....and...HERE are reasons to be ask these crucial questions !

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/solar-panel-plan-fried-by-quarrels/2008/05/07/1210131069596.html

<<The Age has learned that Environment Minister Gavin Jennings' plan for a generous scheme to encourage more Victorians to power their homes with "green" energy was rejected after the forceful intervention of Energy Minister Peter Batchelor.

Sources said Mr Batchelor convinced cabinet colleagues the Jennings' plan would mean unacceptable increases in the electricity bills of the vast majority of Victorians who relied on traditional energy supplies.>>

THERE YOU HAVE IT! If we reduce our power consumption (a good thing) we are PUNISHED... and non solar users have to pay...MORE!

Why..and how?

Hmmm MAYBE it's because the contracts guaranteed a commercially attractive outcome for the low life parasite amoeba like share holders of the privatized Utility companies?

SO... you NSW folks..take CAREFUL NOTE!

Good questions indeed, B_D!

All of the questions serve to highlight an expectation with respect to 'privatised' utilities: that they, corporately, seemingly expect, and are perceived by the community at large, to be being granted or sold a 'protected monopoly' position with respect to their particular markets.

This expectation seems to rest upon the recognition of such public utilities as being 'natural monopolies', created as such by the very nature of their generation, conservation, and/or distribution requirements. If this is correct, it would seem all the more necessary that public policy should remain able to be implemented with respect to these utilities, especially given that these enterprises have been built, over the years, at public expense. It is difficult to see how that can be better done than by preserving them in public ownership.

It is perhaps somewhat trite, but this comment, made to the topic 'NSW power: Sell or not?' (See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1732#34718 ), is interesting:

"Public-Private Partnership: A partnership where risk and overruns go to the public sector, profit to the private sector and political donations to the party in government.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Monday, 5 May 2008 10:11:27 AM"

The overwhelming impression I have is that of 'pre-selected elites', elites already at or near the pinnacles of where their talents can take them, selling off public assets in order to make their individual and collective political careers an easier row to hoe in the short to medium term.

The long-term policy imperative of such a regime? Creation and maintenance of artificial shortage in a land of plenty!

Serious as the issue of such sell-offs may be in themselves, a more serious issue for all Australians is that as to how such 'pre-selected elites' who are prepared to fly in the face of overwhelming public disapproval, get the electoral endorsement the official record claims. With assistance of a long-term thumb resting over many decades upon the electoral scales, perhaps?

Consider: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1306#23663

Great questions Boazy, with the potential to be a very good thread.

I don't always agree with your point of view, but this time I am all ears (don't push 'you know what' too far though, ok?)

Will tune in later.

Boazy: << Does the proposed sale contract include true benefits for the people..or the power companies? >>

Yes, a very good question indeed, as are the subordinate questions that flow from it.

From a consumer's perspective, I can't think of single case where consumers have ultimately 'benefited' from the privatisation of any utilities, particularly for those of us who don't live in metropolitan areas. However, this toothpaste is well and truly out of the tube in Australia - I can't see any government wanting to resume responsibility for the provision of essential services, now that they've effectively abrogated it to the market in many areas.

CJ... fair point. The contracts MUST look after the interests of the people and guarantee that they don't hamstring the government from making FUTURE changes to legislation which will result in:

**Decreased costs to the consumer, or alternatives**

If they cannot guarantee this, then it is only in the interests of (as Forest so well pointed out)

<<'pre-selected elites', elites already at or near the pinnacles of where their talents can take them, selling off public assets in order to make their individual and collective political careers an easier row to hoe in the short to medium term.>>

Now.. at this point I choose to live 'dangerously'. Q&A I beg your kind indulgence here..because I want to make a point about the prophets of the Old Testament. Their message was very much on the side of the oppressed and victimized. Their TARGET was the 'big corporations, rich elite' of the day.

Haggai says it beautifully:

"Is it a time for you yourselves to be living in your paneled houses, while this house remains a ruin?"

Yes, he was addressing the rampant materialism, and his call was to put God first, (re-build the temple) but while many readers will not see the connection between alienation from God and rampant materialism, the fact remains that there are a LOT of awfully selfish people out there in 'elite-land' who don't care a scrap for the masses (thats us) but simply want bigger and better "paneled houses" with harbour side views.

Haggai's message was about 'priorities'..and it's the same message I, and I'm sure all of us have for our government.

WE THE PEOPLE...elected you, for OUR benefit..NOT the benefit of a small, powerful social/political elite!

The benefit we seek is not an extravagant one. We simply seek 'just and fair' outcomes. Selling off capital works which WE paid for.... and then structuring the sale such that we are then VICTIMS of "shareholder value" (ooooh how I despise that phrase)and greedy harbourside tyrants and robber barrons, is neither Just nor Fair!

Go Don Quixote, go!

CJ said all that can realistically be said on this:

>>However, this toothpaste is well and truly out of the tube in Australia<<

The concept that drives all this is "the private sector will always be able to do it better, and more efficiently", when there is absolutely no logic that supports this theory. Private investments are made with the expectation of a return to investors; taxpayers' investments are made to benefit the taxpayer. This tilts the playing field before a single card is played.

Ultimately the problem is ours - we continue to believe that politicians are motivated by noble and selfless ideals, when in fact they are no more than venal, money-grubbing parasites who continue to find new ways to line their own pockets and fund their luxury retirement by sucking ever harder on the public teat.

We let them get away with it by failing to demand that they abide by the same rules in their chosen profession that we do - meet the commitments you make to the electorate, honour the promises you make to work on behalf of the people, or be summarily sacked.

(That makes two in a week Boaz. That can only be good.)