“So rather than augmenting supply with water you cannot sell at a profit, you simply impose restrictions and constrain demand. Because you have no competition, nobody can undercut you.” - Malcolm Turnbull (Brisbane Institute-July 2006)
Entries in Politicians and Privatisation (20)
The planned destruction of Canada
stevem
in Politicians and Privatisation
|
Post a Comment
Kealey: We know we cannot control the sun, nor can we control the air. But we can control water. On the scale of things that are required for human life, it is the most important element that can be controlled. Kralik: What do you mean when you say “control”? Kealey: In GATT, the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs, it says that free-flowing water is not a “good”. The key wording is “free-flowing”. If you construct a dam, it is no longer free-flowing, and therefore it becomes private property, owned by somebody, capable of being sold to others, or mortgaged. Kralik: If it is dammed?
Taxpayer asset sale-our water
stevem
in Politicians and Privatisation, Selwyn Johnston
|
Post a Comment
Just why the State Government is taking the water is probably the question that the Mayors and their Councils should be asking. Many Councils presently make a small profit on their water operations and if it is taken over by the State Government this profit that some of the Councils make from the sale of water will have to come from another source. That is Council rates or some other charges will have to go up. Perhaps the most pertinent question that should be asked is just why does the State Government want to acquire the water assets from Queensland Local Governments? After all the Local Governments have made not a bad fist of running their water businesses, which is more than can be said for the State Government that has simply failed to provide the infrastructure necessary to keep the population supplied with potable drinking water. In fact the infrastructure achievements of the Goss, Beattie and Bligh Labor State Governments could only be described as an embarrassment.
Canada: Losing Water Through NAFTA
stevem
in Politicians and Privatisation
|
Post a Comment
Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada lost control over its energy resources. Now, with “NAFTA-plus”, it could also lose control over its freshwater resources, say experts. Canada’s water is on the trade negotiating table despite widespread public opposition and assurances by Canadian political leaders, said Adèle Hurley, director of the University of Toronto’s Programme on Water Issues at the Munk Centre for International Studies. A new report released Sep. 11 by the programme reveals that water transfers from Canada to the United States are emerging as an issue under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). The SPP — sometimes called “NAFTA-plus” — is a forum set up in 2005 in Cancún, by the three partners, Canada, United States and Mexico.
The Highwaymen
stevem
in Politicians and Privatisation
|
Post a Comment
Why you could soon be paying Wall Street investors, Australian bankers, and Spanish builders for the privilege of driving on American roads.
Unbundling water from land
Water is on everyone’s lips. Right and Left, farmer and city dweller, big business and green business. Everyone agrees it’s a big issue and something needs to be done. And, for the most part, almost everyone seems to be agreeing on what should be done: privatise water and trade it. On January 1, 2007, water trading came into force in Australia. What does this mean and why should we be worried? Separation is a long-used method of big business, big science and big government, those who are purveyors and beneficiaries of global markets. Separation is the first action of colonisers who take the land and the resources from the original inhabitants.
Bumper salaries may signal the high water mark
stevem
in Politicians and Privatisation
|
Comments Off
Updated on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 07:41AM by
stevem
Updated on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 08:29AM by
stevem
IN a world awash with the retirement savings of ordinary workers, there are rich pickings for those who can find the best way to invest them. Combined with a worldwide trend by governments to sell off formerly state-run businesses, such as roads, airports and water management, this private equity boom has produced both mega profits and mega salaries for those at the sharp end of the business. As John Howard has observed, the $33.49million paid to Macquarie Bank chief executive Allan Moss is a lot of money. Mr Moss’s pay packet was mostly made up of bonus payments on top of a base salary of $671,000 and made in recognition of record profits. Mr Moss was not the only big winner. All up, the top 13 Macquarie executives took home more than $200 million.
