One only has to look at the Bechtel attempt to extort massive profits from Bolivia after the wold bank decreed that water there had to be privatized, to view the greed of multinationals.

The suffering and deprivations following Bechtels attempt to screw the local population and actually cut them off from a life source brought out a massive uprising and rebellion after price hikes from 60% to 90% to satisfy corporate greed (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6670 )

The only question I would now ask is - "would Australians have the same courage, the same intestitudinal fortuitude to take the same actions Bolivians did?"

I doubt it as most of them are more concerned in keeping within their own little comfort zone and sucking up to the big yankee corporations, than keeping Australia free

I think the issues raised are here can apply to any natural resource, how much of it is there? and what level of usage is sustainable in the long term?

The question is then whether a sustainable level of usage can be best delivered by a private or public organisation. If a public utility could be insulated from political and short term issues, amd the correct goals and measurement of success in acheiving those goals implemented, then I think a public utility should in theory be able to do the job.

Privatisation may also deliver the result, but a private or multinational organisation will never have the long term interests of the community or the environment as it's primary driver, it will always have to be closely regulated to do this.

Privatisation of any publicly owned utility should be seen only as governments providing space at the trough for people interested only in profit. Then there is the question: has a government any right to sell off publicly owned organizations without the permission of the electorate.

In South Australia, certain aspects of the government department, SA Water, have been contracted out to United Water. Control is still in the hands of the state government, and SA Water and Sewerage Accounts legitimately bear the following: “Owned by the South Australian Government for the people of South Australia.” It would be a stupid government that took outsourcing any further, or privatised the water supply, after the electricity sell off by the previous Olsen Liberal government whose ‘promise’ not to sell ETSA immediately before their last term in office was broken as soon as the election was over.

We now have a private company having to make a profit for its Chinese owners, and several ‘retailers’ who are adding to the cost. Under government control, the Electricity Trust of South Australia did the lot. How could the addition of more people looking to make money from the one-generation source be cheaper than the old way?

No way, of course. We now have the highest electricity prices in the country, unwillingness of a foreign company to invest in badly need infrastructure, and more outages.

Why would privatisation of water be any different?

As for regulation – phooey! The first ‘watchdog’ for the power industry is now working for the privatised supplier, arguing against government complaints about the poor service his company provides.

Privatisation is all about greed and shortsighted governments. It is also about the ideological myth that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector in the provision of utilities. It is certainly NOT about consumers.

I hope Mr. Johnston doesn’t get past ‘candidate’ status in the 2007 elections.

Governments should be redeeming utilities they have already experimentally and stupidly sold, not getting rid of more.

Selwyn Johnston

“As John Bastin of the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development has said, "Water is the last infrastructure frontier for private investors".
Australia’s taxpayers must now pay the price of our politicians’ folly and their eagerness to support International Treaties.”

We are already paying obscenely for the folly of politicians actions over the last 30 years. Your a fool if you think you can continue fooling us with the lies regarding privatisation. Every single asset of the people has been sold of to our detriment, hire charges, lower services, more tolls and costs, compulsory banking through stealth. You name it they tell us its good for us, then exactly the opposite happens.

This just part of the process so that 3 companies, run by the same people taking over the world. Then there will be no freedom just slavery all our lives to support people like you Selwyn.

I expect that when the people become aware of this and the consequences, Selwyn, you will be out of a job before you get the chance to get one.

An excellent and informative article.
It is amazing that no-one seems interested in investigating the real effects of privatisation policies.
They are always touted as beneficial, but the record looks very dark.
At leasr two banks and one building society have gone broke in the loosening of regulation that led up to privatisation.
Insurance companies have fallen like nine pins after demutualisation. Transport planning in our cities and between our cities has been rendered impossible through restrictive 'Commercial in Confidence' agreements. Our airports regard themselves as property developers in competition with the CBDs they are supposed to serve. Electricity suppliers consider it their job to maximise power use (understandably) rather than maximise efficiency. Farmers have been sucked into privatising their co-operatives time after time for short term profits which quickly lead to bankruptcy or the sort of thing going on at the A.W.B.
Any proposal to privatise water looks very bad in this context.
Where is our political choice? This is the Labor States co-operating with the Liberal Federal Government.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for the Nationals to flex their muscle.

Let us be absolutely clear about this: privatization only works if there is competition. Allowing a government service to become a private monopoly is the most destructive and offensive act a government can take against its citizenry. There can be absolutely no moral, ethical or even financial justification for it.

The UK rail system is a classic case. As reported in the Economist a couple of weeks ago, a standard open return fare between London and Manchester (a distance of 298 km, roughly Sydney to Canberra) now costs Stg 202. That's A$480. The reason is that Virgin Rail has the franchise exclusively - privatization without competition.

We are having a similar experience here in Sydney with Macquarie's stranglehold on the Airport. What could possibly compete with it? Another airport? Where? So we now have $13 for forty minutes parking, $4 for a baggage cart, and a $2 fine every time you take a cab.

I am totally in favour of the capitalist model. I have built my own company from scratch, employ people, pay my taxes.

But carving out a "business" from infrastructure and assets that have already been paid for through our taxes, and then holding us to ransom on prices to fill the pockets of some of [insert government minister's name here] mates, makes my blood boil.