In Australia in the last 10 years, there has been a rush of privatisations, both large and small. Governments have revelled in the extra cash. "Shareholders wealth" has increased...But in reality the "public" these goods and services were designed to serve aren't necessarily shareholders, so what in actuality is the benefit?
Instead of looking at only financial measures, a stakeholder, be they a customer, a citizen or perhaps the national interest ought be considered.
Here we are with a transport company that grew to cover the vast distances of our continent. The transport infrastructure is absolutely in the national interest. A telecommunications network is definitely in the national interest. Many say that competition policy is much more efficient if left unchecked, the market will fix it. The market doesn't.
Telstra is about to be privatised. The government says it must maintain the universal service obligation. A privatised company can do as it likes. Ultimately the areas it invests will be those of perceived commerical ROA. Same deal with Qantas. If in fact the company is a private entity the government has no role to play, QF can do what it likes, accountable only to shareholders(whoever they are-and usually short term in duration) The government influences the decisions of Qantas, yet claims it is a private entity.
The national interest IMO does not lead itself to privatised entities owning and commercially operating assets of the former commonwealth. The crap eminating from Helen Coonan about Telstra or Warren Truss on QF confirm my belief the market fails to manage properly the national interest. There is no acceptable "commercial national interest."
In these days of right wing politics, admission the market can't provide a solution that benefits the national interest in blasphemy. Very often however,the government continues to meddle in the affairs of former government assets. As with QF it has no legitimate role.
In essence my question is if the shareholder's wealth has improved, should the government intervene? Is the continued meddling an admission that the commerical relaity is the national interest is broader than the shareholder's wealth. If it is perhaps we ought consdier the stakeholder before we left Darth Dixon have his way with our icon...
Just food for thought.
It really is something that I think is lost in mainstream comment