There are a whole range of purchasing options for renationalisation from compulsory acquisition, as mentioned, to an agreement giving asset control to the gov while permanent passive private propietors clip their coupons while we switch on our air-conditioning. Middle of the road options could include a kind of rent to buy scheme, annual reverse auctions of with the federal government offering diminishing amounts for parts of the national grid, slowly pushing up incentives to sell with increasing regulation, or any combination of the above.
There will be much talk of threats to our wide brown land's reputation with the global investor class, most of whom are amazed that we let them tap us for free money for so long. But generally attacks will center on increasing electricity prices and will be loud and frequent enough to drown. The government needs to pre-empt this with a campaign of billboards and mail outs pointing out how prices have increased more sharply under private ownership than public.
Any nationalisation process that offers private owners the best price to get out while the going is good shouldn't be too difficult to put together. But the more I think about it, the more I think that compulsory acquisition would be the way to go. A quick change will have fewer risks and messing about over the medium and long term compared to any prolonged series of payments or piecemeal acquisition. It would require a "take it or leave it" offer including the $40 billion in lost revenue mentioned in the article BUT with a hefty "we could have done this much sooner, be grateful you're getting this much" discount. The cost to tax payers would be atomised across the country (WA? Why should WE pay for the grid YOU were silly enough to privatise? And give us more GST revenue...; )..) and over time with loans THAT COSTS US LESS IN THE LONG TERM AND PROBABLY MEDIUM TERM THAN THE COST OF LEAVING VITAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE HANDS OF AVARICIOUS RENT SEEKERS YOU DRIBBLING, SYCOPHANTIC, DELUDED..............ahem. Sorry about that. Sometimes I hear voices in my head and they sound suspiciously like Peter Hartcher and Andrew Bolt.
The political risk of a the one fell swoop approach will be high from the time of announcement to several years after completion of handover. Given that this time period will almost certainly span more than one election cycle means it would take a government that believes in what it is doing and legislates to make the process all but irreversable. I know, I know but we have to hold out hope, otherwise what's the point?
A process stretched out to what could be decades leaves to much room for reversal, stuff-ups, cost blow outs, extra rent seeking and leaving the job half done, probably in the form of some horrible public private hybrid entity. Any reputational damage to us as an investor destination will be short lived and only scare away the types of investors we don't want. ie: VC, PE.
John Yes I think it’s time. Years ago I stupidly I thought there was value in privatising certain public assets. I guess my short stint working in the NSW Treasury budget division had something to do with it. However I was never convinced entirely by the arguments put forward years ago by the Treasury Secretary Percy Allan and his ilk. At the time Steve Rix and Russell Agnew both NSW Treasury economists and PSA union representatives who I worked with, had a totally different perspective on public utilities. Now after many years of reflection, seeing the failures here and world wide with privatisations, I am totally convinced all public utilities should stay in public hands. Yes the arduous research over many years carried out by yourself and Graeme Hodge on contracting out and privatisation, has helped me to see the reality of different types of privatisations and their disastrous consequences.
a reminder that the technical monopoly argument for socialisation of the electric grid is now being reinforced by the fact that decarbonisation is taking the form of electrifying everything. As heat pumps replace gas boilers and gas water heaters and induction hobs replace gas ones, more and more homes will look like mine, with electricity as the only form of energy. As demand for gas falls, maintenance of he gas distribution network becomes uneconomic. As it's dangerous to cut corners on this, the pipes will have to be shut off. The small number of traditionalist cooks who insist on gas can be satisfied with bottled butane.
Agree. Regarding your comment about public ownership of transmission infrastructure, have a dig into Humelink too please for more of an expensive mess not in the public interest including exemption from NSW BCA guidelines because it’s “so special”. Exactly the sort of project with undeniably large social and environmental impacts the guidelines were intended for! Including env offsets that are a joke. Even GHD covered themselves in their analyses by stating “under grounding”likely to be best if all social and Env costs of above ground infrastructure were better assessed and included. Public good is ignored yet again. No one knows the net benefit because no one has done the required costings. This needs you, a professional with public profile and public good goals, to take on. Loudly. The broader public interest has been overshadowed by the landholder lobbying. Easy to dismiss the whole mess by focussing on what can be seen as private interests I guess. Where is the government’s duty of care? Thanks, as always!
Wholeheartedly agree with you but the expression pigs might fly comes to mind. Could you imagine the cacophony the msm would make about socialism and even the dreaded communism if your sensible suggestion was acted on.
Interview was cancelled so I'm glad I took the time to write this up
Why was the interview cancelled? Too controversial for the ABC?
They just decided to focus on some other aspect, my guess is the battery, but we can see when it goes to air
There are a whole range of purchasing options for renationalisation from compulsory acquisition, as mentioned, to an agreement giving asset control to the gov while permanent passive private propietors clip their coupons while we switch on our air-conditioning. Middle of the road options could include a kind of rent to buy scheme, annual reverse auctions of with the federal government offering diminishing amounts for parts of the national grid, slowly pushing up incentives to sell with increasing regulation, or any combination of the above.
There will be much talk of threats to our wide brown land's reputation with the global investor class, most of whom are amazed that we let them tap us for free money for so long. But generally attacks will center on increasing electricity prices and will be loud and frequent enough to drown. The government needs to pre-empt this with a campaign of billboards and mail outs pointing out how prices have increased more sharply under private ownership than public.
Any nationalisation process that offers private owners the best price to get out while the going is good shouldn't be too difficult to put together. But the more I think about it, the more I think that compulsory acquisition would be the way to go. A quick change will have fewer risks and messing about over the medium and long term compared to any prolonged series of payments or piecemeal acquisition. It would require a "take it or leave it" offer including the $40 billion in lost revenue mentioned in the article BUT with a hefty "we could have done this much sooner, be grateful you're getting this much" discount. The cost to tax payers would be atomised across the country (WA? Why should WE pay for the grid YOU were silly enough to privatise? And give us more GST revenue...; )..) and over time with loans THAT COSTS US LESS IN THE LONG TERM AND PROBABLY MEDIUM TERM THAN THE COST OF LEAVING VITAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE HANDS OF AVARICIOUS RENT SEEKERS YOU DRIBBLING, SYCOPHANTIC, DELUDED..............ahem. Sorry about that. Sometimes I hear voices in my head and they sound suspiciously like Peter Hartcher and Andrew Bolt.
The political risk of a the one fell swoop approach will be high from the time of announcement to several years after completion of handover. Given that this time period will almost certainly span more than one election cycle means it would take a government that believes in what it is doing and legislates to make the process all but irreversable. I know, I know but we have to hold out hope, otherwise what's the point?
A process stretched out to what could be decades leaves to much room for reversal, stuff-ups, cost blow outs, extra rent seeking and leaving the job half done, probably in the form of some horrible public private hybrid entity. Any reputational damage to us as an investor destination will be short lived and only scare away the types of investors we don't want. ie: VC, PE.
I like the way you think.
John Yes I think it’s time. Years ago I stupidly I thought there was value in privatising certain public assets. I guess my short stint working in the NSW Treasury budget division had something to do with it. However I was never convinced entirely by the arguments put forward years ago by the Treasury Secretary Percy Allan and his ilk. At the time Steve Rix and Russell Agnew both NSW Treasury economists and PSA union representatives who I worked with, had a totally different perspective on public utilities. Now after many years of reflection, seeing the failures here and world wide with privatisations, I am totally convinced all public utilities should stay in public hands. Yes the arduous research over many years carried out by yourself and Graeme Hodge on contracting out and privatisation, has helped me to see the reality of different types of privatisations and their disastrous consequences.
a reminder that the technical monopoly argument for socialisation of the electric grid is now being reinforced by the fact that decarbonisation is taking the form of electrifying everything. As heat pumps replace gas boilers and gas water heaters and induction hobs replace gas ones, more and more homes will look like mine, with electricity as the only form of energy. As demand for gas falls, maintenance of he gas distribution network becomes uneconomic. As it's dangerous to cut corners on this, the pipes will have to be shut off. The small number of traditionalist cooks who insist on gas can be satisfied with bottled butane.
Agree. Regarding your comment about public ownership of transmission infrastructure, have a dig into Humelink too please for more of an expensive mess not in the public interest including exemption from NSW BCA guidelines because it’s “so special”. Exactly the sort of project with undeniably large social and environmental impacts the guidelines were intended for! Including env offsets that are a joke. Even GHD covered themselves in their analyses by stating “under grounding”likely to be best if all social and Env costs of above ground infrastructure were better assessed and included. Public good is ignored yet again. No one knows the net benefit because no one has done the required costings. This needs you, a professional with public profile and public good goals, to take on. Loudly. The broader public interest has been overshadowed by the landholder lobbying. Easy to dismiss the whole mess by focussing on what can be seen as private interests I guess. Where is the government’s duty of care? Thanks, as always!
Wholeheartedly agree with you but the expression pigs might fly comes to mind. Could you imagine the cacophony the msm would make about socialism and even the dreaded communism if your sensible suggestion was acted on.
I think ordinary people are open to the idea, and the Overton window needs to be prised to the left.
I hope your right Elinor.