ASF needs a thumbs up function for posts like this. Great Job Smurf.
Sad as the TasRail story is I will wager that it will be privatised again one day.
Politics aside (both Labor and Liberal do much the same in this regard) I fail to see how selling assets which are profitable, or at least self sustaining, brings about an "improvement" in finances.
It's like saying that a landlord with $5 million worth of properties and $2.5 million worth of debt should sell half their properties and repay the debt. That only makes sense if the return on the recoverable value of those assets is less than the interest on the debt which, given current low interest rates, would not generally be the case with public assets held by governments.
There's also the broader economic consequences. Ports, rail, electricity etc in public ownership will usually have a broader focus on economic development and facilitating business. Put them in private ownership and that disappears - it then becomes all about profit maximisation for the asset owner and to hell with the broader economic consequences.
Then there's the inevitable running down of the infrastructure itself, to the point that a government bailout may be required in order to avoid broader economic impacts at a future date.
The railways in Tasmania are perhaps the best (worst) Australian example - run into the ground under private ownership to the point that it became impossible to simply move a train from one end of Australia's smallest state to the other without it literally coming off the tracks and ending up in a paddock lying on its' side with whatever it was carrying strewn over the surrounding area. Even at snail's pace they couldn't make them run, such was the extent to which the system was run down as profits were stripped out. The state government ended up buying the whole thing back for a small amount (few $ million since that's all it was really worth) and then spent a fortune fixing tracks, rolling stock and locomotives simply so as to have a working rail freight system. Not that they could afford to fix it properly up front - but trains running at 40 km/h and actually getting from A to B is at least better than trains falling off the tracks on a regular basis. Pump in more money each year and eventually they'll get them up to a decent speed - currently they're buying some new locomotives, the track itself having been the first priority.
Trains in Tas are just one example. Much has been said about power generation in recent times, especially the emissions from certain old power plants. The harsh reality is that most electricity in Victoria still comes form the exact same power stations it came from 20 years ago and which were built by the former SECV. The only thing that's changed is a cut in maintenance, less technically efficient operation and a big increase in unplanned mishaps. Piling up shipping containers inside a power station as a "blast wall" in case a faulty turbine ***** itself and flies to pieces at 3000 RPM complete with superheated steam going everywhere is truly Third World stuff (to say the least). Then there's that nice "new" plant just down the road - actually it's simply a relocation of a plant built in the 1960's in NZ which that country subsequently scrapped as obsolete. They'd have relocated another old clunker from India too, if the EPA hadn't stepped in amidst concerns about filling the air with fumes not far from Melbourne itself.
I'm not against private enterprise, not at all, but I don't see that transferring the ownership of infrastructure from government to private owners is really achieving a benefit. Government gets some cash today but loses forever an ongoing revenue stream and also the ability to influence broader economic and social outcomes. In return, government still carries the risk if the private owners choose to walk away or otherwise mess things up. It's not like a small shop going broke or even the likes of a car manufacturer. If the owners of a port, major power station, transport system etc walk away then there's really no option other than for government to either find a buyer immediately or (more likely) resume ownership and spend a fortune fixing it up and making it work. So as taxpayers, we're privatising the profits but retaining virtually all the risks in public hands.
I wish you'd post links to your rants.So another brilliant policy from the Coalition.
I don't think you'll find too many defending the current WA state government at the present time.Coalition goverments manage money better.........ops
State Govt eyes port sales after ratings cut
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/19007307/state-govt-eyes-port-sales-after-ratings-cut/
The IMF study mirrors findings in a 2008 Australian Treasury study that found real government spending grew faster in the final four years of the Howard government than in any four-year period since the 1990s recession.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-imf-study-20130110-2cj38.html#ixzz2fKlLhnKU
Australia's future must be in something other than mining for the simple reason that, with compound growth, we'll have extracted most of the valuable minerals (possible exception of iron ore) a lot faster than most seem to be expecting.and focus more on the needs of the social and economic fabric to transition back to a more manufacturing and or scientific research base for our longer term strength.
Syd,
What would you like me to endorse about the last government? Straw man misogyny rants? Pink bats? Massive increase in people smuggling? Blown out deficit? Carbon Tax? Worst of all, dividing this country like never before?
Give me something positive to cling to.....apart from them losing the election.
I wish you'd post links to your rants.
It might then be easier to verify and consider the substance in the appropriate context.
* Lowest level of work place deaths n a couple of decades (note there was a slight increase after work chouices was introduced)
* No technical recession
* Trend growth for the last 6 years, chieved with an over vaued AUD for much of that time.
* Inflation contained - certainly a lot better than it was under Howard.
* Unemloyment never went above 6% during the GFC - far better performance that pretty much any other rich country.
A combination of Abbott CRISIS and Labors internal fighting has hidden the fact we've done pretty well the last 6 years.
If you could trade Australia's economic performance under Labor for another country that we usually compare ourselves to, would you? USA, no thanks. Europe, pass. Canada, maybe though their household debt to GDP has shot up to even higher levels than ours. NZ, don't think so.
Take away China and the resources boom Syd and even you would have to admit the picture would be different... don't forget much angst over the resources investment boom coming to an end because of Labor's admin... which now seems more positive that their gone.
Oh, and all those unnecessarily squandered BILLIONS in stimulus that never needed to be blown.
Your points are mostly due to external factors.
I can't find any further information on this beyond the above link to see how it fits in overall Coalition policy, but as a matter of general principal, I don't agree with that specific policy. I'm of the view that instillation rebates for solar panels should be reduced rather than increased. The Libs should take a look at what's happening in Europe with solar panels.So criticising the Coalition is "ranting" eh. What do you call it when criticising one of the other political parties?
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/9/19/solar-energy/hunts-dumb-solar-rebate
The $500 rebate will be capped at 100,000 installs per year for 10 years, if I have understood the sketchy details of the policy correctly. This compares to annual installation volumes of about 250,000 PV systems and 50,000 solar hot water systems in Australia.
I don't agree though with the Green Energy Finance Corporation and the carbon tax that Labor introduced and these are far bigger policy sins in my view.
A lot of taxpayer money has been wasted by governments pouring large sums of money into various private sector support schemes over the years. Home insulation and forestry are two classic example and solar panels I feel will ultimately be judged in the same light.Just curious why you don't support the Green Energy Finance Corporation? Even if one doesn't support the notion of climate change surely you can still see the benefit of using cleaner energy sources that lower pollution and decrease our dependency on fossil fuels and will one day pose sovereignty issues if alternative sources aren't found. Giving the private sector the incentive and security to invest in clean energy seems practical.
For the record I don't support the ETS.
Lending for this sort of stuff is best left to the private sector.
Can one of you over in the west get around to Barnett's office with a decent sort of a sock... before he torpedoes LNP and Abbotts credibility and snaps the tiny 1.9% swing thread holding him in office!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?