Don't hold your breath Jonathon, waiting for that refund cheque.
I think that making the Federal Govt, the regulator of state owned monopolies, is an idea with considerable merit.
Further, I think it would be a good idea to break up those monopolies into duopolies/quadrupolies, and then require them to compete for your's and my business. Any proven collusion ought to result in some serious jail time for the offenders; be they part of any private firms or their public corporitized equivalents!
I don't believe privatization is any part of the answer, given the history of privatization is always accompanied by quite massive price hikes!? And both sides of politics understand that the artificially imposed rising price of getting by, by price gouging, has extremely negative economic consequences!
Brisbane gas was privatized under Admiral Bligh, and guess what?
Almost overnight the price shot up some 400%!
This is what usually transpires, when a private firm borrows to buy, and pays well over the odds, simply to obtain a monopolistic, cash cow, essential service!? If the customers are going to be effectively asked to pay for the privatization, why not ask them if they want to became the new owners of a co-op? That outcome would at least be fair!
I don't need to tell you what has been happening to electricity prices, either as a product of privatization or its precursor? Clearly, privatization is not the answer! But, employee co-ops may well be!
Nowhere can I find any example of where privatization has resulted in reduced charges or fees; in fact just the glaring opposite!
As for that plumber, he was probably doing a foreigner, on company time?
Part of the endemic corruption process/culture, that is the shameful legacy of NSW Labor!?
Treating such examples as the theft they so clearly are, with criminal convictions recorded and possible jail time for repeat offenders, might severely curtail the activity?
Rhrosty.

Didn't Sydney Water spend $7 million on its new web site, and haven't the circumstances around this been referred to ICAC ? They certainly didn't get value for money.

I think the rot set in with Sydney Water when Nick Greiner introduced the concept of service delivery authorities paying a huge tax, a so-called 'dividend', to the government. Without access the full revenue from it customers, Sydney Water has let water infrastructure fall into disrepair, leaking gazillions of litres of water and gone on a revenue gathering spree such as the one described in the article.

A little tinkering with a well known advertising claim will be a good start...

"We won't be beaten on price

At Sydney Water you'll find just what you need. We have the widest range and services at the lowest prices every day.

If you happen to find a cheaper price on a supplied service or item we'll beat it by 10%*"

*Price promise applies up to one month retrospectively

Solved. Next problem?

Perhaps I am missing something here, Jonathan J. Ariel, but your major concern seems to be the cavalier manner in which you engaged the plumber.

You clearly did not check beforehand the terms and conditions related to the plumber's engagement. The first hint, clearly stated on their web site, is their declaration that:

"The plumbers on this register are not affiliated with or accredited by Sydney Water, nor is any recommendation implied"

So asking Sydney Water for a refund is likely to receive the response that:

"The plumbers on our register are not affiliated with or accredited by Sydney Water, nor is any recommendation implied"

It would appear that your rage is largely confected.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Hi Rhrosty

You make several points, I’d like to address three:

1. You say: "Further, I think it would be a good idea to break up those monopolies into duopolies/quadrupolies, and then require them to compete for your's and my business. Any proven collusion ought to result in some serious jail time for the offenders; be they part of any private firms or their public corporitized equivalents”!

I agree at the very least breaking up monopolies should be examined and serious gaol time needs to be the penalty for major offenders.

2. You say “I don't believe privatization is any part of the answer, given the history of privatization is always accompanied by quite massive price hikes!? And both sides of politics understand that the artificially imposed rising price of getting by, by price gouging, has extremely negative economic consequences”!

This is always true when the regulations that are set for the private operator to operate under are not in the public interest. And in most cases the public is skinned alive so that the private sector buyer gets a bargain. You cite examples. Sydney's "Macquarie International Airport" is another example. But these problems can be overcome in future privatisations.

In short, the public interest is safeguarded not by government ownership per se but by strict regulation that serves the public interest with the politicians placed on notice that the public will not stand for deals that moves the public interest to the back of the bus.

If consumer centric regulations cannot be implemented for the proposed privatised business, then the case for privatisation is very weak.

Hi Candide

The multi million dollar web site outrage is apparently the subject of an audit, see

http://local.governmentcareer.com.au/archived-news/audit-to-check-sydney-water-funding-flows

What I'm sure we all want to know is how much will the audit cost and will the bill be passed on to Sydney Water?

That said, you may find the ICAC Report on Sydney Water (2011) interesting reading. If so, go to the following link and click on the first link that appears.

http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/index.php?zoom_query=sydney+water&zoom_and=1&zoom_per_page=100&option=com_zoomsearch&zoom_sort=0&Itemid=2655