Westernred's claim that the ETU stands in the way of Queenslanders receiving cheaper power is ideological claptrap.

It presumes that the Queensland's electricity utilities are rife with inefficiency and outrageous feather-bedding and that the only way that it can possibly be fixed is by having the whole operation handed across to private operators who will then, under the supposed discipline of a competitive market be driven by market forces to remove the feather-bedding.

The unstated assumption is that the private corporations should be allowed to be as ruthless as they wish to their workforces in the same way that other privatised corporations have been to theirs (e.g. Telstra, see http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1952054.htm) As long as it can be claimed that we are getting cheaper power or, more likely, power that is cheaper than it would otherwise be, we should not concern ourselves with the loss of jobs, wages, training opportunities, career paths and basic dignity for the electricity workforce.

The case for privatisation has been argued many times online and examination of these discussions (see, for example http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2008/06/19/the-power-of-persuasion/ http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2007/12/12/nsw-electricity-privatisation-a-quick-look/) will reveal that the sort of nonsense that westernred is trying to peddle doesn't stand up for long.

The 'competition' of which westernred writes is self-evidently nonsense. The only way to have true competition would be to have each house connected to two or more electricity grids. As our governments are not quite stupid enough to allow a repeat of the kind of idiocy that led in the 1990's to both Optus and Telstra fibre optic cables being laid in front of each house in the cities of Australia whilst regional and rural areas missed out altogether, we will be left with a pretence of competition in which different suppliers feed their energy into the same grid. How individual consumers are to distinguish between power from one source and power from another when it reaches their house is not clear.

Common sense would tell us that any 'efficiencies' gained, even if the workers working for the different competing suppliers are turned into slaves could not possibly overcome the still necessary duplication.

Too true daggett. I think we all know the cost/competition argument is a furphy. Competition certainly hasn't meant extensive mobile phone coverage over Australia, even in non-remote areas.

Would it be naive to suggest it is time for the unions and Labor to part ways? Unions, like any lobby group, need to focus more on representing their members rather than acting as a wing of any political party. The thousands of dollars that go into the ALP coffers from the unions every year could be better spent on campaigns like defeating the unfair aspects of WorkChoices and promoting fairer workplaces. Perhaps union fees could even be reduced to attract and assist members. Afterall it is a collective, not a profit making enterprise.

Political parties and governments represent all Australians not just one sector (in theory) and they should not be wings of any group, either the business lobbies nor the workers'. The ALP and the Coalition need to be able to fairly represent the interest of both to come up with a fair and balanced system.

Labor has long evolved from its union and working class origins. I am pro-union but believe that unions should evolve to be able to interact equally with whichever government is in power and act truly in the interests of their members at all times without concession to any other political motivations.

Pelican,

Your observations are correct, but some of them miss the point. The Labor Party has obviously drifted away from its original purpose, as I have pointed out in the article. If it was true to its original purpose it would be acting as a political arm of the union movement rather than unions acting as the wing (presumably industrial) of the Labor Party.

If you look objectively at our supposedly democratic system you would understand that it is a myth that the likes of Anna Bligh are in any way representing the broader community when they trample on the rights of ETU members, or, for that matter, the residents of the Mary Valley, the Sunshine Coast, Redland City, West End in Brisbane or when the forcibly amalgamated many local governments last year.

Ordinary people are not being represented in parliament.

The way democracy should work is that parties who represent the interests of ordinary members including workers, farmers, small businessmen or whatever, should openly and transparently represent the interests of their constituencies. If the worker's party or parties can't form an outright majority, then they should form coalitions with other groups. Of course, the should still try to ensure that the reasonable needs of all members of society are met.

What we have instead are governments which secretively, behind closed doors impose the agendas of our wealthy elite upon the rest of us.

This must change and i think the ETU, for its part, should do what it can to make sure that one way or another, its members and other workers are properly represented in Parliament, and they should certainly not tolerate politicians who are openly opposed to their interests to continue to govern in their name.

It really boils down to whether or not you accept that workers are entitled to political representation, whether or not through the Labor Party. I say they are. Australia's business interests and the corporate news media would have us think that they are not.

I didn't realise the number of assumptions I was making!

I agree that the distribution of power is efficiently fixed to one operator, but they do not also have to produce the power or even retail it to the consumer. There can be more than one generator source.

Let's posit a hypothetical example - In an integrated electricity grid a private energy producer operating in NSW says "We can provide Queensland with power at 20% of the current cost". They may well be a highly efficient high tech outfit who pay their staff small fortunes.

I don't think that Quiggin makes a case one way or the other , but given his stated "social democratic perspective" I suspect it would be a "public good - private bad" sort of argument.

Westernred, if you make huge logical leaps in your contributions, then perhaps you should not be surprised if others make assumptions about what assumptions you have made.

Perhaps you should explain more clearly why you think the ETU is preventing Queensland consumers from receiving cheaper electricity, if not by preventing the elimination of jobs, the reduction of wages and the destruction of training and career opportunities.

In my experience, pro-privatisation ideologues presume that all the public share their beliefs that it is inherently a good thing for workers to be screwed (as they were by Telstra) in order that we get cheaper services (and, of course, ignore the fact that consumers still missoout anyway because money is siphoned away to shareholders, stockbrokers, merchant bankers and CEOS, etc).

---

It remains to be seen if any private operator can provide power significantly cheaper than what could be done by a government operator, except by screwing its workforce, variously cutting corners and shifting costs previously borne by the the electricity utility onto the broader community.

However, if this were possible, there is no reason why the Government could not enter into a contract with such a provider to provide power into the grid.

However, any suggestion that consumers receiving power through such a single grid should be able to distinguish between electrons received from different providers and, accordingly pay their bills directly to the different providers, is self-evident nonsense.

---

When I referred you to the articles by John Quiggin as just two of a number of possible examples of discussions about privatisation, I was making the point that the sort of arguments put by you don't stand up for long in these discussions. I wasn't simply referring to just the articles, by John Quiggin.

The only assumption I have made is that the ETU are opposed to Labor / State Government policy on corporatisation , a policy which is designed to encourage competitaion for power generation with potential cost savings.

If the distributor of electricity can buy power from a variety of sources they will be able to pass those savings on to the consumer.

Just because the Labor Party was formed in the 1890s does not mean its thinking needs to be of that vintage.