Telecom was the classic example of a public funded captive market. The service was guaranteed by government funding to be what ever it liked. If subscribers did not like the service, the service provider was happy to withdraw the service. There was no alternative service.

The Federal Government, under pressure from big business, finally raised enough courage to directly challenge the Telecom total control infrastructure to get Optus a nose into that which had been a very captive market since the advent of the telephone.

With this national power over people door broken down, other traditional captive market services were opened to allow consumers to have choice. We can now even choose our electricity and gas service provider.

Choice of service provider is not however the forte of those in our society who are disadvantaged by disability. This is despite the lip service by the Department of Human Services here in Victoria.

This government department says that in most fields of service provision customers are able to purchase from those providers who are offering high quality service. In order to protect consumers rights and interests, the processes and activities of service providers must be open to scrutiny by key stakeholders, particularly consumers and their representatives.

With all the direct care services for people with a disability here in Victoria totally controlled by the Department of Human Services, there is little opportunity for consumers to realise the department’s theory of services being open to effective scrutiny, especially the department’s own direct service provision.

Where there is nowhere else to go, people with a disability and their families are very vulnerable to intimidation if they question the service level and quality. This is especially true for those with limited intellectual ability to speak effectively for themselves.

So what is the answer to achieving pro active services, accountability, transparency and real customer service from public funded, public service, captive market services? No one owns the company, so who cares! Unlike the Telecom example, there is no big business motivation for change. People with a disability are generally unvalued in our John Wayne country

When power for any service for people is controlled by any one department, organization, group, or individual, anywhere then almost always eventual result is reduced opportunity for people to improve things for themselves, reduced opportunity to realise things can get better, little opportunity for anyone to make things better.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Totalitarian tendencies are natural part of human identity, failure to accept this as reality makes things abnormal, encourages just such totalitarian powers and the exercise of same, to develop.

Accepting totalitarian tendencies as natural, just NOT desirable, is what empowers us all to overcome our human nature weakness.

Such is basic philosophy of many religious, social or political groups.

Australian legal and political system commenced with recognition of this, however our separation of powers is being chipped away at by those in Parliament for purpose of increasing their control.

Always such changes are presented as improvements...

The only solution is to work even harder to ensure we have ongoing separation of powers, such separation forces discussion, involvement, so as to give best chance exists agreement for any changes.

The ability to resolve disputes judicially is reduced by the sheer cost of legal actions.

back later...

“Choice of service provider is not however the forte of those in our society who are disadvantaged by disability.”

The majority of people are not disabled. So, using your stated reasoning, why should the choice of service provider be skewed to favour a tiny minority?

“People with a disability are generally unvalued in our John Wayne country”

That is conjecture. I would suggest many people are “undervalued”, some able bodied ones un-valued too. A sense of personal value or being “valued” is an individual perception of worth. Playing God with public or private utility bills is never going to influence ones sense of self-worth.

Certainly from the aspect of telecom services, do you think the nrange and choice of competitively priced services and plans available from different service providers would be as wide or cheap today if Telstra were still the only player in the game?

It would not

I do recall the ACCC was sent in some years ago, to review the monopolistic corruption which Telstra was employing in controlling then wholesale price of broadband services.

Monopolies are monopolies, regardless of ownership and their existence will invariably work to the disadvantage of the consumer, regardless that consumer being able bodied or disabled.


Polpak your comment re separation of powers is absolutely correct.

A government who owns and operates a commercial service, usually but not necessarily as a monopoly, is immediately confronted with conflicts of interest

A optimizing the return on investment and delivering a cost effective service

And

B protecting the commercial interests of the business whilst drafting the regulations which the business is statutorily required to comply with.

When I look at some of the politicians and the sycophantic public servants who weasel their way within the bureaucracy, I am happy to minimise the power and authority which the electorate extends to such people.

I tried to stay away from the thread it hurts, but after 22 years working for a state government.
As a firmly left of center ALP member and as a trade unionist I can not always support government ownership.
In my view we could get far better results from such by contracting out all management rolls.
But the need to do it once do it better is not alive in the sector.
Are we truly serving public ownership if we do not do it well?
My constant harping about my past employer in NSW has been noted by them and more time is spent watching me than fixing the problem.
We sold our property Telstra, to us, selling our property to see costs rise and shares fall!
A better way must exist but please unless you have worked for third grade management and chanted alongside your workmates nothing really matters any more do not think public ownership is always the answer.
And if you ever pass a roadside crew madly singing at the top of their voices We Got To Get Out of this place that will be my mates who still look for holes in the mad house fences.
73.s vk3 qq