As the asset sale debate goes round and round in circles, one really has to ask: Why is the government not prosecuting a clear and cogent social case for asset sales, and instead focussing on narrow fiscal effects? A glance at past privatisations demonstrates a greater awareness of the costs, rewards and reasons for doing so.

A substantial privatisation was announced in 1991. Indeed, a chapter of the budget was devoted to it, spelling out how the Crown would determine which assets should be privatised and why. It detailed resource use, market supervision, objectives of privatisation, and criteria for sale. Agree or disagree, the reasons, rationale and processes were laid out for all to see. By contrast, the 2012 Budget contained little on partial privatisations except their existence and how they will free up some cash.

Instead of analysing state-owned assets and their role in society, the government instead opted for a balance sheet approach: Selling 49% of a few companies means less money borrowed to pay for infrastructure. Overall benefit to the Crown’s net financial position: positive. While sensible, it does equate to any kind of strategy where the role of government ownership of businesses has been scrutinised, evaluated and principles formulated to determine which companies should stay public and which should be privately owned.

The reason for government owning businesses or industries historically has been ideological and/or to provide a perceived or real social benefit: cheap goods, utilities, employment, nation building, and so on.

So when considering public ownership, two questions should be asked. What social benefit does government ownership of assets bring to citizens? What fiscal risks does this ownership expose the government, and taxpayers, to?

These basic questions have not been asked, and in the case of the energy companies in question, social benefit is difficult to discern. The most common retort – that dividends are high and make the government money – still does not answer this question. If dividends are so high, why is electricity so expensive? Large political slush funds are not exactly a boon to social justice, whereas cheaper electricity prices would be.

There are many non-ideological, documented advantages to asset sales that should resonate with the public. Understandably, but unfortunately, the government seems reluctant to prosecute the case.