As a user of electrical and other utilities I have to deal with the corporate entities that supply those services. Whether these corporations are capitalist under private ownership or socialist owned by the government is not important to me. In either case I am dealing with a large, generally unresponsive entity. If I am dissatisfied with the service I have limited recourse. It really doesn’t matter to me as a consumer who owns the entity. To me the problem is to make such entities responsive to the needs of the consumer not who owns them.

Dear david f,

I don't have a problem either with privatisation
or government ownership of services so long as they
are properly controlled and regulated to high
standards in the interests of consumers.

In Japan for example, private health insurance is
regulated by the government at set scale of fees,
which are much lower then in Australia,
and private health practitioners cannot charge more
under strictly inforced penalties.

Government run bureaucracy tends to be slower because
they're not forced to be competitive compared to
private industry which is by its nature forced to be
competitive.

To my knowledge, Aged-Care facility Design, Construction,
and Maintenance (Accreditation) is controlled by
Federal Government for High-Care, and State Government
for Low-Care (Assisted-Living) but there appears to be
no definitive regulations or control for the quality
of the actual care of the residents.

That is why qualified staffing standards may be low,
quality of the food, care in general may be sub-standard.
These facilities only attract attention when serious
problems develop and families complain.
Up until then they're only regulated by the physical
standards not by the quality of services and care that is
actually being provided.

Foxy wrote:

Government run bureaucracy tends to be slower because they're not forced to be competitive compared to private industry which is by its nature forced to be competitive.

Dear Foxy,

There is nothing about private industry which forces it to be competitive. That is a common misconception. Where private industry has a monopoly and no competition it is not forced to be competitive. Henry Ford at one time made almost all the automobiles in the US. When asked about colours he said, "You can have any color you want as long as it's black."

I used utilities as my example because by their nature they are generally monopolistic.

Propaganda for privatisation mentions competitiveness and efficiency. They are not necessarily factors. Private industry produces private profits.

Foxy

I have worked in both private and government organisations (primarily government). Part of the problem for both sectors is size - the bigger. the more layers of staff and the more bureacratic. A large slice of government administration is spent on ensuring that whatever policies are currently in effect are followed (whether the policy is good or not is another matter entirely). But procedures must be followed and decisions accounted for. Where this can be disastrous is where policy is particularly rigid, for example, the treatment of refugees.

Private also has to meet procedures but no where near level of government. This gives it greater flexibility - depending on its management. As Davidf stated there is no obligation for a private business to be competitive so long as it is making a profit. Examples of this are monopolies like Coles and Woolworths. If anything, they are anti-competitive.

What is important is the desired outcome. For example Health Care is better handled by government where there is no conflict of profit over human wellbeing. However, innovation and development are best in private hands, for example, sustainable energy.

Therefore, some services are better in government control, others in non-government organisation (Red Cross) or Public Private Partnership (public housing) and finally completely private ownership (manufacturing).

Like much in this life there is no 'single' or 'either/or' answer. A blend of all where appropriate is best. The problem is that many services were privatised that should never have been and many large corporations were de-regulated to the point we have now - financial melt-down.

Balance is everything. But there will always be those who believe that their way is the only way, hence the conflict.

It's a fairly generalised concept.

I agree that it depends on what service you're talking about.

How would a privatised Police Force or Fire Brigade work out for the public?

From my experience in both sectors, I found that public enterprise generally works in the public interest while a private enterprise works only for the shareholder.

However, since many existing public enterprises (such as electricity) have become corporatised and try to function as profit motivated business enterprises so the lines have blurred.

Maybe it's management and not ownership that makes the difference.

Efficiency is also not the same as effectiveness.

Anybody like to name a public enterprise that's become more effective since it was sold off?

*Maybe it's management and not ownership that makes the difference.*

Ah very true! If we take Australia Post, these days they are actually
reasonably efficient. But I gather that is because they were read
the riot act, ie. if they did not pull their fingers out, they would
be sold.

Where we have a problem these days, is that many laws that applied to
the public service, have now been forced onto the private sector,
like the right to fire people who are useless.

Small business is where things are generally highly competitive.
If they ran their businesses like Govt runs its business, most
would be broke.

Lets just look for instance, how the Australian Defence force wastes
money. I was reading the other day, about a piece of equipment
worth many millions, which is required to train submarine staff
in getting out of submarines at depth. Apparently they have
one sitting over here, but due to some disputes it is not running.
Easy, just fly everyone to Canada for training, the taxpayer
just coughs up. If private enterprise worked that way, they would
soon be out of business.