Make a submission

Submissions to the People's Inquiry have now closed.

Thanks to everyone who made a submission. We have received hundreds of submissions from individuals and organisations, and are currently working on analysing the submissions to produce a final report for the inquiry, to be released early 2017. 

  • laxmi kant
    commented 2018-01-23 04:13:56 +1100
  • David Lamb
    commented 2017-12-22 11:59:09 +1100
    Privatisation has been shown many times to result in privatisation of profit and nationalisation of losses. Medibank Private is a pale imitation of Medibank prior to privatisation. I strongly urge that Medicare be free of privatisation.
  • Frank Keitel
    commented 2017-11-04 10:59:36 +1100
    As in most countries Australia is hugely involved with the privatisation problem. Basic necessities like electricity, water and even just buying a home is becoming increasingly hard to reach by most Australians. While our sold out Governments try to make every excuse under the sun to justify their treasonous policy making. Community services are under attack and de funded while huge subsidies are constantly going towards industries no longer needed – coal seam gas are just one of them. Things need to change and it can only come from a people united and focused on the real issues effecting all humanity and our Ecology.
  • Kenneth Robinson
    commented 2017-10-24 11:22:14 +1100
    I am an 83 yo and lived before “PRIVATISATION” when we had a Public Service and government run services while not perfect worked reasonably well for the benefit of the Australian Public, I have yet to see one instance where privatisation has improved services or cost to anyone except the companies who took over the particular service and the politicians who dreamt up the scheme, privatisation is like giving away the family assets to strangers who do not have the Australian Publics best interests in their portfolio.
  • Wendy Cuneo
    commented 2017-03-07 13:34:13 +1100
    I am the Vice President and publicity Officer of the STOCKTON HOSPITAL WELFARE ASSOC. and we would have liked to have input into this inquiry only we did not know about it, this is very disappointing as the impact of privatisation affects our people very negatively. and we request that we be notified if any future opportunities to state our case occur.
  • Michael myhal
    commented 2017-02-04 03:14:39 +1100
    Ping pong tye food
  • John Smith
    commented 2017-01-19 16:58:03 +1100
  • Shane Daly
    commented 2016-10-21 10:42:55 +1100
    Peter Beattie & his side Anna Bligh sold of the retail side of Energex several years ago, with lies about how it will drive down the cost of electricity. Previously he had transferred hundreds of millions of dollars of state debt to the electricity sector to hide the amount that the state owed. Unfortunately, with the sale of the retail side of the business, Energex and the Government had to come up with some colourful and creative ways to make money. So low and behold we got the extra service fees, meter reading fees, solar fees and anything else that could concoct, and guess what?. Once these fees arrived on the scene, up, and up and up they went. This is to the stage where it is more frightening to get your power bill and see what new sneaky government charges have been invented than the increases in the actual cost of the power. Of course the attitude of the FRIENDLY ENERGEX STAFF is to brush you off to the regulator or the retailor or anyone else they can. If you do insist that they justify you get the lame excuse that the charges have always been there and they are now only listed as a separate amount. Just another example of the contempt that the voters and tax payers of Australia are held
  • Mary joy Walter
    commented 2016-10-14 13:49:08 +1100
    Maybe i amtoo late to make a. Submission.

    It is extremely distressing to hear of gover,ents still wanting to privatise things which should be managed by the government. Every time this happens the public pay more and corporations mke a profit.

    This seems to me like bad practice
  • Jean McIntyre
    commented 2016-10-12 07:39:05 +1100
    I want to say up front that I’m completely against privatisation and will fight against any Government that tries to achieve it.

    That said, your “People’s Inquiry” is a crock. What will you do if the result of the inquiry is that people overwhelmingly want to put public institutions into private hands? I doubt you will support that.

    You are better off spending your money and efforts on a massive campaign to build public support behind the idea of keeping public institutions in public hands.

    I read the flier handed out by the CPSU. It was really badly written. I lost interest after the first paragraph and had to force myself to read it all – that took four days!

    You need to get better people on board and do a proper job of it. Don’t dick around with inquiries that will go nowhere and achieve nothing.
  • Joanna Yetsenga
    commented 2016-09-27 17:50:31 +1000
    My husband has early onset dementia. I pay fees for his care which currently are tax deductible. This will stop in 2019. This will have an enormous impact on our finances and my ability to continue to pay for him and to plan for my own old age.
  • Leandro Ambrosio
    commented 2016-09-15 22:08:25 +1000
    Why is somebody else gonna do better than the state? and if somebody wants to do it there must be a good reason.

    Australian institutions belong to the people and the current government have to guarantee the functionality, we need to stop looking at the money to support education as an expense, it is for our kids and their future
  • Lyn Clinckett
    commented 2016-09-12 16:23:24 +1000
    My son Matt is 30 years old and lives in a government owned group home at Wauchope just west of Port Macquarie.

    At 2 years of age, Matt was diagnosed with autism and global developmental delay.

    He is physically ABLE to speak but is non verbal because he doesn’t understand what language is about.

    He is uninterested in, even hostile towards, augmented communication.

    He cannot communicate his CHOICES, thoughts, needs, likes and dislikes, or what has happened to make him upset.

    Therefore his behaviour is extremely unpredictable and can quickly turn to frustration, agitation and then aggression, if not handled well.

    Matt does not understand cause and effect so his behaviours can be spontaneous and yet also rigorously persistent. Punishments and rewards are irrelevant.

    Matt is part of a group labelled “Autistic” and yet he is highly individual.

    We cannot have a “one size fits all” approach to disability, not even to intellectual disability, because there are some who will always fall through the cracks with this kind of thinking – and I don’t want my son to be one of them.

    When the NDIS covers all of NSW, it will have the state’s ENABLING ACT piggybacked onto it. This Enabling Act has linked the NDIS with a sell off and a sell out. The state government is doing a “Pontius Pilate” on our most vulnerable.

    Every single group home in NSW is to be handed over to Non Government Organisations and the Department of Aging, Disability and Home care – ADHC -will cease to exist.

    Which government department will there be, to support and deal with issues relating to people with disabilities?

    Who will be the provider of last resort for the people that NGOs will find too difficult to deal with?

    As a lay person, much of the enabling act was difficult for me to understand but one part I did “get” was

    Object © to provide for the transfer of disability services assets to maximise the capacity of the disability services sector and ensure continuity of service while achieving value for the State.

    “to maximise the CAPACITY” – not the quality

    “value for the state” sounds like a euphemism for cost cutting.

    The NDIS will undoubtedly be a positive step for many people in our state – for those with physical disabilities, for those who can speak for themselves, for those who need basic levels of care and most importantly – for those whose behaviour is NOT a leading issue.

    The problem with Matt is that he needs much more than “babysitting”, he requires expert management.

    I have been told that 90% of people in the Newcastle trial area were happy with the NDIS. What about that other 10% (or maybe more)? We can’t just sweep them under the rug, they matter too.

    There is a lot of rhetoric regarding “choice” and “control” for everyone under the NDIS.

    However, in the real world, there are a small but significant number of people with intellectual disability for whom CHOICE and CONTROL are simply not a possibility.

    An acquaintance told me of an advertisement they saw for a job in a privately run group home. The requirements were – a driver’s licence and the ability to work shift work.

    In a few words, this says a lot.

    Handing the care of people like Matt to anyone but properly trained staff is a recipe for disaster.

    While privately run homes with unskilled staff may work adequately in many cases, the people with the highest psychiatric and behavioural needs cannot and should not be handed over to people with minimal or no training and experience in this area.

    People with hard to manage, complex behavioural issues don’t act in the way they do because they make conscious choices about it. The behaviour and aggression are part and parcel of the disability and are not born of the mindset by which they will be judged by most people.

    Those with severe intellectual disability and behavioural issues don’t usually live in group homes as a matter of independence. They are there because the physical and emotional strength and age of parents are on the downward slope.

    While Matt’s journey into living away from home has not been easy and is still fraught with ups and downs, it HAS been one of caring and progress. This is due to the expertise and commitment of the staff and this has developed through career level training and years of experience.

    But quality people will not stay where they are undervalued and accept a substantial pay cut. Lower wages will result in staff with poorer expertise.

    Matt’s behaviour, while not perfect, has improved greatly because of the programs and skills in place. In 9 years, he has gone from a level of over 20 incidents per month on arrival at the group home, (almost 1 a day) down to 2 per month.

    The incidents have also decreased in severity. He has acquired skills – he is learning to recognise some emotions and his sensory tolerance and use of words have increased.

    This improvement is a tenuous thing and Matt could easily revert to past behaviours if he is not handled appropriately.

    Matt’s life at this house is one akin to family, because not only are his needs for food and shelter met – it goes beyond that. He is taken for regular medical and dental checks, including to the closest psychiatrist – in Newcastle, a 500km round trip.

    Matt is not interested in clubs or movies or dining out but he IS brought home to visit us.

    It can indeed be called a group HOME.

    Speech Pathologists, Occupational Therapists and Programmers have constantly been accessed through ADHC. Through these professionals, Matt has received a lot of input in regard to acquiring sensory materials and behaviour programs. These things have introduced improvements in his behaviour and quality of life.

    Matt’s Occupational Therapist put in a submission to construct a therapy garden. The money purchased materials and Matt’s father supplied the many hours of work to build it, outside Matt’s living area. This is now a beautiful, tranquil, calming place for Matt to access.

    Another small room adjacent to his living area has been converted to a sensory room and Matt uses this area daily to de-stress and relax. He has access here to specific equipment recommended and sourced by therapists. It is a critical component in his behaviour improvement.

    I wonder if an NGO will just view this room as a potential further bedroom to increase their income.
    Expert groups like Sydney Behavioural Intervention Support have been brought in to help develop plans for Matt’s behaviour and the safety of himself and those around him. ADHC has safety nets that reach far and wide and experienced staff know when and how to access them.

    I fear the changes on the horizon, when Matt will become a client (and as some may see it – a cash cow) rather than a vulnerable person with very high needs.

    NGOs be they business or charity are run to generate funds. Charities don’t want to run at a loss and companies are pure profit making enterprises.

    So what goes when they take over?

    The quality and the quantity of



    Power – Wauchope is hot in summer and cold in winter.

    Transport – Will we need to take Matt to appointments ourselves?

    Our experiences with NGOs to date relate to Matt’s Day Program.

    Matt is on the top level of funding for his day program with a ratio of 2 workers to one.

    He was expelled from his first day program because the staff could not control or deal with him.

    The second Day Program provider was reluctant to take Matt, but finally agreed to, if a new vehicle was supplied for him. Once they got the vehicle, they got rid of Matt.

    The third provider decided after many meetings, that they could not accommodate Matt in their program.

    He lingered for a long time with no Day Program.

    How frustrating for a young, active man – and how unfair. What quality of life did this afford him?

    We were initially advised that ADHC was not authorised to provide “whole of life” care – but after lobbying – they eventually agreed to undertake Matt’s day program themselves – with the house staff running it as a separate entity to his accommodation. All has gone smoothly since then, because these people are professionals not just minders.

    Things seem to be going well for us at the moment – but my worries are

    *If NGOs cannot manage to cater for Matt for 4 hours a day, 4 days a week with a 2 to 1 ratio – how are they going to provide a quality life for him 24/7?

    *Will Matt cease to have a Day Program again when ADHC is disbanded because there will be no available staff adequately trained to cater for him?

    *Will Matt have to pay for therapists and planners (who will then be ‘compartmentalised’ and not working as a cohesive unit)?

    *Will NGOs take a larger proportion of Matt’s pension towards their running costs and leave him little for his personal expenses? As well as his day to day needs, the cost of a phone line and package for his beloved internet is something he cannot cope without. He would have a total, unending meltdown.

    *Will NGOs provide Matt’s medical related transport, or will he be expected to pay for this?

    Perhaps Matt’s father or I can risk taking him a short way while we are still able to drive – but where are we to find a vehicle and the manpower to do this with safety?

    The vehicles at his house have specifically designed security netting fitted to protect the driver if Matt becomes agitated, as well as windows and doors that Matt cannot open to escape.

    Governments look at the quality and safety of a service, NGOs look at profit.

    The word CHOICE is being used a lot in relation to the NDIS.

    The fact is that under NDIS there will be no true choice with accommodation.

    If you currently live in an ADHC home – you cannot choose to keep this service because ADHC will not exist. You will have no choice about which private provider will run the house you are in. If you choose a different provider you will have to move.

    Waiting lists for Group Homes are long and no NGO will be running to the front of the queue with their hand raised, yelling “pick me”, to take on Matt or those like him.

    What accommodation choices do people like Matt actually have apart from TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.

    The most hard to manage people, who require the most expert staff, with the greatest accountability for all their undertakings and actions should be cared for by the government.

    Governments traditionally give employees security – and pay trained people a wage that will continue to assure their services.

    Governments look after people without a balance sheet being the entire focus of their commitment.

    I believe governments have a social and moral obligation in this area.

    It has been said that the morality of a government can be judged by the way it looks after its most vulnerable citizens.

    How does our state government rate in this test, when it deems that the aged and disabled of NSW do not even deserve a government department or a minister to represent, support and protect them?

    The Disability Inclusion Act – Schedule 5 – could be viewed as a – “3 strikes and you’re out “ policy for clients.

    I can envisage many NGOs using this to get rid of the hard to manage clients to make their houses easier and more cost effective.

    If Matt is refused a group home place because of aggressive behaviour – where does he go? Who is the provider of last resort in this plan?

    I fear about Matt’s future.

    Some NGOs such as Anglicare hold similar fears and are asking many of the same questions about clients with what they call “behaviours of concern”.

    They worry about adequate funding to employ staff with expertise – and to cover hidden costs associated with “behaviours of concern”. They describe “cherry picking” by providers to avoid clients with behavioural problems and they wonder who are the providers of last resort and how will they be funded to support the hardest to manage cases.

    When NSW dismantles ADHC, which government department will preside over and protect people who cannot understand or speak for themselves?


    In the early 2000s some complex clients were put out to private enterprise but within a year, ADHC ordered most of them back under Government Disability services because –

    Service provision was low quality

    and the cost blew out so the state could not afford it.

    Why do we keep repeating failed policies? Isn’t the definition of stupidity – doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

    Here is a comment I found relating to privatisation in Britain -

    There is clear evidence that privatisation and outsourcing aren’t working.

    Publicly owned services aren’t always perfect, but they tend to be better quality, lower cost and more accountable. Private companies are great at making lots of things – from soya lattes to laptops. But it’s misguided to hand them natural monopolies. Especially when they involve giving time and care to meeting people’s basic needs. In the 21st century, public services should be about people, not profit.

    In my experience, the ingredients that come together to make things work for Matt are

    1. Carers with knowledge and experience.

    Most of the staff who currently work for the ADHC home where Matt lives have made this work their career. Many have completed 3 or 4 years of tertiary study and 4 of them are ex psyche nurses. They train new staff coming into the house. They are familiar and COMFORTABLE working with people like Matt.

    2. Programs developed by experts with everyone on board –

    This is achieved through having a network of professionals available through one place – ADHC, working together with regular meetings and discussion and a team approach.

    We are happy with Matt’s present accommodation and the way it is running. We are constantly monitoring, meeting and discussing – and things are coming together well for Matt at this point in time.

    While ADHC may not be perfect, it remains the best situation we have experienced, because the people in its care are not simply numbers on a profit line but citizens under its protection.

    OUR choice would be – “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

    In the new NDIS world in NSW, I think that many people with disability will probably benefit.

    It is the comparatively smaller number of square pegs that I worry about because Matt has always been one of them.

    Thank you
  • Michael Grant
    commented 2016-09-12 14:35:48 +1000
    What does privatisation of public services mean to me, and many others who come from a similar background?

    It means many things, and can affect us on many different levels. Financially the Government will save tax moneys, but our wallets will be devastated with the privatisation of any or all of the services.

    As a tax payer, I personally am happy to pay taxes, as it helps pay for services I and my family use by keeping them at a reasonable rate. But, having been unemployed in the past, for well over 12 months, I have learnt that that situation puts me into a group who has to rely on the public services. As a result I was able to have access to the public dental services, even if on a long waiting list. My wife was able to have appropriate health interventions when there was no way we would have to been able to pay for it. So is privatisation of the hospital and dental systems a good thing? No I don’t believe so, especially for those on low incomes, unemployed, and the disabled. All of whom need to access the public health services or end up being unhealthy and very disadvantaged.

    On top of the above, we have to be thankful to the Public System for education. Again this is experiential information, rather than subjective. I mentioned above that I had been out of work for over 12 months. So how did I get out of it? I had to go back to school to re-educate myself. Would I have been able to afford to do pay myself through a privatised University System? No chance! Where would I have gotten the money from, being that I was unemployed? There was no chance! I would have remained on the public purse, demoralised and with no future.

    The Public Health and Education Systems have given myself and my family a lifetime of health and employment. Not only that, thanks to the Public Hospitals, Medicare, and the Education Systems, my Wife and I work in industries that support others who are at the mercy of privatisation, namely the Disabled who live in the Larger Residential Communities. Now there is a group of people who are losing a great deal because of the Disability System’s privatisation.

    But does this State or Federal Government care about all of this? It seems not. This LNP Government’s ideology seems to be that if they privatise public enterprise, the companies will forgo profits to employ many people, forgo profits to keep the cost of educating our children and ourselves down, and thus help to build this Australia into a better nation. Well excuse me for laughing out loud, but isn’t it the main reason for business to make profits? And how do they make profits? Yes it is by putting a higher and higher price onto their product, and in this case Health, Education, and eventually Disability services.
  • Mary Perry
    commented 2016-09-12 08:33:53 +1000
    My experience, first hand, is the debacle of privatisation of the VET sector. I have worked in both private and TAFE colleges delivering the Diploma of Nursing. The choices are:

    private college – crowded classrooms, poor standard of education delivery with minimal support staff, large class sizes, highest possible fees which in the end are billed to the taxpayer or

    TAFE – well equipped skills labs, high standard education delivery with skilled support staff, small class sizes, lowest fees, which are also in the end billed to the taxpayer.

    Why would the government privatise when in the end, the private sector has cost millions to the taxpayer in wasted :tuition fees" ?
  • Rosemary Lynch
    commented 2016-09-10 11:38:24 +1000
    You have ONE Tropical = ONE Regional centre OUTSIDE Victoria. And that’s Cairns, and that’s pretty pathetic.
  • Martin Thrower
    commented 2016-09-09 19:18:37 +1000
    My submission concerns the role of TAFE in NSW and how this has decreased while state funding has passed to private service providers. I understand that these private service providers supply an inadequate service at extremely high cost.

    My family’s story illustrates how services provided by TAFE have deteriorated over the past few years. My daughter Emily’s experience in 2010 was very positive and persuaded her to take a science degree at university and subsequently to be accepted at medical school in Melbourne. My son Michael’s experience in 2013 was far less positive, being on-line and involving no actual tuition since no course including actual “teaching” was available. Details of these 2 experiences follow.

    Emily left school in 2009 with a very good ATAR and took 2 gap years to work a little before starting university. At school Emily always specialised in “arty” subjects, especially English and music. Emily worked during her gap years but decided to continue her studies part-time at Newcastle TAFE and to “have a go” at extra HSCs maths and physics. Somewhat to her surprise, Emily found she could actually do these subjects, being especially inspired by her physics teacher. She didn’t perform particularly outstandingly in her HSC exams but did well enough to persuade her that she should enrol in a science degree at Melbourne university in 2011. At Melbourne uni Emily did extremely well, graduating with honours in 2014 and she has recently started the graduate “Doctor of Medicine” program at Melbourne Medical School.

    Michael left school in 2013 with a good ATAR but one which was slightly lower than he needed to gain entry to the uni course he had set his sights on. He therefore decided to follow Emily’s example and enrol in TAFE to take 2 extra HSCs during his gap year. When I turned up with Michael to Newcastle TAFE to enquire about available HSC courses we were sadly disappointed. We were informed that HSC courses were being discontinued and that Michael could possibly enrol in a course that was running for its last year. Since Michael had no interest in any of these then he did not enrol. I recall theology being one of the courses on offer. We subsequently discovered that TAFE did still offer HSC courses remotely via its OTEN program. Michael enrolled in courses in physics and economics in this program and obtained the improved ATAR he was seeking from his continued studies, however the experience could not be described as a positive one. The courses involved no actual face-to-face tuition, the teaching materials were poor and up to 15 years out-of-date and Michael had to be extremely disciplined and motivated to succeed. The contrast with Emily’s experience was enormous.

    I accept that my 2 children were probably not typical TAFE students, however their different experiences do show how one of TAFE’s basic functions has been undermined: that of offering students a “second chance at school study”. For my children, who had a positive experience of school, this was very much an “optional extra” but for many kids whose experience of school was decidedly negative, TAFE should offer one of the few options to get their education back on track. This type of student, with few or no qualifications from school and having discovered how limited their options are, will be motivated to succeed in TAFE and should be given the opportunity to do so. As a former teacher in the UK we had a saying about students that “an ounce of motivation is worth a pound of ability”. One of TAFE’s major functions should be to make it easier for kids who were poorly motivated at school to return to education; from our family’s experience it appears that that function is being degraded or even removed.
  • April Adsett
    commented 2016-09-09 16:37:20 +1000
    There are no benefits to privitisation of services. Telstra was a huge money maker, gone as were hundreds of jobs to overseas call centres. Service is terrible, you can’t understand people and it has been my experience poorly trained and not very knowledgable plus the added bonus of job losses for Australians. Jails should never be privatised – a situation is set up for profits not rehabilitation- there must be a continuous flow of criminals, hence our ridiculous laws that can deprive people of the ability to earn a living. People are not stupid, we realise Governements sell of our assets rather than become more efficient. It must stop before Australians love Se anymore jobs or sell important assets like our ports to foreign interests. It defies belief that this is happening. Politicians need to remember they work for us not the other way round.
  • Phoenix Yoshida
    commented 2016-09-09 15:46:14 +1000
    It takes mounds upon mounds of grain, soy, corn etc. to feed the over billions of livestock in our planet. About 16 lb of human food goes into producing just 1 lb of meat. I didn’t even mention the water consumption of all the livestock in the world. This is a huge waste of resources and an incredibly inefficient process, but this is why there are well up to a billion people going hungry every night in our planet. We have the resources to feed up to 14 billion people, we’re literally feeding livestock over people. There is also the factor of emissions. The industries raising livestock are producing more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire transport industry – that’s cars, trains, planes etc. This is funny to some people but the amount of animals who burp and fart enclosed in those factory farms by the thousands produce methane, a deadly and potent gas to the environment – it is being produced by the billions every minute as long as people keep breeding billions of cattle for food. Also, there is faeces to think about, given the amount of food given to them to fatten them up, how much faeces will they produce and where can it go? Tons upon tons – These wastes are the causes of irreversible pollution of rivers, grasslands, water sources etc. The list goes on, acres of land are cleared for livestock, whether to feed them, grow the food to feed them, or a place to keep them. The Amazon? Up to 80% of Amazon destruction and deforestation stems from cattle ranching. This is just a tip of the iceberg, there is SO much more to find. Please, connect with this and be implored to think about this the next time anyone feels like buying a harmless burger.
  • Tara Lemin
    commented 2016-09-08 22:20:30 +1000
  • Cornholio!
    @Cornholio_83 tweeted link to this page. 2016-09-08 08:52:59 +1000
  • Brendan Mays
    commented 2016-09-08 08:52:28 +1000
    Please do not sell off public services. This results in greater cost to the consumer, see the CBA and Telstra.
  • Geoffrey Annetts
    commented 2016-09-08 06:56:02 +1000
    The privatisation of public assets is the single greatest handover of the wealth from the majority to the minority in recent history. The citizens of our country paid for and built the public assets and over the last 30 years we have seen the methodical transfer of the nations wealth into the hands of a few. It is common knowledge that the wealth gap is constantly growing.

    Our governments are meant to be the representatives of the citizens, however their actions are constantly in favour of the corporations as they preserver with economic and political ideology that has been demonstrated not to work; and in particular not in the interest of the majority. It is time that Government did the bidding of the public!

    Privatisation has not delivered the promises made, such as increased efficiencies and quality of service. We have seen our communication network Telstra, once the best in the world and delivering technology to other countries, now a mediocre performer on the world stage. If Telstra had not been partially privatised we would now have one of the worlds best fibre networks; profits have not gone to improvements to technology but whittled away as dividends.

    If Government had a positive national agenda and wished to serve its citizens then they would still have control of our assets, and the benefits of these companies would now be assisting in the balancing of our budget. Governments’ have become the legislative arm of the corporations over the last 35 years, starting with Thatcher and Regan.

    We need to stop this and start acting for the wellbeing of our citizens, for the long term
  • Aaron Webb
    commented 2016-09-07 15:03:59 +1000
    If the government intends to privatise public services then surely they owe the Australian people the taxes we’ve paid for these services.

    If the government wants to privatise healthcare and education then they will need strict regulatory requirements in place, and I doubt we’ll see any push toward the rights of the consumer being put first.

    Privatisation ensures that services cost as little as possible to provide, often leading to cost cutting measures that could endanger lives in the case of health services, and that they are as profitable as possible, giving those in charge zero motivation to have a healthy or educated populace.

    The Australian government represents our wishes, and this is not my voice. Education and health care services should remain free for those in desperate need in their society; without public education I would not have been able to compose this sentence. Without public health care I could very well be a syphilitic moron by now. Is that the future we want for our citizens?
  • Gerry Constantinou
    @Gerrrrry tweeted link to this page. 2016-09-07 15:03:32 +1000
  • linda clark
    commented 2016-09-06 17:23:43 +1000
    As Theresa Martin commented 1 day ago

    I would like to submit my concerns over privatisation of our public services and the impact it has of women and their communities world wide and Australia.

    Mr Turnbull is determine to privatise our public services and give this control away to corporations for a profit.

    Our public services should be for the benefit of Australian women and their communities not the corporate elite.

    Everywhere in Australia and World wide quality public services are needed for women to fully access their rights and to live healthy fulfilling lives. Public services play a critical role ensuring that women have the social protection they need to live full and safe lives.

    Privatisation has real effects and can eliminate good jobs for women in the public sector, eroding a range of public services designed in mind to support women. When these services are inadequate, women everywhere are the ones that are hardest hit more than men, filing the gap through unpaid care work.

    I stand with women World wide and I do not want to see the health and well-being of Australian women being sold for a profit.

    I am making a stand against the privatisation of public services in Australia and overseas. Enough is enough.
  • Mogana Moses
    commented 2016-09-05 18:29:48 +1000
    Imagine yourself in the shoes of ordinaryAustralian women and consider how privatization wiil adversely affect you.You will nopt be pleased .So, stop privatization now. Thank you
  • Leonie Fagundes
    commented 2016-09-05 14:51:08 +1000
    We don’t want to see the health and well-being of Australian women being sold for a profit. Our public services should be for the benefit of Australian women and their communities, not the corporate elite!
  • Cecil Forbes
    commented 2016-09-05 11:08:24 +1000
    I object strongly to the privatisation of public services and I vote – It was said years ago that free trade will make Australians the white coolies of labour – how true those words were. Now we see Govt’s planning to get old people to work longer this results in having more young people out of work and untrained – that is unemployed coolies. On unemployment benefits which probably balances the pension saving made by having older people work longer.
  • Sandra Betts
    posted about this on Facebook 2016-09-05 00:05:51 +1000
    Submission Form

Find an Event