Privatisation, Corporatisation and the Role of Government

Local news broadcasters in Western Australia today were running stories about the issue of Gas Supply. The perthnow news site was headlined "WA gas prices three times higher than in the east". The Australian news site headlined the story "WA gas cheap by global standards". The ABC News site headlined it "Low gas price won't hurt economy: forecaster". And Gas Today Australia magazine headlined it "WA gas crisis?"

Reading the detail of each story was not really illuminating. It seems to me that one's view in the matter was entirely dependent on which vested interest you were supportive of.

What is unavoidable is the reality that for domestic consumers in WA gas, electricity and water prices have all escalated quite dramatically over the past two years, and some commentators suggest that more rises are still in the offing. The reason for these rises is that since the providers of these utilities have been privatised or corporatised they have had to charge prices that enable them to make a profit for shareholders.

This, in my view, is an extraordinary situation for us to be in because I can remember when the pressure was being applied within the political processes that led to the selling off of our Gas services and the segregation of our electricity supply, generation and network services into three separate companies, we were assured that consumers would be the beneficiaries of the competition that would be possible in a privatised market for these services. The reality of our experience seems at odds with this claim.

There seems to have been a view around over the past few decades that if the private sector thinks it can make a buck out of something the government usually does, then it should be allowed to have a go. As a result we have outsourced, corporatised, and privatised more and more services that were previous only provided by the government. This new direction was born on the myth that government-provided services were intrinsically inefficient and tax-payers should be allowed to get better value for their money.

Examples of privatisation delivering cheaper services to consumers are few and far between, but what Governments have liked about these strategies is that they are no longer responsible when things go wrong. They can bleat and carp at the new entity just like consumers but they can't be blamed. (The most extreme example I can think of in this line is the way the Government was able to duck for cover over the death of Mr Ward, the aboriginal man who died of heat stroke while being transported in an un-airconditioned van on a 40 degree day in the outback.)

I have always held the view that there are certain essential services that we, as citizens, should have delivered to our dwellings in a manner that is free from the pressures of commercial gain. Water-supply and sewerage makes sense. Roads and pathways are taken for granted. Reticulated Gas and Electricity are vital for public health and well-being. I would also argue that the network for telephone and high-speed broadband fit into this category these days because the government, not a profit-driven company, is best place to meet the universal access obligations that have applied for telephony for generations. Who we get to send services down the fibres is another matter, just as we can choose whose services we use for transportation of goods and services on our roads.

We live in a great state with an abundance of resources to provide all these services. It makes me mad when I hear politicians ducking their responsibilities in this area with false arguments about the benefits of having the private sectgor provide these services.

What do you think?

Let's all call it quits!

In some ways I understand it, but why is it so inevitable that when a leader of a political party loses an election they not only resign the leadership but they eventually resign as representative of the electorate that they just won.



Mr Brumby said emphatically after the election that he would stay on until the next election yet here he is today saying that it is better to get out of the way all together - and now at great expense and inconvenience the people of Broadmeadows have to go through a by-election to choose another representative.

No wonder people feel disillusioned and disempowered in the electoral process.

Diarmuid O'Murchu,a Catholic priest in a monastic community in the USA, said the following in his most recent publication, Adult Faith:

Governance as exercised across the contemporary world is an inherited patriarchal strategy, based on a top-down chain of command. It is inherently disempowering for the majority of humankind, and for most people it seriously undermines their development as adult selves.

He goes on to talk about democratic disempowerment and drawing attention to the fact that really just a very few people actually exercise power. Yes the people have the power to choose government and dispose of government if they are disatisfied, but the so-called "power of the ballot box" is a very thin veneer of what power is all about.

He then goes further describing the relationship between the powerful elite and the masses as one of co-dependency - the powerful elite need the masses to be passive, allowing them to exercise the power they have, and the masses need the powerful elite to be active because they realise the really don't have any power.

I am still working on many other ideas he raises in his book, but these words made me wonder about the authenticity of the ring of truth I seem to hear in them.

What do you think?

They published some of my letter - SCIENTOLOGY

I wrote to the Magazine editor of the Australian newspaper about the article they did on Scientology and which was the subject of an earlier blog-piece. Following is the letter I wrote and the bold parts are what they published.

Dear Sir

Thank you for creating a pathway for Julie-Anne Davies to submit to the basic introductory experience of Scientology. While it was illuminating, it confirmed some of my fears. In our pluralistic society we get used to people being able to believe whatever they like, but two things disturb me about Scientology (just two? you ask).

I have always been perplexed about why they have incorporated the Christian symbol of the Cross in their logo (what else can it be called?). Hubbard has never tried to suggest that Scientology was Christian. Perhaps it helped in their quest for recognition as a "Church" for tax purposes.

My second concern is far more profound. The process of Auditing as described by Julie-Anne borders on deep psychotherapy but we are given no reassurance that Scientologist Auditors have any deeper training that might give them some skills to deal with unexpected psychological trauma that might be aroused by the therapy. While a similar accusation might be laid at the feet of many Christian Ministers of Religion my experience as one demonstrates that most of the pastoral counselling they might do with members of their flocks does not deal with anything like the deep seated memories from the past that are deliberately sought for uncovering by the Scientoligist Auditor. When you go around lifting the metaphorical rocks in people's lives to see if there are any worms underneath, you have to be prepared and qualified to deal with the concequences resulting from the rrevelation of those worms.

Yours sincerely,

Not bad. They tried to balance the number of letters supportive and antogonistice to the article.