in some of the privatised companies are still fighting it out to hang on to working conditions that the companies are trying to take off them.
Just after the recent storms here in Victoria, thousands of homes were left without electricity for days, some up to a week. People with memories stretching back to pre privatisation were all comparing how inadequate the current services are compared to then.
I don’t understand the criticism of the unions’ opposition to this, particularly as it’s being reported in the press. If the unions are concerned, they have a right to be concerned if workers and the public are going to be adversely affected. And they will be.
I expect unions to stand up for their constituents. That’s what they’re supposed to do. And that’s what the Labor Party should be doing as well.
Let’s reduce this to the central issue… the vast majority of NSW citizens oppose the privatisation of electricity, so the subject is now closed. Or we should announce democracy is over and Morris should impose his will. But if we go down this road, we can no longer legitimately use the word democracy. So what is NSW’s new political status? Fascism? Dictatorship? Oligarchy?
Ahhh, I’m just joking. You could take you pick of any of these and pin the title on any parliament in Australia ever since Bob Hawke took over the people’s party. So go for it, Duce Iemma.
The neo-liberals in Labor do not represent me. I’m a non-unionist who is against the sale of the electricity sector and, if the polls can be believed, people like me are in the majority in NSW. The NSW Labor government, like the Howard government before it, is out of touch with the electorate and the outcome for the Iemma government would be the same if the Liberals in NSW were a credible alternative.
The only people pushing the sale are those who will benefit from in personally now or in the future, Keating, Carr etc.
We, in the bush, have suffered from every privatisation. Commonwealth Bank… branch closures everywhere: Qantas reduced services on fewer routes:Railways.. a privatised company that says it will not transport export wheat to the seaboard because it’s not profitable, leaving farmers to ship their wheat by heavy truck to a port which has limited facilities for receiving wheat by road transport. Lets not even think about the greenhouse consequences of all those trucks compared with rail. Yesterday the NSW government succumbed to Pacific rail’s threats and pumped 10s of millions into the privatised rail company to get it to do its job for, at least, this next wheat crop. After that who knows?
What really annoys me is the failure of the ABC, Fairfax and the Australian to cover electricity privatisation fairly and honestly. It appears they have been given riding instructions to push the sale and push it hard! I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised when you look at the neocon board at the ABC with its ASX chairman, the post Hilmer Fairfax and Murdoch.
fluff4
I’m not a convicted advocate of either private or govt. owned power stations, just an interested party.
The claim by one poster, Victorian, claims job losses and poor service after storm damage,
Storm damage is damage to poles and connectivity? This has nothing to do with generation?
Loss of jobs, how many? proof should be supplied. Govt services have long been connected to union rorts?
I now live in SA and do not suffer from poor electricity supply, I don’t read of anyone suffering power crisis in SA. Like everything else prices have risen. I take it for granted business has often been poorly managed when in govt control, unions blackmail govts.
We Aussies have by now accepted we are going down the private investment route, the roof has not fallen in.
The alumunium industry blackmailed the NSW govt into supplying cheap elect to that industry in the hunter valley.
Do you think subsidising electricity to private enterprise a good idea?
I understand unions have more power in elections and decision making, ie votes, in govt decisions than is healthy for a democracy, 50% representation at the council in question.
If the NSW govt were to promise more green power with the money received in the sale of coal generation, instead of "tunnels" and other promotions of road transport, decisions to privatetise would get my vote. If I had one that is.
fluff4
Boy from the bush…
A movement exists that is addressing the issues you raise. If you want to know more I am at tonyryan43@gmail.com
The invitation is extended to anyone else who would like to see family farms and the regional/rural economy revived; along with manufacturing.
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Energy industry whistlblower : ‘evidence of a national market has largely disappeared’
Mood: bright
Topic: nsw govt
with diagrams at
http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/blog/index.blog/1811970/energy-ind…
In response to jeanal about job losses, the NSW is not the old Soviet Union or Jeff Kennett’s Victoria. The Iemma government has already guaranteed the jobs of the workers in both the generation and retail sectors which are being privatised.
So far as the generation staff are concerned, they will receive a minimum $37,000.00 payment on top of their jobs being guaranteed. The retail staff will receive a minimum $25,000.00 payment.
The job situation should also be kept in perspective. About 3,100 staff are involved in the generation and retail sectors whereas the distribution network which is being retained wholly in government hands, has more than 11,000 employees. So this is very much a partial privatisation of the industry and totally unlike that in Victoria.
If you look at the Premier’s department website, you will see set out there the government’s response to the Unsworth Committee report, the report which examined the proposal and evaluated it in accordance with the NSW ALP Platform. The report supported the proposal and suggested further employment protections which the government has accepted.
Barrie Unsworth started out life as an electrician and was an official of the ETU and later Secretary of what is now Unions NSW. Before he became NSW Premier he was one of the toughest union officials around and there is no way he would sell out the electicity workers now.
He spoke strongly in support the government at the Conference last Saturday and I was proud to shake his hand at the end of the debate.
Kirk McKenzie
"I am not sure who you are veridis but it was not Doug Cameron that abused me."
Of course it wasn’t Doug who abused you, the abuse was from on stage, but it was Doug who replied openly to your comments and who you then responded to. this exchange was definitely adversarial and was what most of conference saw.
my point was that it may have partly been the way in which you expressed yourself, not simply the content of what you said(which i’ll agree was correct), that led to the reaction. your core message, that the resolution was not binding, could have been framed in a number of ways. you chose to word it in defence of the government taking whatever action they want, a view that was obviously contrary to conference opinion and was designed to inflame the situation. as such i’m not as convinced as i initially was that you’d exposed a deal. sure they didn’t want to have to address whether or not the resolution was binding, but that’s a fair was from an explicit deal. you made a speech specifically designed to piss off conference yet continue to act surprised that it did.
and i dont expect you to know who i am, but we spoke briefly on sunday about these issues. well you mainly spoke and i mostly listened.
I am sorry you have got this completely wrong, Veridis. I did not repond at all to the "abuse" - that came from another person on the stage who is also a member of the Finance and Economic Policy Committee - I just sat there like a stunned mullet.
In fact I tried to calm the responder who was sitting next to me, as did another (female) Committee member who was sitting on the other side of him. The responder was not directing his remarks to Doug Cameron - Doug said nothing untoward at all.
What you heard/saw was a very direct exchange between the original "abuser" who was yelling at me and my colleague who responded to him in similar direct language.
It was really nothing to get too upset about - I do accept that the responder’s reaction was unreasonable!
What motivated his anger and my remark was the "abuser’s" speech to the conference in which he claimed that the Platform was of prime importance - he obviously does not really believe that - see my first response above - he was attacking me for defending both the Platform and the gov/t for adhering to it and disregarding the process for changing it.
My admittedly pointed remark was preceded by a comment that " I am not suggesting that the decision of the conference does not deserve respect" - that is why I said in the article that the Premier still has a job of explanation to do.
I hope he does it.
Kirk McKenzie
i’m not saying you responded to abuse, you responded to things said at the podium. the two exchanges were largely separate, the one on stage and the one conference saw. but both were definitely adversarial.
what i was trying to say is that while you may have meant to defend the platform, having it come from a pro-privatisation led to it being received by many as on open attack, excusing the government for whatever action they chose to take. to the conference your opening comment seemed as sincere as reba’s "comrades". i think this to a large extent explains(but doesnt excuse) the abuse you copped. i completely agree that it was an unreasonable reaction, i’m just not sure about the claims that this indicates there was a deal that you unwittingly broke.
All this he said/she said floats over the salient issue of bypassing democracy.
The people do not want privatisation. In a democracy, representative’s role is to implement what the people want; not to assume the role of gods and impose the interests of minorities. That is fascism.
OK, adversarial - yes, but I am not too sure that what I said upset too many people - just the ones trying to avoid telling the conference that the Economic section of the Platform was not going to change on Privatisation last weekend.
Stop responding to my comments - I’ve got work to do……Councillor(?).
After reading the many “compelling” reasons why the NSW power industry should be privatised I am thinking: Why not privatise everything including the government? When you think about it there is not much left in public hands now anyway. The main remaining areas are transport, education, health and the armed forces.
Air, sea and freight rail transport are already privatised as are many toll roads. The remaining public highways and suburban streets could easily be privatised. Electronic monitoring strips will allow constant monitoring of all car movements. Some suburban street toll operators may try to restrict access to competitor’s streets to funnel cars through their own streets but that is just healthy competition. Anyway any increased congestion will force people onto the rail public transport system, renamed the private transport system.
As regards education, half the schools are already privatised and increasing numbers of parents have already shown they prefer to pay for their children’s education than get free public education. Let’s sell off the public school system and provide the remaining parents with the opportunity to also pay. Universities are not a problem since they are already run as businesses.
Half the hospitals are now private and there should not be an issue in privatising the remainder. This would enable us to get rid of the archaic concept of Medicare and get everyone onto private health insurance. Accepting that there are poorer sections of society which may have difficulties paying private health insurance, a star rating system could be introduced whereby one to five star health insurance levels would equate to one to five star hospitals, similar to that operating for hotels. The more you pay, the better the hospital.
We need to privatise the armed forces to improve efficiencies. Privatised army, navy and airforce companies could bid for involvement in the next war. Inevitably privatisation will result in many jobs going offshore but that is not necessarily a problem. Having a standing army in India ready to don Australian uniforms at a moments notice will be much more cost effective than having the army standing in Australia. Besides the Indian personel would be half way to any conflict zone.
With everything privatised there will be no need for taxes or government as we know it. Parliament House could become a museum and the tallest office building in Australia would be built in Canberra housing Australia Limited with the CEO of Australia, previously known as the Prime Minister, occupying the top floor. All politicians will become executives and of course command multi million dollar salaries commensurate with their increased managerial responsibilities. All money raised from the sale of public entities will go into the future fund to pay these increased salaries. It all sounds reasonable to me.
I think Ross Gittins is closer to the mark:
http://business.smh.com.au/why-the-unions-fight-so-hard/20080511-2d0o.ht…
The unions couldn’t care less about the impact of privatisation on consumers, they are more concerned about membership fees.
Unions are useless and irrelevant. Look at their falling memebrship? They are stuck in the 20th century.
I think Iemma wants to show the unions they aren’t as influential as they have been. He’ll be gone soon anyway and Watkins will be a patsy for Robertson, Cameron et al.