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

Why not address the monopolistic powers of our banking system to create from nothing the money to equal our toil.

http://cecaust.com.au/ There is plan of a Cyprus style theft of our bank deposits. It is real and approved by the G20 Nations without our knowledge or approval.

Hi Jonathon and thanks for the response. I don't like privatization on a number of counts.
The first being the people who bought and paid for essential services public infrastructure are rarely if ever, properly consulted.
If privatization was posted as party policy just prior to an election, the people who own these assets, would at least have some input?
But particularly when one considers, most if not all these takeovers are entirely debt funded, and the customer base, the former owners, are required to pay back all the borrowing, via the checkout or blatant price gouging!
It's like we pay twice for the privilege to be price gouged into the poorhouse. Small business more than almost any other!
Make no mistake, I believe in private enterprise and the essential competition it brings, most of the time! I just don't believe in privatization.
A halfway competent manager, never sell off well performing assets; however, too many politicians, (economic illiterates) seem far too anxious, to do just that.
And there are any number of examples, where post politics politicians find lucrative careers inside those organizations, that bought public assets at seeming fire sale prices?
Take Telstra as just one glaring example of quite blatant fiscal incompetence.
The govt sold it against widespread public protest, [some85- 87% of the polled public disapproved as memory serves.]
Besides, they had other choices, and that was to wind back the welfare for the rich, and the quite unethical vote buying pork barreling?
The Howard Govt got 11 billion from the sale of Telstra, and lost the 7 billion annual return Telstra used to provide?
Now the Govt confronts the possibility of having to find 15 billion, just to buy back the copper from Telstra.
Talk about a lose/lose/lose outcome!
As lamb chop chewing Sam Kickovich might say, you know it makes perfect sense!
Yes, your point about Nick Griener is well made and seems fairly typical of, I believe, inherently incompetent career politicians, whose serial incompetence/flawed ideological mindset, is only ever exceeded by their gift of the gab?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Correction: Yes your point about> Should read. Yes Pericles, your point about Nick Griener>
Apologies one and all.
Rhrosty.

Corrected correction: Substitute Candice for Pericles! Even more apologies, supplemented by penitent supine groveling!
Rhrosty.

Thanks for the links Jonathon, no apologies needed Rhosty.

Privatisation seems to be so badly managed that is is generally a means of transferring revenue-earning businesses to the private sector without any control on how much more they can then gouge from the long suffering public. The outcomes are often against the public interest - like the M5 in Sydney where common sense would suggest a toll-free trip for cars with two or three passengers would help ease congestion - but it is not in the commercial interests of Macquarie Bank to do anything to lessen the number of cars.

The NSW government is considering buying the infamous Sydney cross-city tunnel because 30,000 drivers a day avoid it to avoid the excessive toll. When it was built it was pointed out that the Government could have paid for it upfront using a design-construct-manage-and maintain contract with the private sector and have paid it off completely in 30 years with a one dollar toll (it is currently $4.91), and ended up still owning a revenue generating asset.

Electricity and water are completely unsuited to privatisation because of the conflict between the need to both reduce consumption and increase revenue. In the last drought in Canberra water consumption fell so much that ACTEW raised the price of water simply to maintain their revenue

Hi WmTrevor

Your advertising approach can indeed make sense if - assuming there will be a sell off – making all those who tender for the organisation clearly spell out in advance what they promise to deliver by way of price and volume. And then forcing them to comply with that undertaking or there will be severe penalties to pay,

Hi Pericles

Your conclusion that I was cavalier about engaging an independent plumber MAY hold water if I was cavalier, which I was not and if the plumber was independent, which he was not.

As he was referred to me by Sydney Water staff and he gave me a receipt on Sydney Water stationary, I think it’s clear he works for Sydney Water.

Either that, or he was inappropriately using Sydney Water’s stationary, which raises another issue.

Hi Jonathan J. Ariel

Curiouser and curiouser

>>As he was referred to me by Sydney Water staff and he gave me a receipt on Sydney Water stationary, I think it’s clear he works for Sydney Water.<<

Nowhere on their web site could I find reference to their own plumbers:

Here's their contract:

http://www.sydneywater.com.au/web/groups/publicwebcontent/documents/document/zgrf/mdq1/~edisp/dd_045061.pdf

All references are to "your plumber", with the caution that the plumbers should be properly accredited and licensed.

The only point in the web site where they refer to a register of plumbers, they also point out that:

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

http://www.sydneywater.com.au/SW/plumbing-building-developing/plumbing/backflow-prevention/plumber-search/index.htm

I'm not sure how much clearer it could be.

If I were you, I'd take your story to the Office of Fair Trading.

http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/

That should get some action. After all, it's nothing to do with State monopolies, and everything to do with the work practices of the plumber.

"The plumber could literally have gone to any hardware store in the state and I would be liable for his travelling and shopping time. No ifs no buts".

I'm sure Fair Trading would rule that kind of behaviour completely out of order.

I'd say you had a good case to get your money back, and have him de-licensed at the same time.

Let us know how you get on.

It wouldn't need to wait for a sell off, Jonathan...

"Your advertising approach can indeed make sense if - assuming there will be a sell off..."

One of the advantages of a government monopoly is that with a stroke of the regulatory pen the government could require Sydney Water to abide by such a price guarantee to its customers more or less immediately.

But as most politicians are too busy stroking other things* I don't expect the interests of the public to start to matter now.

[*like their egos]

And there is more, cost that is:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/nsw-desalination-plant-deal-costing-customers-10-billion/4985168

Hi Arjay

I agree with you. The manner in which banks operate in Australia is an affront to the ideals of competitive market. It is a cartel which must be very worried given Coles/Westfarmers are keen to get a seat on that gravy train.

Hi again Candide,

You say: “Privatisation seems to be so badly managed that is generally a means of transferring revenue-earning businesses to the private sector without any control on how much more they can then gouge from the long suffering public.”

Agreed. But do not blame the fund managers or investment banks for doing their job in seeking out outstanding returns for their shareholders.

By all means blame politicians who for whatever reason end up doing the dirty on the public. Politicians from both sides of the House.
Prime Minister Paul J. Keating did the public a tremendous disservice by selling Australian Airlines to QF when he should have sold it to a foreign airline, thereby creating a modicum of competitive tension in the marketplace. And Prime Minister John W. Howard sold Sydney’s Kingsford Smith on terms that seem to favour the investment bankers at the expense of the traveling public.

You say: “The outcomes are often against the public interest".

Agreed. So what is needed are better clauses written into the contract of sale. I am sure folk like MacBank and others will happily adhere to such rigorous requirements so long as those requirements are factored in when the government arrives at a sale price. That could result in a win for all parties.

You say: “Electricity and water are completely unsuited to privatisation because of the conflict between the need to both reduce consumption and increase revenue”.

Not necessarily. The new owners can make money not just by ramping up say its customers’ water use but by focusing operational efficiencies and discovering synergies that the current management cannot or will not adopt. That said, any fear of gouging out the eyes of the public by a buyer of a utility can and should be guarded against through legally enforceable obligations.

Hi JF Aus

WOW! I missed that bit of news. Thank you.

Hi again Pericles,

You say you can’t find mention on SW’s website for their own plumbers.

When I called Sydney Water I was told (in addition to checking if my taps were low flow) that they can perform the small job I wanted with staff from THEIR plumbing unit called “WaterFix”. I agreed to the price. I was not made aware of any terms or conditions.

Only after the job was performed in mid May at a significantly different price from what was understood, did I look into the matter and found written details on the web site confirming what I was told on the telephone: the plumber was Sydney Water's plumber, see below.

http://www.sydneywater.com.au/SW/your-home/saving-water-at-home/bathroom/waterfix/index.htm

You will note the monopolist’s use of the personal pronoun ‘our’ when describing plumbers.

Heck, the Minister in his reply does not dispute this!

Sorry I was not as clear as I should have been in earlier posts.

As you ask, I will keep you advised of what transpires with Fair Trading. The train for that destination has already left the station.

Thanks for the additional information, Jonathan J. Ariel.

Your Fair Trading case looks a slam dunk to me.

I'm not a lawyer, but I reckon the phrase "fixed price" is not easily construed in a manner that allows for an increased amount to be charged. There are a couple of riders in the agreement to do with "compatibility", but otherwise it seems straightforward.

http://www.sydneywater.com.au/web/groups/publicwebcontent/documents/document/zgrf/mduz/~edisp/dd_053493.pdf

One interesting point, though. It does appear that the plumber did not benefit from the transaction, since the billing for the service would have appeared on your Sydney Water account:

"(f) You agree that we can add all charges to your Sydney Water account. Unless paragraph (g) applies, all charges are payable in one single payment by the due date for payment of the account to which the charges have been added."

If I were you, I would have simply refused to pay the account on which the non-fixed charge appeared, and made it their problem, not yours. It certainly would have avoided the situation where you felt obliged to "talk to the hand" - they would have had to come to you instead.

In any event, I'd strongly recommend asking for details of any prices quoted over the phone...

>>I agreed to the price. I was not made aware of any terms or conditions.<<

...whether the institution is a government-owned monopoly or not.