Privatising Australia's water

For the regulators, however, it creates a need for greater co-ordination of policies and information sharing. Without adequate regulation, there are three possible outcomes:

• excessively high prices;
• poor service; or
• both

Australian governments will need to get the regulatory structures right before they fully privatise, and this may take time.

At the moment, by contrast, Australian states have full control over their water systems and the structure is much simpler. This means Australia has two advantages over Britain:

• ownership structures are simpler: and
• Australia can learn from Britain’s mistakes.

Water and the United Nations

The United Nations (Water) hosted a three-day conference in Paris, during March 1998, on managing the world's limited fresh water supplies. According to the British BBC and the United States Boston Sunday Globe, environment ministers and officials attended this conference from 84 countries. It was agreed that water should be paid for as a commodity rather than be treated as an essential staple to be supplied free.

French President, Jacques Chirac, told delegates "no more barren wrangling over the market versus the state. Water has a price and zero price is a forewarning of scarcity."

Chirac (who chaired the conference) estimated that it would cost $400 billion to set up reliable water networks around the world and told participants that governments could not foot the bill alone. The proposed solution was to market water as a prime opportunity for multinational investors.

As John Bastin of the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development has said, "Water is the last infrastructure frontier for private investors".

Australia’s taxpayers must now pay the price of our politicians’ folly and their eagerness to support International Treaties.