I've no idea which State you live in, we are unique, but it cannot be NSW.

>>...when Australians discover that... through no foresight, gross mismanagement and overspending by governments, that there wont be a shower to enjoy daily, in addition to enjoying the clean clear uncontaminated water consumed over the past 20 years.<<

In Sydney, we have had restrictions placed upon our use of water since 2003.

We have also been aware since 1998 that we do not enjoy "clean clear uncontaminated water"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/04/2918559.htm

So the future you describe has been with us for some considerable time.

Even if we forget the previous decades of neglect that gave rise to the problem in the first place, our government's response has been underwhelming.

Mainly, one suspects, because if they tell us that we need a few billion of investment to regain the position where we can get all the "clean clear uncontaminated water" we need, they would expose themselves to excruciatingly close scrutiny of the billions that they have wasted on less vital projects.

We, too, have had our public transport ticketing fiasco, wasting a billion on failing to implement the kind of system that other cities around the world have taken for granted for decades.

Given such comprehensive and abject incompetence, it is little wonder that they have to turn to private enterprise. There's not a single government minister, politician or public service employee in this State who could run a cake stall at the Saturday market without bankrupting themselves, let alone be responsible for managing a key resource.

Much as I find them congenitally appalling, I'd even settle for Macquarie Bank.

From a WA perspective we still have restrictions, but governments of both sides of politics have invested in water and are just about keeping up. The cost of technology such as desalination plants (and their carbon footprint) may appear problematic at first, but in the long term this solution, along with more efficient use of stormwater and wastewater, allows some level of comfort. It will cost...but that is just a fact of life.

The problem with total privatisation (our water utility is 51% government owned 49% private) is that you end up with numerous duplications of service which often leads to underinvestment in infrastructure due to a focus on keeping prices competetive in the short term.

Pericles, considering NSW Labor Politician's tendency to actually join Macquarie Bank executive jobs after quitting their government jobs (consisting mostly of selling them public assets), I'd say it's obvious why they are neglecting infrastructure (ie their JOB). It would most certainly be well within character- not to mention added up to their history of selling hospitals and schools to flog off the real estate.

On the Macquarie Bank side (or for that matter, most companies lobbying to purchase public property), there is absolutely no basis to assume they will improve the quality of assets to consumers. Why would they? Their only job is to increase returns flowing to their investors. Once they gain control over a sector to which people have no choice but to use (with zero competition to change services to), they have absolutely no need to actually do anything but jack up the price. It's not like people are going to stop drinking (or for that matter, insist on catching a train to Canberra to use their airport to avoid Sydney airport's extortionate entry fees, parking fees and trolley fees, or endless miles of hassling vendors in the duty free section).

I agree King Hazza. This is an important election decider for me as well but I fear there is not much between the two majors as far as the preference vote goes. A Green senate is what is needed but is the public finally fed up enough to give the major parties a wake-up call. I fear not quite yet as diver dan's post implies.

Seems that way Pelican- but as a considerable amount of people that vote pay absolutely no attention to politics, it would not be hard to conclude that the majors would get in not on substance, but simply by which stereotype would spook least those who don't know better;
That is, the choice between the big mean capitalist party, the communist party and the flower-power party probably IS the genuine criteria of voting for many Australians. Many wouldn't even know what "Privatization" even means, so long as we averted a scary communist government, being forced to live in a treehouse, or invasion by a country most don't realize is actually a democracy itself, with a largely non-violent diplomatic stance.

The problem with private infrastructure is that the public pays through the nose. In the case of roads, the figure is six to seven times the capital outlay, and there is no reason to believe that water would be any different.

There is nothing inevitable about the push for privatisation either. It is inevitable only inasmuch as the high immigration policy of government is creating water supply and infrastructure crises. Without a high immigration policy there would neither be crises nor inevitability. "Inevitable" is a word used by some to push their own agenda without wishing the motive to be scrutinised. "Inevitable" is a fine description for death and taxes, but surely not for a policy determined by elected representatives? Some 70% of Australians oppose the current high rate of immigration. In contrast, the Citizens Electoral Council, with a mass immigration political platform, has the support of about 0.1% of voters. Why then should a continued rate of high immigration be inevitable?

How is paying seven times more for infrastructure economically beneficial? Is this simply another example of the doublespeak of the population growth cultists?