Hey Lappy......I used the same article but in a truthful way, unlike you. The Full article is set out below unlike you which has been truncated. I have bolded the relevant proceeds number.
So I was conservative and used $20 billion as the base and then adjusted for inflation using the Reserve Bank of Australia indices. Base 1995 =100 Inflator rate to 31 Dec'2023 (the last rate available) giving an inflator of 206.81
therefore $20b in 1995 is worth $41.4 billion as at 31st Dec'23.
If I had used $21b at 30 Jun'24 the number could be around $44 billion.
Lappy I never lie unlike you and my sources are always impeccable unlike yours which usually come out of your arse.
So $41.4 billion is not peanuts as you would have us believe. You have been caught lying again.
*********************************************************************************
The shocking truth about the privatisation of power
ByShane Green
November 9, 2013 — 3.00am
Save
Share
Normal text sizeLarger text sizeVery large text size
In the heady days of the early 1990s, the neo-liberals secured a beachhead in Victoria. The election of the Kennett government with a big majority and swaggering confidence offered the opportunity to put into effect long-held beliefs - chief among them privatisation of government essential services.
So it was that the State Electricity Commission of Victoria was sold off. The authority was created in 1921 to provide cheap energy for the state, using the abundant brown coal reserves of Gippsland. Under the guidance of engineer and soldier Sir John Monash, among others, this is largely what it did for the next 70 years. Cheap, reliable power provided to a growing state.
Illustration: Andrew Dyson.
The 1992 election changed that. The SEC was lined up by the new government, which claimed that the authority was laden with debt and had to be privatised. This despite the fact that in its last year of operation, it paid $995 million in interest, a $191 million dividend to the state government, and had a profit of $207 million. Basket case, indeed.
The electricity privatisation exceeded government expectations, delivering more than $20 billion to a cash-strapped state, with promises that in private hands, the delivery of electricity would be better and cheaper than the service provided by the old state-owned behemoth.
It's worth remembering that small piece of Victoria's political history the next time your power bill arrives in your inbox or letter box. Bill shock doesn't quite describe the experience, for we have become hardened to the ridiculous amounts being charged for what is an essential service.
In a report this year, the Australia Institute used official figures to calculate that the cost of electricity increased by 170 per cent from 1995 to 2012 - four times higher than the rise in the consumer price index.
That is scandalous.
Of course, the Victorian privatisation is only part of a move to a national electricity market, and in NSW and Queensland, it is state-owned bodies that have been accused of ramping up prices because of over-investment in poles and wires - or ''gold plating''.
But the Victorian experience fits into a bigger picture of poorly executed public policy that acts as a heavy anchor on our economic performance. Moreover, extreme energy bills are having a profound impact on some of the most vulnerable members of society. The equation shouldn't be about putting food on the table or paying the electricity bill.
The Australia Institute report is one of several that have tried to make sense of this policy mess. It attempts to answer the question: why has privatisation and corporatisation of electricity failed to deliver the promises of lower prices, and in fact, delivered higher prices?
It draws some surprising conclusions. The report identifies a productivity slump compared to the rest of the economy. One explanation may be the rise of the number of workers in the sector not involved in generating electricity. The rise of the manager class is an example - the number of managers in the sector grew from 6000 to 19,000 in the five years to 2012. The report also considers whether the higher prices are the result of private owners trying to recoup costs, having paid over the odds, lured by the prospect of big profits.
It is no surprise that electricity prices played such an important part in the election of the Abbott Coalition, with its promise to repeal the carbon tax. Despite the doubters, the government maintains that electricity prices will fall by about 9 per cent when the tax is axed.
To focus the minds of voters, Tony Abbott has dubbed new Labor leader Bill Shorten ''Electricity Bill'', as the opposition makes repeal of the carbon tax conditional on the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. Abbott knows he's on a political winner - the election result confirmed that.
Regardless of its merits, the imposition of the tax was always politically problematic for the Gillard government because of the hurt being inflicted on family budgets by already high energy bills. In different circumstances, there would have been a much better chance of voters being willing to accept a financial slug to deal with climate change.
The tax contributed to electricity bills rising again. But part of the political problem for Labor lay in the fact that it was hard for people to know exactly how much the tax was responsible for increased prices.
Gavin Dufty lives and breathes energy prices in his job as the manager of policy and research for the St Vincent de Paul Society, charting the movements in prices and helping the vulnerable negotiate the best deal they can.
His figures show that in the past three years, electricity bills in Victoria have increased by up to 66 per cent, or $680 on an annual bill. Yet he questions how much of this is actually about electricity price increases; apart from the carbon tax, consider add-on costs such as smart meters and renewable energy requirements. These were policies imposed by governments.
Rather than railing against the politics, Dufty is all about working the system, making sure that people get the best deal possible. ''If you snooze, you lose,'' he says. Part of his advice is to simply ring up your electricity retailer and ask for a discount.
The state regulators are also pushing the notion of choice - of consumers having the option of shopping around for a better deal. The theory is fine, but in reality, the offers by different retailers are opaque and difficult to understand.
The Essential Services Commission last month released a report on pricing in the Victorian electricity market. The findings reinforced that Victorians are struggling to navigate their way through the privatised market, reflecting the growing dissatisfaction with the offers that were being made by the retailers.
''These results show that not only do the offers made fail to meet consumer expectations but that they are difficult to compare and understand as well,'' the commission reported. ''Moreover it is getting more difficult for consumers to understand what they are being offered.''
That finding will resonate with many. The next time the bill from hell arrives, examine the detail provided beyond the shocking - pun intended - bottom-line figure. Factor in service charges, discounts for early payments and other variables. This is a complex task.
The difficulty in working through offers represents a fundamental flaw in the execution of the privatisation policy begun by the Kennett government two decades ago. The attempts by government authorities to help consumers get a better deal have failed. I would argue that the regulators should demand greater transparency from the electricity retailers. Choice only works if it can be exercised.
And it is important to remember that we are dealing with an essential service here. In the rush to privatisation and its alleged benefits, it is all too easy to forget this fact. We are not talking about switching banks for a better mortgage, or a more appropriate mobile phone deal.
Making the wrong decision can mean a medical prescription doesn't get filled, or a parent deciding to go without a meal so a child can eat. This is a long way from the vision Sir John Monash and the old SEC delivered for this state.
Expand
