Hi SM,

With all you speak of being so subjective I don't know how you determine what is best for the 'public good" when it comes to taxation and alike. There are some many competing forces within the mix, made up of political philosophy, sectional interests, diverse business interests, social demands. As for "public ownership" versus "private ownership", there is no simple answer. The belief that "business does it better in all cases" or "nationalise the lot" are equally incorrect. In areas of vital public interest such as education, health, etc, etc there is a vital roll for direct government involvement, likewise in certain activities where commercial competition gives the best outcome such as in insurance, banking, retail etc then that is best left to private enterprise, that's not to say government should not have a roll to play in regulation of business for the public good, of course it does.

Paul,

You clearly did not understand a word I said.

Public economic does not say that all industries should be privatised it does indicate clearly which point industries should not be state-owned.
It does say that industries should be regulated etc. In all, it gives a rational mathematical and reason-based guide for most of these dilemmas.

Of all the influences political philosophy is the most corrosive. It gave us communism that killed tens if not 100s of millions and created poverty for billions.

December 15 will be regarded as a watershed day in Australian politics. The Albanese government ended 2022 on a high political note with its energy legislation passing the Senate thanks to the Greens and independent ACT senator David Pocock. But that victory, we noted at the time, would come at an immense cost to taxpayers and consolidated revenue. A fortnight later the first penny dropped as the overlooked consequences of the package started to become apparent. As we reported, federal and Queensland taxpayers will be slugged at least $450m to reimburse owners of the Gladstone Power Station, including mining giant Rio Tinto, for the temporary $125-a-tonne domestic coal price cap that was central to the Albanese government’s legislation. There was no alternative. And the reimbursement is essential to maintain Australia’s reputation as a fair investment destination.

While Anthony Albanese claimed the compensation for Rio and its partners would be “nothing like” $450m, Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk confirmed the federal and state governments knew taxpayers could be slugged up to $450m to compensate Rio Tinto when the national energy plan was rushed through federal parliament last month. It clearly came as something of a surprise to the Prime Minister that one coal-fired power plant in Queensland could receive $450m in compensation for the coal price cap, as Judith Sloan wrote on Tuesday. “And that’s just for starters. At this rate, taxpayers could end up paying as much to power plants as the financial compensation to low-income households ($1.5bn) hit by higher electricity prices.”

Now the second penny is dropping. As reported on Wednesday’s front page, energy companies in NSW are likely to be compensated more than $500m by federal and state taxpayers for anticipated losses incurred under the national energy plan. Eraring, owned by Origin, is likely to be the main beneficiary as the Newcastle plant is one of the biggest coal-fired power stations in the state. For a relatively modest return under the plan of reducing the projected rise in energy bills this year by $230, the costs to consolidated revenue and/or taxpayers are rapidly piling up.

SM,

All of this is the result of almost 10 years of Coalition non-existent energy policy. Recently politicians both Federal and State (excluding WA who had the foresight to install a decent state based energy policy) had to act politically as the public demanded action on power prices. You speak of Queensland and NSW, two states both heavy reliant on power produced from coal, and at the same time are big producers of coal. Both have "enjoyed" long term governments, Queensland Labor, NSW Coalition, both unlike WA have failed to introduce a long term energy policy for the benefit of their states, now they have to pay the piper.

Please note NSW is run by the Coalition and has been for over 10 years.

The question of compensation for multinationals is a moot point, and maybe they should be required to give a little back to the rightful owners of the resources they so profitably exploit.

Paul,

The coalition's energy policy didn't involve doling out $Bns of taxpayers' money in subsidies and stealing from gas producers and increasing LABOR'S TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT.

Labor SA closed its coal-fired power generation and subsequently had two blackouts costing its people $Bns in spoilage and lost revenue.

Labor Vic stopped gas exploration in Victoria, tripled coal prices to Hazelwood and now is whining that it doesn't have the gas to keep the lights on.

SM,

Again you are being political, Labor bad, Liberal good, philosophy.Your big lie is "LABOR'S TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT". Everyone understands that's not true, the new Labor government inherited a huge amount of debt, substantially created by the Coalition during the pandemic. To my surprise the Coalition embarked on a massive borrowing and spending program, I expected that would not be the case, as in the past the conservatives have taken a "batten down the hatches" approach to economic storms, not this time. I could go into all the wasteful things they did wrong with borrowing and spending, they panicked and a trillion dollars of debt with nothing to show for it is the result.

That's not our "energy problem" although massive debt does impact on the governments ability to deal with energy problems. With the notable exception of WA, the Federal Coalition, and State Labor and Coalitions governments failed over a long period to develop adequate energy policies, and today's kerfuffle is the result of those failures.