JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Storm brewing over our rich assets


"There is nothing saintly about government ownership of assets or businesses, no guarantee that government ownership will be for the greater good of the common wealth."

"There is nothing saintly about government ownership of assets or businesses, no guarantee that government ownership will be for the greater good of the common wealth." Photo: Dave Langley

Privatisation, like so many Australian policy issues, often seems more the province of ideology than disinterested analysis. Some statement of belief will surface, cause a squall of claim and counter claims, and then blow over until the next time. Cue Rod Sims and a bunch of economists, never mind cautious politicians.

But a more sustained storm is brewing over our rich pickings – for all our capitalist ways, Australia has one of the world’s highest levels of government non-financial assets as a percentage of GDP. And whatever the federal government might get up to, state governments around the nation are facing increasing fiscal challenges that mean they won’t be able to afford to sit on lazy assets. When the roof has a hole in it, the kids need shoes and you have to buy seed to plant the next crop, there’s no place for retaining the family silver.

Among OECD nations, Japan is out in front of us with government-owned assets equal to about 120 per cent of GDP. We score silver with governments holding roughly $1.5 trillion worth – the equivalent of our gross national product. That figure has been inflated by a high level of land and mineral assets, compared with other nations. According to an IMF working paper, government sub-soil assets are equal to 45 per cent of GDP and land assets 21 per cent.

That paper is heavily cited in a feature in the current edition of the Economist magazine that examines rich countries’ capacity for further privatisation, a feature that concludes advanced economies overall are missing a big opportunity to sell or make better use of their assets. It’s a timely contribution to what should be a debate here, instead of the usual statements of position with an eye to political opportunism.

And then there’s the ideology complication. Privatisation for the sake of privatisation is not necessarily a good thing, particularly if it’s handled badly. In particular, selling a natural monopoly can be a dangerous business without appropriate safeguards.

Similarly, there is nothing saintly about government ownership of assets or businesses, no guarantee that government ownership will be for the greater good of the common wealth. Indeed, there’s always the suspicion that the profit motive let loose on private enterprise can lead to greater productivity.

The fact that some privatisations have been poorly executed is no excuse for abandoning the option. The Wallabies have lost the majority of their tests against the All Blacks, but that’s no reason to not have another crack. Past failure is no guarantee of future performance. And the quoted opinion of one academic economist that selling off an enterprise with a cash flow is ridiculous is, well, ridiculous. On that basis, no profitable business would ever be traded and it ignores the opportunity cost of what greater use governments could make of the money raised and the ability to price in the cash flow in the sale.

Pricing any asset for sale is a tricky game, as each and every IPO demonstrates. Those who criticise privatisation per se as not delivering fair value for the vendors might have in mind the first Telstra tranche, but they seem to have forgotten the last Telstra tranche. You pay your money and you takes your chances in any such transaction.

What’s missed is that the recent headlines have concentrated on simple enterprises – Medibank, Australia Post, whatever – when they are a small part of that $1.5 trillion figure.  As the aforementioned Economist article points out, there’s potentially much more to it.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics gets brownie points for keeping count of the value of government assets – many OECD countries do not or do so poorly. What can’t be counted are the residual socialist attitudes of a large part of the electorate when it comes to selling off government assets and enterprises. It is curious that landslide conservative votes in Queensland and New South Wales came from electorates that are, at best, dubious about privatisation.

Part of that scepticism might well come from observing who benefits most from a change of ownership: senior management. Whether through the demutualisation of bodies ranging from AMP to NIB, or the privatisation of the juicy bit of Queensland’s railways, there has inevitably been an obscene escalation in the top executives’ pay packets. Just watch what will happen at Medibank. 

The punters aren’t altogether mugs. They can detect snouts in troughs. The challenge for our weak crop of politicians at all levels is to explain to the public why key privatisations are in their (the public’s) best interests. The money is needed to build necessary infrastructure. There’s no real need for a  government to own and run things that it doesn’t absolutely need to build and run when the cash is required elsewhere.

It’s not easy sell, given some past performances, but it will need to be done as our demographics and aspirations bear down on us.

Trouble is, as far as I can judge, the last pollie capable of explaining a difficult policy was Lindsay Tanner – and his seat was taken by a Green.

Michael Pascoe is a BusinessDay contributing editor

67 comments so far

  • Who really wrote this article? First piece from Pascoe in a long time which isn't written for the sole purpose of bashing Hockey and the Coalition. Quite refreshing.

    Date and time
    January 15, 2014, 2:25PM
    • Perhaps the libs wrote the article?
      I mean they are the ones peddling the privatisation angle at the moment.
      So what I'd like to know is why does Australia who has an ability to provide it's own sovereign money, have to sell assets off to other Govs, and US multinationals that have a never-ending supply of low cost money coming from the private owned fed?
      If anything looks awfully suspicious to me, the peddling of aussies public assets to all these worldly vampires tops the list in my opinion...

      Date and time
      January 15, 2014, 5:33PM
    • Agreed Contrarian, although there's a bit of a gentle backhander at the end. That IMF report is interesting though - half our government wealth seems to be the value of "sub soil assets", presumably future mining leases. Another one third is "building and other structures".

      If the government's holding about half a trillion in building assets (not including land), perhaps the CoA should be having a sticky beak at those.

      Date and time
      January 15, 2014, 6:53PM
    • I just want one example of where and how privatization has worked for me. All I usually see is an increase in charges, a reduction in services, the loss of an asset, the redirection of once government profits to private and often foreign shareholders, massive pay rises for management and a few consultancies for the politicians in retirement. Nothing ever for me. I am not even anti the idea where a true market exists.

      Date and time
      January 15, 2014, 7:18PM
    • Absolutely Bruce. Everytime the Privatisation debate comes up, the usual spruiking comes out about 'better services', 'better price competition' etc. Then the reality comes. I'm still waiting for my cheaper electricity bill that Privatisation was going to bring me. Privatisation is a rort!

      Date and time
      January 15, 2014, 11:12PM
  • Nothing wrong with privatisation, that is true. The problem lies in the public not being protected with proper regulation (Enron & California electricity) or the cheap transfer of public wealth to the private sector.
    It's the way it's privatised, not the actual act of privatisation.

    Date and time
    January 15, 2014, 2:41PM
    • @Econorat...Everything about privatisation is wrong. It means we are spending more than we earn AND are losing an asset.

      When do we start to live within our means? We can't do it. Our political system deems we vote for whoever promises us the most. To achieve that BOTH parties have sold everything and allowed private companies to be sold too. The economists that invented this rubbish will not be around when it all falls apart. Add the massive personal and growing government debt that's helped prop the whole mess up and it's easy to see Australia going bankrupt in the near future. If anyone thinks differently, please explain to me where the money will come from after everything's sold, after maximum debt is reached and after we are chocker block full of people. We couldn't make it work through the biggest boom in history, what hope have we got now? In contrast to the mess we are in, Norwegians are all millionaires thanks to their politicians wisdom as opposed to the disaster our politicians have created.

      You just can't justify this econocrat.

      Date and time
      January 15, 2014, 6:58PM
    • "When the roof has a hole in it, the kids need shoes and you have to buy seed to plant the next crop, there’s no place for retaining the family silver."...............After the biggest boom in history? Why wasn't the roof fixed while the sun shone?..........Wow, just wow.

      What seed will we buy? Or will we eat and waste the seeds rendering them useless? You couldn't make this stuff up. What a disaster successive government has created.

      Date and time
      January 15, 2014, 7:04PM
    • Wow, it must be hot, as i totally agree with what you are saying here.

      Date and time
      January 15, 2014, 9:59PM
  • Having worked in large corporations, I think the idea that the private sector is naturally more efficient is a myth. Large corporations seem to be at least as inefficient as the public sector, possibly more - because if they structure things correctly they can apply a markup to their inefficiency and it becomes profitable.

    The most powerful driver for efficiency in the private sector is the ability to go out of business. This only works if the government will allow a business to fail and cease to exist. If the government would be expected to step in to maintain the service if the private business goes broke, it makes no sense to privatize. In that case, you are just allowing private profit, while the risk stays in the public sector.

    Date and time
    January 15, 2014, 3:00PM

    More comments

    Make a comment

    You are logged in as [Logout]

    All information entered below may be published.

    Error: Please enter your screen name.

    Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

    Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

    Error: Please enter your comment.

    Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

    Post to

    You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

    Thank you

    Your comment has been submitted for approval.

    Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

    HuffPost Australia

    Follow Us

    Featured advertisers

    Special offers

    Credit card, savings and loan rates by Mozo

    Executive Style