Re: Smh letters 22-09-2022 Privatisation deals are never for the public good

There's an awful lot of public confusion about privatisation reflected in
these letters - as well as deliberate confusion created by certain
political parties, one of which was hypocritically into privatisation
itself when last in government. Muddying the waters even further are
external issues dragged into the debate that have nothing to do with

There's asset privatisation and there's operational franchising to private
contractors. The former is generally a more recent issue, the latter has
been going on all around the world since time immemorial and doesn't affect
ownership of the assets by governments. Naturally, opponents of operational
contracting just love to blend the issues of asset sales and operational
franchising in order to mislead voters and, of course, the more gullible
fall for it, especially SMH readers it seems. If these readers were
actually given accurate information by their media of choice, rather than
uncritically reproducing political press releases, we mightn't be reading
such daft correspondence.

The externality that has nothing to do with franchising is the alleged
"butchering" of SE Sydney bus routes. The average smart tram enthusiast
knows that the reason for the bus route review was the advent of CSELR and
the associated intention to divert bus passengers to the light rail,
something that was flagged right at the beginning of the project, way back.
The furious opposition to this that was whipped up in the Labor electorates
of SE Sydney was based largely on irrational hatred of trams, not helped,
admittedly, by the bumbling slow operation (which has subsequently got
faster) that alienated commuters when they were forced to exchange between
bus and tram. As a result of that fury, we now have a compromise in which
some bus routes still go into the city. This muddled outcome is all down to
TfNSW and nothing to do with who operates the services.

Tony P

On Thursday, 22 September 2022 at 09:19:54 UTC+10a...@... wrote:

> Privatisation deals are never for the public good


> The privatisation of many buses may be confronting but it is the other

> privatised deals that are having a far wider effect (“MPs push to roll

> back privatisation


> September 21). From investment corps, wharves, insurance companies,

> government cleaning, banks, schools, hospitals, energy and power utilities,

> TAB and lotteries, ports, water and electricity, the list is long and

> profits high. The state governments have relinquished control of major

> utilities for short-term profit and consequently people are suffering from

> higher bills and poorer service. The competition promised never eventuated

> and taxpayers have been well and truly duped. *Janice Creenaune,

> Austinmer*


> The political stoush over Sydney’s privatised buses highlights what is

> wrong with oppositional or partisan politics in this country. Private bus

> lines need to be put back in public hands as private bus companies are only

> concerned with maximising their profits and are unconcerned about the

> public good. It is a no-brainer that a big city such as Sydney should get

> private cars off the road and encourage everyone to use public transport.

> We would all breathe easier and be more relaxed if this were the case.

> Furthermore, our cost of living would fall. I don’t often agree with Xi

> Jinping but his viewpoint on this issue – that Western politicians mislead

> public opinion and waste energy needlessly on ideological debate – is

> surely right. *Geoff Black, Caves Beach*


> Before they privatised the buses, the government butchered the routes.

> This ideologically driven exercise means no direct bus from Randwick or

> Coogee gets you closer to the CBD than Museum station, nor anything from

> the north-east of the CBD gets you home. Whoever benefited, it wasn’t the

> public. *Michael Berg, Randwick*


> The NSW transport minister claims “politics” is behind criticism of NSW

> transport privatisations. In fact, it’s his political party’s free market

> ideology and politics that are behind the privatisations of public assets

> in the first place. The profit motive will never deliver goods and services

> that all members of society can rely on. That’s why we don’t have

> privatised police, military, courts of justice, water, etc. Where we have

> privatised public assets such as schools, hospitals and toll roads, etc,

> they no longer serve the public but end up serving the wealthy. *David

> McMaster, Mosman*


> Until the state government and the private operators realise the public

> dislikes playing musical bus chairs when travelling from A to B, they will

> continue to C declining patronage. It’s as simple as ABC. *Bob Scott,

> Eastlake*