06-01-2014 07:58 PM - edited 06-01-2014 07:59 PM
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?
08-01-2014 12:09 AM - edited 08-01-2014 12:10 AM
Downsize the PO (don't need one on every corner anymore), cull the posties, 3 day a week home delivery would be enough for letters and sell it off, imo.
on 08-01-2014 07:43 AM
Yes Monman I do have at rudimentary understanding of how business and the economy works. I also understand why public sector Corporations existed in the first instance.
As a public sector entity the decisions it (the Corporation) makes are subject to not only community but also parliamentary oversight. So let’s see what, in all probability, would have happened to interest rates if the CBA had not been privatised.
The Reserve reduces interest rates by say .25 basis points with the CBA having no alternative but to pass that cut on in full. In full because to do otherwise would result in a community backlash which would have been aimed directly at the responsible minister. That is, as a public sector entity, the decisions it makes carries with them political consequences, which is the core reason why it was privatised. Then as the CBA has passed on the cuts in full, this has a flow on effect on the other banks. That is they either follow suite or start losing customers, a lot of them.
The same goes for fees and charges. Before the CBA was privatised there were few if any. Once it was privatised the banks went into a feeding frenzy. In fact I can recall one instance where, after privatisation, when the chairman of the CBA was asked to justify a decision to up one of its transaction fees the answer was ”because I can”.
That is the very existence of a public sector bank was of benefit of the community as it forced the other banks to moderate their behaviour. Now it’s been privatised the banks are pretty much free to do as they like, and we are all paying through the nose because of it.
on 08-01-2014 09:38 AM
selling off publicly owned assets is mostly done for idealogical reasons firstly economic second. Both Labor and conservatives are guily and not one single sold off asset has become more productive, better etc etc.
as we continue down the road of "private profit above all" our future is looking grim. When i say "our" i only mean the majority not the parasites who live off our labour.
if you need proof, check out the UK as we are adopting a lot of their political/social decisions, both state govt and federal.
on 08-01-2014 09:44 AM
here's an article I posted back in 2011 and I believe it's relevant to this discussion, so worth reposting. Especially after retailers repoted record sales over Christmas last year (2013).
Hey, big spenders, it's time to worry about all that foreign debt
There is no doubt Australia is one of the most heavily indebted countries. A list compiled by the American Central Intelligence Agency puts us at No. 14 on the foreign debt scale with about $1.2 trillion owing to offshore lenders.
When you consider our relatively small population, and our strong but comparatively tiny economy, that means we are punching well above our weight in the spendthrift stakes. In fact, total foreign debt easily outstrips national income. The CIA reckons we owe the rest of the world 132 per cent of our annual gross domestic product.
But hang on, I hear you say. Didn't the Treasurer boast the other night that we are one of the least indebted nations in the developed world?
Indeed he did. Australia's net foreign debt would peak at just 7.2 per cent of GDP in the coming financial year, he claimed.
That's a long way shy of the figure calculated by the CIA, and far too big a gap to be explained by rounding or the rubbery calculations involved between net and gross debt. So who is telling the truth?
The simple explanation to this conundrum is that the Treasurer was only talking about government debt, the loot he's responsible for borrowing.
At about $120 billion, it's certainly a lot bigger than the $38 billion debt in the first year of the Rudd government. But despite the theatrics from Tony and Joe, government debt is negligible compared to the size of our economy and barely makes an impression when calculating who owes what to the rest of the world.
The real culprits in the foreign debt splurge are you and me.
Between us, with our mortgages, the renovations, our investment properties, our margin loans, the new car, the credit cards and that interest-free loan on the new fridge, we account for the vast bulk of that $1.2 trillion foreign debt.
Again, I hear you scratching your heads. How could that possibly be the case? Haven't we all been complaining about the dominance of the big four Australian banks, and how they have a stranglehold on the market?
Who on earth is borrowing all this money offshore?
I'll tell you who. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Westpac Banking Corporation, ANZ Banking Group and National Australia Bank.
For years now, they've been running around the world, raising vast amounts of cash, and then bringing it back home to lend to us.
Depending on the bank, up to a half the money they lend us comes from offshore markets.
The other banks were all into it as well before they were rudely interrupted by the financial crisis three years ago.
My point is, while wer'e going on about what a prosperous country we are, we should look at how much of our prosperity is based on credit. And creditors want to be paid back, eventually.
If we don't have the nest egg tucked away for that eventuality, wer'e going to have to start selling our asses assets.
At the rate Australia has been selling off federal and state assets, since 1980, will Australia Post and Medicare be next?
And what about after that?
on 08-01-2014 09:46 AM
on 08-01-2014 10:25 AM
@donnashuggy wrote:You don't think we have a nest egg?
Kidding, right?
No. not kidding.
If we have a nest egg why are we in deficit upwards of $3.5 bil and why have we been selling off privatising our public companies since the 1980's ? And why did Mr Abbott want to raise our debt ceiling to $500 bil, ulitmately doing away with the debt ceiling altogether, with the opposition acceding to only (only) $400 bil?
Please explain it slowly and clearly for a political numpty like me who is not very good with figures.
Oh. Is Australia Post and Medicare our new nest egg after we lost our $20bil surplus nest egg during the Labor term?
on 08-01-2014 10:28 AM
on 08-01-2014 10:32 AM
US public debt $17 trillion, that's $1,48,747 for each US taxpayer. Its a whopping 107% of GDP. EU national debt amounts to 87% of GDP, UK 66.1% while Japan owes a massive 200% plus.
The Govts of these (and other) countries have borrowed large sums of money to bail out the financial institutions, this debt HAS to be serviced. The heavy burden of debt has, one the one hand undermined the creditworthiness of some of the govts, forcing the latter to pay unrealistic rates of interest to the very sharks which have just been rescued by them and on the other hand, it has forced the govts to impose draconian austerity measures on the workers, unemployed, pensioners etc.
I think most will agree that none of the above govts could be accused of "wasting" money on the poor or the sick. Most of the above mentioned govts have either been busily selling off their publicly owned assets over the last few decades or never had any.
I need another coffee now to cheer myself up.
on 08-01-2014 10:53 AM
@donnashuggy wrote:Resources, sorry for the one word answer 🙂
How many of those are still Australian owned?
on 08-01-2014 11:00 AM