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,