Australia Post and Medibank To Be Sold Off?

[icyfroth]

ACCC chairman Sims argues the benefits of privatisation

An article in this morning's Australian Financial Review, based on an interview with Mr Sims, says that he has called for Federal Government to sell Medibank Private and Australia Post.

However, Mr Sims has told News Radio that he was not advocating for the sale of particular Government-owned businesses.

"Australia Post, that's really an issue for government, I was making a general point this morning, and I'll really leave it at that," he told News Radio's Marius Benson.

"I think there are direct experiences you can draw from the energy sector, but I've really got no parallel from which to comment on Australia Post, or Medibank Private for that matter.

"Mr Sims adds, however, that the only good reason for government ownership is because it has particular social objectives in mind.

"If all you're after is maximum efficiency then there's no question that you'd have those assets owned by the private sector," he argued.

"If you're continuing to own them by government, then that's because you've got some social objective to achieve."If you have a social objective, it's worth specifying what that is, and I suspect there's probably more direct ways to achieve that social objective".

 Martin O'Nea, the national assistant secretary of the Communication Workers Union says " Australia Post hasreturned more than $800 million in dividends to taxpayers over the past three years.

He also warns that Australia Post's less profitable but socially useful services, such as relatively affordable and timely mail and parcel deliveries to rural and regional Australia, would likely suffer if it was privatised

."With a privatised Australia Post, would them services that people have seen in the past three years remain the same?" Mr O'Nea asked rhetorically."We'd venture that the experience that regional and rural Australia have had with privatisation in the past would leave them to believe that it certainly wouldn't.

"That is a view shared by the Post Office Agents Association Limited, which represents the owners and operators of licensed post offices, which make up around 75 per cent of Australia Post's network.

"A privatised postal operator would focus on the main population centres at the expense of customers in rural Australia," said its chief executive Ian Kerr.

The association says it received assurances from both major parties ahead of last year's federal election that neither had plans to privatise Australia Post.

The Government has launched a scoping study into the possible sale of Medibank Private, which is due to report next month.

Click Here To View Entire Article

Poor Aussies, so far in debt we'll have to sell off our remaining assets soon, and then how will we repay our loans if all our jobs go overseas or to foreign workers?

[freakiness]

---

@donnashuggy wrote:

Collision Government 

---

Appropriate name, imo.

[freakiness]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

manageable as in...wer'e at least paying the interest?

or manageable as in...we have to sell of assets and rights to our resouces to pay it off?

---

We don't HAVE to sell off the assets.  We can manage the resources and the assets. They generate income.

Do people sell their houses just to pay off their mortgage if they can afford the mortgage payments? 

---

Hopefully not.

But if they have to take out more credit to finance their living expenses, and then more credit to cover the re-payments of that loan, ran up against circumstances beyond their control and got over their heads, defaulte on their loan, perhaps that would be their only option. 

---

Either that or they'd be out on their ear because the lender has called in the debt.

---

We're not in that position though so why make out like we are?

[monman12]

IF: "Australia Post and Medibank To Be Sold Off?"

Hmmmm, reading the article I notice it contains ".....Mr Sims has told News Radio that he was not advocating for the sale of particular Government-owned businesses......"

Then I discover this (today) :
"ACCC chairman Rod Sims denies urging privatisation of Australia Post"

Also noted:
"Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the government had no plans to privatise Australia Post."
"The Coalition has no plans to privatise Australia Post"

"A spokesman for Nationals leader Warren Truss said the government did not plan to sell the service."

"The government doesn't have any policy to sell Australia Post"

So IF, what on earth is the thread actually about, because the "?" is not adequate qualification?

Within the article:
"Martin O'Nea, the national assistant secretary of the Communication Workers Union says " Australia Post has returned more than $800 million in dividends to taxpayers over the past three years."

A quick check of the published financial reports show that dividend return  to be :

12/13  $244    million
11/12  $213.7  million
10/11  $173.2 million

I would  suggest that  O'Nea progress no higher than assistant secretary, because his researching is on a par with the occasional CS author. 

[tall_bearded]

“surely Aus Post couldn't get any worse”

Oh yes it can.

Prices will increase (probably double) and services be reduced or eliminated entirely, particularly in remote areas.

That is, with the asset in public hands, there is an onus on the service provider to provide the same level of service irrespective of where you live.  In private hands, the service you are provided will depend exclusively what is profitable in the context of where you live.

[donnashuggy]

Absolutely, at the moment the cost for light items is the same practically everywhere with Australia Post within Australia, this will be the first thing to change.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

So why are we so far in debt? Something like 3.5 Billion AUD?

---

What, in your opinion would be a managable level of debt?

---

That's a hard question for me, She-el, seeing I'm a political numpty and and not very good at figures either, as you've probably noticed. 

But as an answer I'd say...maybe something like the 96-odd billion the Howard government started off with when it took office.

Which was paid down by selling off assets like Telstra and quite a few others, bringing us into a $20bill surplus.

Which is now gone, and not only gone, but now wer'e now evenin more debt, and I don't entirely blame the Labor government, there were circumstances beyond their control.

It does worry me however when a government applies to raise our debt ceiling to $500bill and the opposition says no no no you can only have 400bill, that we still need to borrow more. No there's no debt ceiling at all, to my understanding.

I mean, how are we going to pay even just the interest on those loans? Cutting services, raising taxes and selling off assets seems the logical answer, doesn't it? I mean, if that's going to happen, then why not in the first place, to keep us out of debt and out of foreign hands.?

Which is why I feel a bit insecure when I hear little hints of further Government services to be privatised sold off. How much longer before we run out of assets and resources?

BBL

---

But the problem is, reducing debt by selling assets can only ever be a very short term solution and one that  can only lead to increasing  problems in the future. - revenue from these assets is lost and  the time  inevitably comes when there are no more assets to sell. And where do you go from there?

[bluecat*dancing]

The selling of public assets is only for a short-term-look-at-me-profit. Sneaky and underhanded, yet, there are those who fall for it, time amd time again.

[lakeland27]

---

@monman12 wrote:

IF: "Australia Post and Medibank To Be Sold Off?"

Hmmmm, reading the article I notice it contains ".....Mr Sims has told News Radio that he was not advocating for the sale of particular Government-owned businesses......"

Then I discover this (today) :
"ACCC chairman Rod Sims denies urging privatisation of Australia Post"

Also noted:
"Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the government had no plans to privatise Australia Post."
"The Coalition has no plans to privatise Australia Post"

"A spokesman for Nationals leader Warren Truss said the government did not plan to sell the service."

"The government doesn't have any policy to sell Australia Post"

So IF, what on earth is the thread actually about, because the "?" is not adequate qualification?

Within the article:
"Martin O'Nea, the national assistant secretary of the Communication Workers Union says " Australia Post has returned more than $800 million in dividends to taxpayers over the past three years."

A quick check of the published financial reports show that dividend return  to be :

12/13  $244    million
11/12  $213.7  million
10/11  $173.2 million

I would  suggest that  O'Nea progress no higher than assistant secretary, because his researching is on a par with the occasional CS author. 

---

i would think this is a pantomime governments of all descriptions go through. leak a litttle and see how it plays out. then decide (or reconsider if the decision has been made) .

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

So why are we so far in debt? Something like 3.5 Billion AUD?

---

What, in your opinion would be a managable level of debt?

---

That's a hard question for me, She-el, seeing I'm a political numpty and and not very good at figures either, as you've probably noticed. 

But as an answer I'd say...maybe something like the 96-odd billion the Howard government started off with when it took office.

Which was paid down by selling off assets like Telstra and quite a few others, bringing us into a $20bill surplus.

Which is now gone, and not only gone, but now wer'e now evenin more debt, and I don't entirely blame the Labor government, there were circumstances beyond their control.

It does worry me however when a government applies to raise our debt ceiling to $500bill and the opposition says no no no you can only have 400bill, that we still need to borrow more. No there's no debt ceiling at all, to my understanding.

I mean, how are we going to pay even just the interest on those loans? Cutting services, raising taxes and selling off assets seems the logical answer, doesn't it? I mean, if that's going to happen, then why not in the first place, to keep us out of debt and out of foreign hands.?

Which is why I feel a bit insecure when I hear little hints of further Government services to be privatised sold off. How much longer before we run out of assets and resources?

BBL

---

But the problem is, reducing debt by selling assets can only ever be a very short term solution and one that  can only lead to increasing  problems in the future. - revenue from these assets is lost and  the time  inevitably comes when there are no more assets to sell. And where do you go from there?

---

hypothetical -

what if some big assets were sold, and a smaller asset bought with some of the money, which in theory would appreciate over time and eventually be of the same value as the former, and use the rest of the money elsewhere or doing something else, or even buying more but smaller assets?

Kinda like subdividing, maybe?

downsizing? (like people do with houses)

or - before I had 1 big house. so I sold it and bought a block of townhouses. so now I still have somewhere to live, as well as a few other sources of revenue.....

[freakiness]

Do you mean like the previous govt planned with the NBN?

Sure sounds like it.  Build a new network that will provide a good service and income in the future