Statement on asset sales

I’ve done this as a press release. See if anyone bites

STATEMENT

The government’s announced plans for privatisation show that Queenslanders are unlikely to get a good deal from the proposed asset sales, according to Professor John Quiggin of the University of Queensland. Professor Quiggin was one of a group of 21 leading Australian economists who stated in November that the government had failed to put forward a serious case for privatisation, and that an informed public debate was urgently needed.

Professor Quiggin stated:

* The use of a 99-year lease rather than an outright sale is a device commonly used by governments seeking to make privatisation palatable, but one that makes no commercial sense for assets of this kind. The public loses the asset just as surely as if it had been sold, but gets a lower price because the buyer does not become an outright owner

* The proposed public float of the QR coal and freight business, with the government retaining a minority shareholding large enough to retain effective control makes sense only on the assumption that no trade buyers were willing to pay an effective price. Purchase of shares in such a float would make sense only if they are offered at a substantial discount, meaning that the people of Queensland will almost certainly receive an inadequate price for this asset. The giveaway of shares to employees is typical of the cosmetics used by governments in packaging unsound and unpopular privatisations.

The entire privatisation scheme should be scrapped, and debate over the the desirability of asset sales, and the way to generate the best value for the public should be started from scratch

41 thoughts on “Statement on asset sales

  1. @fred
    The trouble is Fred, the greater the diminution of the public sector through the privatisation or semi privatisation of once public processes, the fewer public service controls are left remaining within institutions to require the accountability of public servants in their dealings with the private sector (transparency, accountability, honesty, ethical behaviour etc – once standard and expected behaviours).

    Hence, as controls / public objectives become cloudy, I suggest the process of privatisation would tend to accelerate as bureaucrats face less oversight and reinforcement of their public responsibilites. Without definite public service objectives, more bureacrats find a way to mix with private sector interests for their own self interest (not the electorates).

  2. I was gonna respond in some detail Alice but I s’pose the best response is “Yep”.

    Mind you [sometimes I can’t help but go on a bit] its nice to see an economics site like this one, and the OP in this particular case, offer a dissenting view to the usual guff churned out elsewhere.
    I’m mildly optimistic today.

  3. No one seems to be mentioning Labor factional politics. The conflict between the AWU and Trades Hall Unions factions keep Labor out of power for nearly 40 years. I notice the businesses being privatised are the power base of the trade unions. Seems stupid that the Qld. Labor Party would cut off their nose to spite their face but it was thinking like this that reduced them to cricket team of MP in their worst days.

  4. @Alice
    While the thought process that has gone into the asset sales remains unclear, one hypothesis that I like is founded in the notion of a powerplay within the bureaucracy. Throughout the 90s and early 00s Treasury, led by Gerard Bradley and Leo Hilscher were dominant. The focus on cash budget management saw minimal investment in infrastructure but Treasury held the power. Then the lack of inftrasructure started to bite and the politicians went around the bureaucracy and created SEQIP. SEQIP was never liked by Treasury as it meant they would have to spend money and their cash surpluses would evaporate. In addition, SEQIP saw a lot of power move away from Treasury to those agencies that actually deliver things. It saw a huge increase in power for Transport, Main Roads, Water and Health capital projects. The GFC then gave Treasury the perfect vehicle to take back control and provide questionable advice to the politicians.
    I suspect that it isn’t young analysts proving poor advice but rather the senior Treasury officials who are simply being selective about the picture they paint. In effect the asset sale is Treasury’s way of taking back power within the Bureaucracy, and Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser simply haven’t got the ability to properly assess the quality of the advice they have been given.

  5. @JJ
    JJ – Ive always had the creeping suspician that Treasuries wield just a bit much power over politicians and other government departments and that a lot of their advice has been grounded in ideological free market doctrinairres for more than a couple of decades. It is a fact that Whitlam hired his own economic advisers because he didnt trust the advice was coming from Commonwealth Treasury in the early 1970s. He said in the mid 1980s the worst mistake he ever made was listening to their advice on raising interest rates too far and too fast in relation to the 1970s inflation, causing a credit crunch which went on too long basically, and undue pain. Even the whole self aggrandising fanfare made of Costello’s future fund investments with the JH budget surplus (while infrastructure investment has continued to be inadequate and remmittance to the States for same inadequate) is questionable isnt it?.

    Exactly how much should be stuffed away when there are infrastructure needs begging for attention? It only takes something like the GFC as a warning that even surpluses stored nicely in the shares of some of Australia’s largest companies (the interaction with govt and big business again comes into question over storage in the future fund – which once agains rewards large companies by boosting their share prices and the financial sector with commissions) to realise than even government surpluses can vanish in a major stockmarket correction.

    The GFC has bounced back…but have the problems been corrected? I doubt it and there is nothing to say it couldnt happen again and be bigger and uglier than last time. I cant recall just how long ago but I once remember reading some ancient piece on the ethics and morals of Govts not throwing peoples surplus tax incomes into the share market. I presume they stuck to safer investments once? Maybe someone else knows more about whether this was the case historically or not. Im sure it was.

  6. Sorry, last post got cut off.

    I might be a bit dumb but isn’t a selloff ok provided you get:
    – a proper price for the assets
    – a proper structure in place so you dont get private gouging of a monpoly

    I acknowledge they are big ifs.

  7. @babenco

    Short answer babenco? No. Its not JUST a question of price.

    Its a question of future provision of the service or infrastructure at an affordable cost to majority even if it involves subsidies to those who cant afford it, and a question of ongoing job provision. No point just flogging things off to the private sector ffor a good price now – if they then asset strip the service, sue the government for contingest liabilities, pay the private execs a fotune in salaries and fly off to the tax haven with the profits, and shortly after file for bankruptcy as so many seem to so….Doh!

    Trouble with my view is the pollies dont get to have blindingly long lunches with the besuited and elegant private courtiers and conmen…

    What part of this scam cant you see? Your parents and their parents paid with their sweat and taxes for these assets and if they are dead they would be turning in their graves.

    Why isnt there a referendum?

  8. My wife [pardon the possessive] used to work for a particular govt dept and one day informed clients that they could avail themselves of a special service from her dept..
    The clients were shocked.
    They had just paid over a $1000 for that service from an outsourced private consultancy whereas the govt provided the same service [sometimes the same people performing the service] for costs, around $50.
    A year or so later the Federal govt. outsourced that service entirely.
    Now the govt depts costs look cheaper and for those ‘consultants’ who do the work at $1000 a day roughly things are OK.
    But the clients have to pay all that extra money which doesn’t appear on a public ledger anywhere.

    Bottom line ain’t always the one at the bottom.

  9. @fred
    Fred – I agree. User pays twice (once for fee and once to save some govt department money they can spend on V* supercars or their pensions. So much of privatisation is a cost shift to households and we wonder why private sector debt is up in the stratosphere and Govt debt (if it wasnt for the GFC) was down.

    We are paying taxes twice – once for income tax and once for privately charged once public services. Ever feel like an animal listening to music in an abbatoir to keep it calm before being slaughtered?

  10. TerjPe, I agree with what you said, in so far as the laws of logic go 😛

    Now, as far as the sale of this treasure goes, is there likely to be a pre-Copenhagen price, followed by a (drop in price?) post-Copenhagen price? Will the post-Copenhagen price be substantially different to the pre-Copenhagen price? I know, technically a pre-Copenhagen price should incorporate the effect on future income stream of the most likely Copenhagen targets etc, but now we are into the unctuous part of the Copenhagen process how does that affect the price? Presumably if it looks like strong legally binding targets are going to be adopted, that should mean a lower future income stream for the coal transport, and hence a lower price, than if piss-weak politically desirable targets are going to be adopted. Poor timing of sale, perhaps?

  11. The goal of getting a high sale price is directly antithetical to the establishment of a functioning industry post-sale. The goal of getting a high sale price ought then be abandoned. The merchant bankers are advising the governor poorly. And why would we expect otherwise? This is about the most foolish selloff we’ve seen in a long time. We have people who just don’t seem to know what they are doing. To sell it all in one hit to one corporation? Can we not get people who understand the foolishness of this?

  12. A ‘good price’ would have to be one which would include an amount that would be equivalent to the loss the loss of democratic control by the Queensland community, and one which would compensate us for the perverse incentives for private managers to shift costs in ways that reduce the real bottom line of the enterprises whilst improving the bottom line to invetors in terms of dollars.

    Examples would be neglect of the environment and cutting back training of its workforce.

    There is no such thing as such a ‘good price’ that any investor would be prepared to pay.

    I should also mention here the petitions I mentioned on the forum discussion “Spinninng Like a Top”.

    The petittions are:

    1. A Queenlsland Parliament e-pettion:

    Queensland citizens draws to the attention of the House the Queensland public, the rightful owners of $15 billion worth of assets which are to be sold, were denied any say over this because of the failure of the Queensland government to reveal those plans during the course of the elections. We consider the stated intention of the government to proceed with the sale in the face of opinion polls, which show at least 80% public opposition, to be amongst the most serious breaches of public trust imaginable.

    Your petitioners, therefore, request the House to call upon the Queensland government to resign immediately to give the Queensland public a chance to elect a new Government which can gain its trust. Your petitioners also warn any private investors considering buying the assets, not to do so and call upon a future State government which does enjoy the trust and confidence of the Queensland people not to honour any such contracts for the sale of assets.

    2. A Sydney Morning Herald petition which calls for a change to the NSW constitution to give to NSW electors the right to make Governments such as that of Kristina Kenneally, which has lost the confidence of the people, to face new elections.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s