they’re creating all sorts of problems for themselves and for the Labor party outside NSW and federally.

One being why anyone should bother to join the Labor party at all unless they’re in it just for the chance of a job or public office.

Quite. People are less likely to pay dues, make donations, attend fundraisers, volunteer for branch positions, spend cold nights letterboxing and rainy or carcenogenically sunny days handing out HTVs, etc., for the party if there is not some quid pro quo in the form of having their views taken seriously, at least to the extent of the courtesy of a reasoned argument, rather than red-baiting and union-bashing, as to why those views might be wrong.

If anyone wants to see the Keating take….
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/iemma-deserved-better-than-naked-obstructionism/2008/05/05/1209839545859.html

An important trigger for the privatisation proposal was the conclusion in the Owen report that we would need more generation capacity in 6 years time . This time frame applies only if the Government makes no effort to reduce our electricity usage per capita by the equivalent of only 1.05% per year – an amount most users could and would willingly do meet. Clearly , it is not mandatory to have more power stations or privatization in the near future if we are motivated in the right way.

The potential risks associated with privatization are not worth taking . Ask the Californians about the electricity crisis that accompanied deregulation
Consider the following statement made by S.David Freeman , Chair of the California Power Authority , to a US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on May 15, 2002:
“There is one fundamental lesson we must learn from this experience: electricity is really different from everything else. It cannot be stored, it cannot be seen, and we cannot do without it, which makes opportunities to take advantage of a deregulated market endless. It is a public good that must be protected from private abuse. If Murphy’s Law were written for a market approach to electricity, then the law would state “any system that can be gamed, will be gamed, and at the worst possible time.” And a market approach for electricity is inherently gameable. Never again can we allow private interests to create artificial or even real shortages and to be in control.”

Indeed Liam and I’m sure that a lot of behind-the-scenes work is going into producing a resolution that dilutes the more egregiously obscurantist aspects of Conference’s decision whilst totally honouring the consultative ethos within which it was made. In the best traditions of the ALP, everyone will end up slightly dissatisfied with faces mostly saved and revenge will be saved up for another day

The nub of Penny’s argument is that she doesn’t believe in selling public assets. It’s a view to which she’s fully entitled but it’s totally inadequate as a response to the infrastructure development and investment challenges facing NSW and I’m much more interested in hearing from Penny and her colleagues on that.

It doesn’t have to be in government hands, but because its a monopoly, its prices have to be regulated, as they are in Victoria.

Anyway, Iemma is not proposing to privatise transmission.

I’ve heard much the same from industry insiders. My understanding of how the industry operates in NSW is that it is already functioning in a kind of simulated version of private ownership, and has been for quite some time.

I did think there were sound economic arguments for keeping transmission in government hands, however.

If you think that anyone in NSW is paying less for electricity simply because the NSW industry is state-owned, then you simply do not know what you are talking about. Wholesale prices are set by generators bidding in the national electricity market. NSW generators compete with interstate generators; privately generators compete with publicly owned generators. The electrons that power up a light bulb in Newcastle might be produced by a privately owned generator in Victoria.

The state owned electricity retailers in NSW add a margin to the exactly like they would if they were privately owned. If anyone thinks that, because they are owned by the state, they keep prices down for anybody, they are as wrong as it is possible to be.

There is only one justifiable argument to keep the industry in government hands. And that is that the electricity business is a good business for the government to be in, because of the money it can make from it, in its capacity as owner. But in this instance, that argument is wrong.

Kim (and everyone else on this thread opposed to privatisation), I think you perhaps need to consider how the existence of NEMCO (hitherto unacknowledged by the anti-privatisers on this thread) affects your argument.

I agree it’s crap but don’t you support done deals?

What would that involve and what outcome would that achieve?

Could they do the same to Costa (and any others who are deserving)?

Yep. But this terminally stuffed process will deliver a compromise outcome by Friday providing someone takes Costa out with a major dose of anaesthesia - preferably delivered by elephant gun.