Sensational-Adelaide.com

And what is the issue with the "corporatized" trams and trains?????

The trams and trains are not being sold, merely the administration is being outsourced.

The assets, fares, and service frequency decisions all remain in the state's hand.

I have yet to hear a "nuanced criticism" of this model......I do hear "I don't like it!!!.....I don't want it!!!!!"

The new operator will no doubt be subject to targets and other performance criteria to justify the %100 pay out on their contract.

If it doesn't work then the contract is not renewed, if state government control is not efficient, then nothing changes because their is no financial penalty
nor employment penalty.

PeFe wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:19 pm

The assets, fares, and service frequency decisions all remain in the state's hand.

It's disingenuous to suggest the operator's financial goals, and therefore contractual financial obligations, have no influence on pricing and service delivery. The State Government certainly isn't doing this to increase the burden on its own financial performance and the private operator wont be looking to run the operation at a loss. So something - something more than broad hand waving statements about 'efficiencies' and unsubstantiated neolib thinking re: state provisions of services - has to give. Fewer services or higher fares.

Yes the government retains the decision making rights over those things, but it's ridiculous to suggest they wont be influenced by the operator on those decisions.

That said, what mostly surprises me is that the operations weren't already outsourced. I guess the former labor government couldn't really get the optics of privatisation to work, nor, I imagine, would have the labour movement permitted it. It's 2019, governments don't drive buses and trains around any more.

Hardly out-of-the-box thinking, but I'm not sure anyone in Marshall's tories are capable of vision that doesn't revolve around roads and small businesses (aka landlords).

It's all well and good to argue that privatised services are more 'efficient' than government, but I can think of few times when the profit motive actually delivered better outcomes for a monopoly service.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-01/ ... /11267236

https://indaily.com.au/news/2019/07/01/ ... rivatised/

mshagg wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:37 pm

So something - something more than broad hand waving statements about 'efficiencies' and unsubstantiated neolib thinking re: state provisions of services - has to give. Fewer services or higher fares.

Achieving the same, or better outcomes with half as many staff, which the private sector is perfectly capable of doing, comes instantly to mind.

This quote from Koutsantonis says it all:

"Can you really believe that we'll get a better service if you're running the service in the interests of shareholders and banks, rather than in the interests of the people?"

At the moment it isn't being run in the interests of people, its being run in the interests of it's staff. And how much of the department's budget is spent on auditing, middle management busywork, "white ribbon compliance", LGBQTI, Indigenous, and other "non-core" activities? These things will all be the first to go under a privately operated model. And there will be plenty of money left over to return to the government so that they can spend more on more services.

once you get a dumb quote from Kouts, you know it's a good idea.

I'm fine with it IF all proceeds go into PT. If they piss it away on general revenue they should be hung drawn and quartered.

Adelaide's PT service is a disjointed mess right now. Any effort from 3rd parties to improve it is worth giving a go.

If the private model is so great, then all Knoll needs to do is tell the department to emulate the private model. Hire the same managers the contractor would hire etc.

Of course, that's never on the table because the purpose of privatisation is to hand money to mates.

muzzamo wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:25 pm

And how much of the department's budget is spent on auditing, middle management busywork, "white ribbon compliance", LGBQTI, Indigenous, and other "non-core" activities?

Next to nothing compared to the profit the contractor will make.

muzzamo wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:25 pm

At the moment it isn't being run in the interests of people, its being run in the interests of it's staff. And how much of the department's budget is spent on auditing, middle management busywork, "white ribbon compliance", LGBQTI, Indigenous, and other "non-core" activities? These things will all be the first to go under a privately operated model. And there will be plenty of money left over to return to the government so that they can spend more on more services.

This is a nonsense to me. For one, it's a red herring -- the issue at hand is a better public service, not stripping worker entitlements (of which, there's no evidence of them currently being an organisational or operational focus). For another, these sorts of CSR activities are both a standard part of modern business and not nearly as big a deal as you paint them. Certainly not enough to pay some sort of dividend, not that that'll be an objective of private enterprise anyway.

SRW wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:39 pm

This is a nonsense to me. For one, it's a red herring -- the issue at hand is a better public service, not stripping worker entitlements (of which, there's no evidence of them currently being an organisational or operational focus). For another, these sorts of CSR activities are both a standard part of modern business and not nearly as big a deal as you paint them. Certainly not enough to pay some sort of dividend, not that that'll be an objective of private enterprise anyway.

From my vantage point I feel like I've seen it in action. Departments that are staffed with people that are completely unemployable in the private sector - perhaps 1 in 10 would land a job, at best.

I guarantee you that SouthLink/Serco/whoever are not focusing on non-core "ventures". And its not just the CSR stuff, its the busy work, inefficiency and crushing bureaucratic waste.

From memory the government of the day ploughed the savings from privatizing the buses into even more services, and when the contracts came up for renewal every X years and further savings were made available, they put on even more.

muzzamo wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:25 pm

At the moment it isn't being run in the interests of people, its being run in the interests of it's staff. And how much of the department's budget is spent on auditing, middle management busywork, "white ribbon compliance", LGBQTI, Indigenous, and other "non-core" activities? These things will all be the first to go under a privately operated model. And there will be plenty of money left over to return to the government so that they can spend more on more services.

How much is spent on "White ribbon compliance, LGBQTI, Indigenous, and other "non-core" activities?" Comparatively fuck all - a few million at absolute most I would guess. I guess these things matter more though if you watch Sky News regularly and adhere to other dumb, tedious culture wars shit

With all of the above, why, then, over the past 25 years is Melbourne the only other city to outsource the metropolitan train system, and not Brisbane, Perth or Sydney despite stints of Liberal Governments in those states?

Joelmark wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:19 pm

With all of the above, why, then, over the past 25 years is Melbourne the only other city to outsource the metropolitan train system, and not Brisbane, Perth or Sydney despite stints of Liberal Governments in those states?

Unions and because it’s easier not to. It’s worth mentioning though that Sydney just opened its new 36km metro line that, broadly speaking, was outsourced under a PPP for both construction and ongoing operation to Hong Kong’s MTR. It’s almost certainly going to be the same model used for the next two stages through the city to Bankstown and to parramatta as well.

Notable is that the Sydnenham to Bankstown line will be converted from heavy rail to metro, rebuilding and effectively privatising that line.

It’s a mammoth city changing infrastructure project but it’s also happens to be a clean slate union busting exercise.

muzzamo wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:25 pm

At the moment it isn't being run in the interests of people, its being run in the interests of it's staff. And how much of the department's budget is spent on auditing, middle management busywork, "white ribbon compliance", LGBQTI, Indigenous, and other "non-core" activities? These things will all be the first to go under a privately operated model. And there will be plenty of money left over to return to the government so that they can spend more on more services.

Pretty telling comment. If you think private companies dont invest in their diversity and inclusion strategies then I question whether you've actually been engaged by an employer with a national or multinational presence. It's not some pinko time waster dreamed up by public servants.

Don't get me wrong, there's merit to the idea that improved efficiencies can deliver a better network for the same cost to users, but like I said, Alan Jones-esque assertions about lefty trade unionist public servants milking the system for their gay indigenous mates don't justify handing over the operations of important services to a multi national company.

Joelmark wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:19 pm

With all of the above, why, then, over the past 25 years is Melbourne the only other city to outsource the metropolitan train system, and not Brisbane, Perth or Sydney despite stints of Liberal Governments in those states?

I seem to recall that one of the companies that bid for and won the right to run about half of the Melbourne tram routes just walked away from it after about 2 years, stating that it simply could not be run at a profit (mainly because Melbournians simply refused to pay to use the system - the place was rife with fare-jumpers)

mshagg wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:35 am

Pretty telling comment. If you think private companies dont invest in their diversity and inclusion strategies then I question whether you've actually been engaged by an employer with a national or multinational presence. It's not some pinko time waster dreamed up by public servants.

I've worked for both and they certainly do. They also outsource enormous parts of their operations to the lowest bidders, knowing full well that those companies are more efficiently run and don't do the same.

The outsourced bus operators in Adelaide will have their operations run on a shoestring so they can both win the government tender to begin with and also return a profit to their shareholders. If an activity doesn't contribute to the purpose of either meeting their contractual requirements or increasing their profit, it goes.