OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[JokerEel]

I would be interested in hearing some real life examples where government services were outsourced and led to better service at a reduced cost?
Seems like most times they end up costing more for worse service

airports, toll roads, and even postal services in some countries have improved with private sector involvement. Australia’s private toll roads are expensive but deliver better-maintained infrastructure than public roads. Even utilities like electricity and water in some regions have seen efficiency gains. The key isn’t just outsourcing, it’s structuring contracts to ensure accountability and competition..

 

[JokerEel]

Except the portfolios weren't doing the exact same job. BIG difference.

But efficiency and waste ffs having Scomo do multiple roles reduced / increased

 

[the phantom menace]

Hmmm, I'm not really convinced. It's way to simple to say government bad, private sector good. Or to say where private sector excels that government wouldn't have also.

It's all very much down to specific circumstances and the nature of the endeavour, and lots of factors of influence. There are numerous examples where return to government (rather than outsourcing to consultants) has provided much needed improvement to services etc.

Privatisation shouldn't be a political philosophy or mantra (like it is for the LNP), it should instead be practically applied (by either party) only where needed, only when there is spare government money to spend, and only for a specified short-term purpose (like meeting a short-term time frame only possible with an extra temporary private resource).

 

[JokerEel]

Hmmm, I'm not really convinced. It's way to simple to say government bad, private sector good. Or to say where private sector excels that government wouldn't have also.

It's all very much down to specific circumstances and the nature of the endeavour, and lots of factors of influence. There are numerous examples where return to government (rather than outsourcing to consultants) has provided much needed improvement to services etc.

Privatisation shouldn't be a political philosophy or mantra (like it is for the LNP), it should instead be practically applied (by either party) only where needed, only when there is spare government money to spend, and only for a specified short-term purpose (like meeting a short-term time frame only possible with an extra temporary private resource).

agree privatization shouldn’t be a blanket approach, but it’s not just a political mantra,it has delivered real benefits when done right. Private industry often drives efficiency and innovation in ways bureaucracy struggles to match, reducing long-term costs to taxpayers. The key isn’t avoiding privatization but structuring it to ensure better service without unnecessary public spending.

 

[Gronk]

agree privatization shouldn’t be a blanket approach, but it’s not just a political mantra,it has delivered real benefits when done right. Private industry often drives efficiency and innovation in ways bureaucracy struggles to match, reducing long-term costs to taxpayers. The key isn’t avoiding privatization but structuring it to ensure better service without unnecessary public spending.

I am not adverse to privatisation, however with Sydney Buses as an example, reducing the frequency of services at night or weekends to hourly or bihourly sucks. This is a perfect example of how it doesn't work and is to the detriment of the taxpayer.

 

[Gronk]

Ooh there's an efficiency report out today.

 

[Twizzle]

I think privatising the Energy Providers backfired.

 

[the phantom menace]

agree privatization shouldn’t be a blanket approach, but it’s not just a political mantra,it has delivered real benefits when done right.

Incoming privatisation mantra in 5, 4, 3...

Private industry often drives efficiency and innovation in ways bureaucracy struggles to match, reducing long-term costs to taxpayers. The key isn’t avoiding privatization but structuring it to ensure better service without unnecessary public spending.

Mantra complete! And yes, there's a long way to go before privatisation avoids unnecessary public spending... but is Dutton (or Price, or Trump, or Musk...) the one to make those structural improvements? My money's on no.

 

[Comfy]

Very odd.





NSW Cops strike force are saying that their investigation centres around if the caravan was parked in the street to be collected or parked with the intention to be found.

Caravan of peace

 

[the phantom menace]

Caravan of peace

 

[Bandwagon]

Fair point,competition works best when there’s real accountability, and bad contract management leads to bad outcomes. But that’s a governance failure, not an inherent flaw in privatization.

Public sector rebuilding shows resourcing matters, but private industry, when structured correctly, can match or exceed that efficiency. Profit shouldn’t override service quality, but assuming government always does better ignores where private industry has outperformed.

I'm not saying government always does better, what I'm saying is that the private sector delivering better results cheaper more often than not is a proven myth

 

[Bandwagon]

I think privatising the Energy Providers backfired.

And the network.

 

[hindy111]

I would be interested in hearing some real life examples where government services were outsourced and led to better service at a reduced cost?
Seems like most times they end up costing more for worse service

Once they become private they will cost less to run and profits will be higher. Unfortunately so will consumers costs.

 

[the phantom menace]

Once they become private they will cost less to run and profits will be higher. Unfortunately so will consumers costs.

There's never a good reason for government to privatise something that is making a profit, or that is capable of making a profit. Nothing stopping government from adjusting things for efficiency improvements, same as private sector would - but if not privatised any profit stays with the government (and therefore benefits us).

 

[JokerEel]

Incoming privatisation mantra in 5, 4, 3...

Mantra complete! And yes, there's a long way to go before privatisation avoids unnecessary public spending... but is Dutton (or Price, or Trump, or Musk...) the one to make those structural improvements? My money's on no.

Privatization isn’t a mantra..it’s a tool, and like any tool, it depends on how it’s used. Poor execution leads to poor outcomes, whether by government or private industry. The focus should be on smart policy and accountability, not just who’s in charge. If privatization reduces taxpayer burden and improves services, why dismiss it outright?

 

[JokerEel]

I think privatising the Energy Providers backfired.

Due to poor regulation by a multitude of governments

 

[JokerEel]

There's never a good reason for government to privatise something that is making a profit, or that is capable of making a profit. Nothing stopping government from adjusting things for efficiency improvements, same as private sector would - but if not privatised any profit stays with the government (and therefore benefits us).

In theory, keeping a profitable government service means the public benefits from the revenue. But in reality, government-run enterprises often suffer from inefficiency, political interference, and lack of innovation. Take Telstra...

when it was government-owned, we had limited choices, outdated infrastructure, and slow progress. Privatization introduced competition, leading to better services and new players like Optus and Aussie Broadband. A government monopoly might keep profits ‘public,’ but if it delivers poor service and stifles competition, the public still loses.

 

[bazza]

Due to poor regulation by a multitude of governments

yes - if something has no competition it needs to be regulated by government
sadly some have the idealogy that the private sector is infallible and that any regulation is "red tape" that needs to be removed

 

[the phantom menace]

Privatization isn’t a mantra..it’s a tool, and like any tool, it depends on how it’s used.

True

Poor execution leads to poor outcomes, whether by government or private industry. The focus should be on smart policy and accountability, not just who’s in charge.

True

If privatization reduces taxpayer burden and improves services, why dismiss it outright?

Assumption/mantra. Privatisation sometimes might, but in most cases doesn't seem to achieve either aim. It's a 1980s economic approach which - in terms of outsourcing government jobs/duties to consultancy firms for profit - has probably run its course in most cases... except in Dutton's mind, and the bank accounts of the wealthy cabal that support agendas such as Trump's.

 

[the phantom menace]

In theory, keeping a profitable government service means the public benefits from the revenue.

True

But in reality, government-run enterprises often suffer from inefficiency, political interference, and lack of innovation.

Only sometimes

Take Telstra...

when it was government-owned, we had limited choices, outdated infrastructure, and slow progress. Privatization introduced competition, leading to better services and new players like Optus and Aussie Broadband. A government monopoly might keep profits ‘public,’ but if it delivers poor service and stifles competition, the public still loses.

Whether services to the public have improved under privatised Telstra and the subsequent for profit competitors is arguable. Similar for any of the fields that were also privatised from the 1980s onwards really.

Trickle down economics is a lie. Hopefully common sense prevails and any further plans (like Dutton's) to bring in consultants, privatise or pander to the market are halted before it sends the country really down the tubes.