Melbourne Unitarian Peace Memorial Church

Generally, when I give an Address, I try to do so in a way which emphasizes the importance of Unitarianism in the pursuit of social justice issues. This is my answer to those who talk about the need for more spirituality. I believe that spirituality means different things to different people. I get my spiritual satisfaction from working for the community.

Mao Tse Tung referred to this as ‘serving the people’ and what better form of spirituality, physical, political and moral satisfaction could there be than serving the people.

We serve the people by learning from the past, examining the present and determining the future, the future of our planet, and the urgent needs of the people. Of course, we should all understand our Unitarian heritage and the contribution made by past Unitarians, which we have often discussed, but Unitarians generally did not contemplate their navels and wallow in abstract reflections, they applied their religion to changing the world and making it a better place for all.

That is what this church has always done since its inception.

It is in that tradition that I speak to you today about water, its importance and the proposed privatization of this basic service.
We must oppose Privatisation of water because water is the essence of life and not a commodity to be sold like baked beans or toilet rolls, just as housing should not be a commodity, or health should not be sold for profit. These are people’s birthright, in a moral society, Unfortunately we live in a capitalist society, not a moral society, where profit reigns supreme and where in this most sophisticated form of capitalism, imperialism, globalization demands that we pay for everything we use, except air so far, and I am sure there is somewhere some research going on which will commodify air eventually and privatize it.

It is incumbent upon us to examine privatization and to contemplate what is happening to all the services we have lost through governments relinquishing their responsibilities to us, the owners of those services. They are failing to provide, through out taxes those social programmes which are our human right, housing, education, health, transport, utilities like gas, electricity, water. telephone.

Privatisation of every kind has occurred around the world at about the same time. Is this a co -incidence, did national governments all arrive at similar policies just by chance, I think not. I do not believe in co incidence on this scale, It is my belief that the World Bank and the IMF have imposed privatization as conditions of loan and debt relief. Thus governments are subject to their demand for privatization and are re locating huge government profitable former public facilities to the private sector whom they really represent globally.

Most of you are familiar with the phrase ‘on the nose’, it is a well known Aussie expression, it means we don’t like, it smells. Well because privatization around the world has resulted in growing impoverishment, ill health, lack of services ,enormous rises in prices, and huge private profits, people are opposing it. Privatisation is on the nose

So governments no longer refer to privatization for that reason, the new name for the same privatization which continues unabated are PPPs, otherwise known as Public Private Partnership and these are beloved of government and the Victorian Labor Government in particular has taken great advantage of this new name for an old programme.

Under the old privatization governments heavily subsidized mostly foreign companies, indeed sometimes the subsidies from taxpayers money to those companies one could almost argue that such subsidization amounted to workers in those industries paying to be employed. If you take Kodak for example when it was discussing re locating interstate before it closed down, Victoria poured huge sums into the company to ensure that it stayed in Victoria.

They have used it in housing and are continuing to use it, with Housing Associations and ‘affordable housing’ in order to avoid government expenditure on public housing. I might mention here that for every property purchased by housing associations, the government pays 75% and the HA pays 25% and I doubt that such associations will be able to stem the huge rising tide of homelessness which currently abounds and which government refuses to take responsibility for.

They are using PPPs in state education to avoid public expenditure on state school infrastructure, while they expend taxpayers money on private and indeed for profit schools.

They are using it in hospitals and health care institutions, steadily selling off our right to health care.

And what better example than transport which is privately owned but publicly financed and is a huge disaster for Victoria. With the ticketing fiasco, we could have continued to employ connies cheaper and more efficiently.

However, the most appalling privatization is that of water because water is the very essence of life and we cannot afford for private companies or the World Bank to decide the future of our water.

What is water privatization, what does it mean?

Recent trends, particularly in developing countries has been toward water privatization. Generally the government enters into a legally enforceable agreement with a foreign multi national corporation. This corporation then makes all the decisions about the delivery of water. The extent to which they make these decisions, that is about how water is provided, to whom, its quality and its price is up to the negotiated contract. Weaker governments, that is those who are heavily indebted will have little bargaining power and will therefore cede a lot more authority to the foreign owned corporation.
Water privatization initiatives are often a condition of the world bank and the IMF loan money received by developing countries.

I would like to present some water facts which I obtained from Aidwatch an environment non profit organization and which will interest you.
*Less than half of a percent of water on earth is available fresh water. According to the UN, more than a billion people lack access to safe drinking water and more than 2.4 billion lack adequate sanitation.

*More than five million people, most of them children, die each year from illness caused by drinking unsafe water.

*Global consumption of water is doubling every 20 years more than twice the rate of human population growth.

If current trends persist by 2025 the demand for fresh water is expected to rise to 56% above the amount that is currently available which will result in as much as 2/3rd of the world’s population unable to access clean water.

*The privatization of the water industry is already a $400 billion a year business globally. That makes it one third larger than global pharmaceuticals, and we all know who makes the decisions about what pharmaceuticals we use and their cost.

In the US alone private water corporations generate revenues of more than $80 billion US a year four times the annual sales of Microsoft.
Ten corporate giants are vying for control of the world’ water (water is indeed the new oil read the editorial in the next beacon . The top three are French companies, a US, a German and five are of UK origin.

Four of the top ten water companies are ranked among the 100 largest corporations in the world by Global Fortune 5000

What are the problems with privatizing water sources and services?

It increases inequality. Privatising, doesn’t affect those who can pay, but those that can’t are forced to choose between necessities such as water, health care, education, food.

Trade agreements: When water is treated as a commodity privately owned, it is open to the same conditions as other tradeable goods, governments are signing international trade and investment agreements which supersede national laws, resulting in them losing their ability to protect water sources, even if they wanted to. Corporations have the capital to continue purchasing water, whereas citizens, particularly the poor may not be able to afford it.

Environment: As soon as a price is put on water, who is going to purchase it for the environment. As corporations are dependent on increased consumption to generate profits they are much more likely to invest in desalination diversion or exporting water as opposed to conservation measures.
Threatens democracy Democratic and community involvement in water management decisions is essential. World Bank agreements however are considered to be ‘intellectual property’ and therefore the public has no access to terms or details of bank projects that affect their lives. The IMF and the World Bank are not appropriate institutions to be making decisions about water management as they are not democratic accountable or transparent institutions.

Health Risks: Water management and testing companies have concealed information about health risks resulting in widespread illness and in some case deaths. Water corporations are primarily interested in profits not the health of the people.

Again I apologise for using internet material but the following is of great importance.

It is from a group called ‘ public citizen,’ a US based community watch group.

A worldwide crisis over water is brewing. According to the UN 31 countries are now facing water scarcity and 1 billion people lack access to clean drinking water. Water consumption is doubling every 20 years and yet at the same time, water sources are rapidly being polluted, depleted, diverted and exploited by corporate interests ranging from industrial, agricultural and manufacturing to electricity production and mining. The World Bank predicts that by 2025, two thirds of the world’s population will suffer from lack of clean and safe drinking water.’

Rather than taking appropriate action, governments are either refusing to take action, or are willingly co-operating with the giant trans nationals who are poised to make immoral profits from this essential life giving water.

There is no doubt that water is the oil of the 21st Century and they are rushing to invest in this lucrative business.

They plan to buy water rights, buy out publicly owned water systems under the guise of saving governments money, they promote bottled water and sell ‘bulk’ water by transporting from water rich areas to markets desperate for it. At the same time, these trans nationals are lobbying to weaken water quality standards and pushing for trade agreements that hand over water resources to them.

In the US for example, where some regions are already suffering serious water shortages, corporations like Nestle are poised to make huge profits from water. Some of these corporate interests are trying to sell bulk water from the Great Lakes, the world’s largest freshwater system. These Great Lakes have suffered from pollution, lost two thirds of their extensive wetlands and experienced a catastrophic loss of biological diversity, only 3% of their shoreline is suitable for swimming

Water resources in Wisconsin and Michigan have been targeted by giant bottled water companies like Perrier. Selling bottled water is one of the most successful revenue generating schemes for private corporations. As drinking water becomes degraded, the bottled water industry is promoting its product as the solution, obviously only for those who can afford it.

Unfortunately, bottled water is not adequately regulated, tap water is actually subject to more rigorous testing and safety standards. A 1999 study of bottled water found that it is no safer than tap water and sometimes less safe. Meanwhile, companies like Coco Cola are sellilng purified tap water as a healthy option and they now believe that in the long run, selling water will be more profitable than selling coke.

Today, 460 million people around the world are dependent on private water corporations for their daily supply of water compared to 51 million in 1990
. David Boys an international expert on water and sewage utilities and a member of the UN Secretary Generals Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation said that experience has shown that private solutions do not work, yet, here in Australia, governments are looking toward privatization in keeping with the rest of the world.

For example, foreign companies are bidding for Victoria’s desalination deal. A story in the Herald Sun said a ‘private firm will reap more than 1.5 billion in taxpayers funds to operate Victoria’s desalination plant, a deal that will ignite debate about who controls the State’s water. Foreign companies from Spain, France, Korea, Japan, America and Israel have held talks with the Brumby Government to clinch the controversial operating contract which will run for 25 years.

The rich contract is expected to include operating fees of more than $60 million per year. The Brumby government has not ruled out a guaranteed usage clause, which could see the taxpayer fork out for an agreed amount of water from the private operator every year, even if it wasn’t needed.

Both options leave the government vulnerable to claims it is privatizing Victoria’s water.

The operating deal will bring the true cost of the desalination plant, Australia’s largest to more than 4.5 billion dollars including 3 billion in design and construction costs.

Water Minister Tim Holding declined to comment on the specifics of the proposed contract other than to say that expressions of interest would be called for midway through the year.

No decision has been made on operational or guaranteed usage fees. Mr Holding denied that government plans amounted to privatization of water. As a PPP the government will pay the private sector to design, build, maintain and operate the plant.

Its closest comparison is the $1.8 billion Sydney desalination plant due to be operational by end of next year which is much smaller than Melbourne’s. Veolia is the parent company of Connex which operates our trains and has expressed interest in bidding for our desalination plant.
They would need to do a great deal better with desalination than they have with our trains.

Mr Holding said PPPs provided the best value for money to the taxpayer, but he provides no evidence of this and figures needed to do so are confidential.

Meanwhile, in Sydney thousands protested outside the NSW parliament against electricity privatization and they were joined by Bishop Kevin Manning who said while he was not opposed to all privatization the church’s social teaching is subject to social mortgage and privatization often meant that the interests of shareholders, possibly foreign will inevitably override the public interest. Since electricity supply is a community service it should not be subject to the profit motive he said. Wonder what he thinks about privatization of water.

Once upon a time, there was a very simple process for running our services, We needed, shelter, health, education, transport, gas, electricity, water and telephone. These were paid for by everyone paying taxes according to their ability. With the money generated from taxation governments were to provide the services necessary in a democracy.

Today, we need to ask where are our taxes going? What is government doing with our money and did they ask us if we wanted privatization or PPPs.?
The answer of course is no and we need to become more demanding of our collective right to decide how our society moves forward. Politicians are there to serve us, not the Trans Nationals. That is the truth

A German philosophy born 1788, died 1860 called Arthur Schopenhauser said

All truth passes through 3 stages.
Stage 1 it is ridiculed
Stage 2 it is violently opposed
Stage 3 it is accepted as self evident.

We can’t wait till privatization of water becomes self evident, we need to act now.