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.