From a practical layman’s point of view, insight to whether privatization should occur can be found by considering why the PMG - Telecom was developed initially.

The task of providing communication for a nation was huge, not possible by the private sector, hence government PMG.

It was supposed to be policy that government would develop huge projects and then pass them on to the private sector, in order to help build the economy.

But somewhere along the line things changed.
Telecom was sold but where did the money actually go?
Was any of the money allocated to develop productive new major projects that could later also be sold to the private sector? NO.

Example, I made a submission to the Telstra Natural Heritage Trust Enquiry. Google the latter.
My submission suggested harnessing Telstra sale funds to regenerate coastal wild fish stocks that could be harvested by fishing co-operatives and amateurs for local and export supply.
That suggestion went nowhere in that direction but later aquaculture policy was developed by politicians in the know.

These days unsustainable aquaculture often imports fish and antibiotics to feed caged fish.
Over 70 percent of fish now consumed in Australia is now imported at cost of about $2 billion annually.
Pork (white meat) is imported for pizza filling, also replacing once low cost – bottom of economy Australian fish and chips previously available in almost every town.

It is now apparent money from sale of government assets is not being invested in new major productive infrastructure that could produce exports and ongoing revenue, such as wild healthy high value export seafood.

These days aquaculture interests could still venture into wild fish stock regeneration that does not involve feed cost, end product subsequently lower in price to also supply bottom of economy consumers.

Privatization sale these days could lead to developing a northern Queensland wet season water harvesting and aqueduct system, flowing into upper catchment of the Darling River already running to SA, with vast new and existing food and fibre production en route.
Toward productive outcome, an OLO think tank could make a submission:
http://www.maff.gov.au/Pages/Media%20Releases/dams-water-infrastructure-investment.aspx

You may be on to something there JF Aus.
However, I wouldn't spend trillions on the necessary pipes, which could eventually be privatized, but inject northern surplus water directly into the Great Artesian Basin, which would quite massively reduce the cost and length of the pipeline; and allow gravity to do all the work.
That way, no private company could charge for the water then extracted from a permanently and annually refilled aquifer?
A good lesson is what happens to an economy, [Europe, America,] when water is privatized, and how with each drought the price always only ever goes up, and until we can make it rain on demand, always will. Once it was thought that land was the basis of all wealth.
Wrong, given land without water is just arid desert.
Water and what it produces, however, is the basis of all wealth!
That's why greedy robber barons want to own and control it.
And if they could sell what falls freely on the land from the sky, they would. Moreover, it impacts on the price of everything!
That's why mindless greed and the endless push for privatization of the very basics and support systems/pillars of our economy, must be resisted!
And where that has already happened, reversed by public re-acquisition!
The share market and falling prices is a good place to enact that policy paradigm!
Least we be accused of wanting to nationalize anything; but rather the re-acquisition of our patently purloined economic sovereignty, and then only via the free market!
More erstwhile ideas like your's would enable that, and sure to be resisted tooth a nail by the invariably exploitative over-privileged, who still think the rest of the world owes them a living; and or, endless free lunches!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty,
I am somewhat optimistic about solutions taking place because those at the top of the economy now know their approach/system is failing.
It can now be understood that more and more people cannot afford to buy what the big end of town is capable of producing.
I think solutions very much involve need to generate new productive industry and business able to employ and remunerate workers with enough take home pay to buy the goods that industry is already producing.
Right at this moment even fuel refining companies are pulling out and going overseas because profit they should be getting in Australia is being swallowed by excise tax.
That excise is impacting other industries.
Motorists no longer go on weekend picnics as they used to.
Most people choose not to pay for the virtual high cost of running a small outboard engine to go fishing as used to be the pastime.
Bigger boats now hardly ever leave the marina due to exorbitant fuel cost.
Coastal motels and flats are hardly used by bush people and others going on coastal holidays. Rural people now have trouble paying for fuel to even go to their local town for shopping.
Australia is a country of vast distances.
For an increasing number of people it's a time to stay home and spend nothing or as little as possible.
And the subsequent downturn in spending is reducing government revenue. Response by government has been to increase tax revenue from remaining turnover.
Albanese may have ability to lead solutions because he understands the bottom of the economy, but Shorten ex Gillard-carbon-tax is in the way.
Maybe Abbott will come good. Maybe we will see from what transpires from the productivity infrastructure development his government is proposing.
Absolutely without question in my mind there is need to develop new and clean industry to generate new revenue, instead of new taxes.

Some interesting comments here. To sum most up, it would appear that the best people to run all businesses would be the government, so we ought to nationalise everything now. Or that seems to be the corollary of the contention that we shouldn't sell government-owned businesses because that would put prices up (even though the evidence is to the contrary).

And then we have Foyle, whose idea of an economic policy is to issue IOUs now and expect succeeding generations to repay them, or perhaps just keep issuing IOUs in perpetuity.

You'll forgive me if I don't fall into either camp and continue to campaign for the most efficient use of national resources.

Ronald Regan did us all a disservice by so successfully bankrupting the USSR so they had to convert to a brand of capitalism. At one time you could win these debates by pointing the obvious natural experiment that was the USSR and how badly it was failing to provide a decent standard of living to its citizens. Alas they're 25 years gone, and with them that object lesson.

The 80s promise of a "democracy of shareholders" has been proven to be a failure.

It was a victory for financiers and those with significant capital to be able to plunder public assets and divert future profits into their own pockets.

Infrastructure built up over generations is sold off at bargain prices and most eventually ends up in overseas hands.

Converting public monopolies into private monopolies is not progress.

I can not think of a single privatisation that has resulted in a more effective or less expensive service to the public and all are just a massive transfer of public wealth into private hands.

Australia is a world leader in government asset sales and arguments have been based on rhetoric and dodgey financial analysis.

When you look at the actual revenue that came from past sales it becomes obvious they were less of a "sell-off" than a "sell-out", as analysed in the book "Privatisation" by Bob Walker and Betty Con Walker.

And Rhosty and others,
The proposed aqueduct would provide water for the Coorong that is supposed to be a nursery feeding animals in waters of the Southern Ocean. Aquifers need pumping.
Gravity will take water from Gregory Range high country downhill to the Darling River catchment without cost of energy. I think the fall will generate some energy. See:
http://www.murrayriver.com.au/images/map/Murray-Darling_basin.jpg
Big or small aqueduct can provide for barge freight.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Pontcysyllte_aqueduct_arp.jpg
and
http://cdn.homedit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Magdeburg-Water-Bridge-Pictures2.jpg

There is need for management of the world ocean in order to sustain protein and fertilizer supply and to maintain atmosphere and climate.
Long term research and evidence indicates how and to what degree international institutions will have to participate in partnership with nations engaging in development of water ecosystem management infrastructure.

This planet is a unique life support habitat in the Universe and it's fragile life support ecosystems have to be maintained.
Evidence indicates that task could generate vast and interesting employment and business, prosperity and peace, that could be more interesting than argument, terrorism, recrimination and stupid bloody war.