With that said,
RECOGNISES that privatisation causes higher prices, reduced job opportunities and less reliabilty in the industry that is privatised.
is a problem. Privatisation can cause that to happen, for instance, privatising a government monopoly and not properly regulating it is a good way it can happen, as that company goes on to take advantage of the monopoly by raising prices and "cost-cutting" in the form of layoffs and reduction of services. At the same time, many governments also maintain strict price controls and/or regulation on the privatised business, which helps to reduce those effects. So you can't make it a statement like that, because it isn't necessarily true, in the same way as
Efficiancy, competition, profits, and increased jobs comes from the private sector. Of course they are much more risky, but greater risk equal greater rewards. Govermnent run business, by their very nature, are inefficient, heavily subsidized,fail to make a profit, and cannot compete in the free market
is a very poor and basically incorrect generalisation likely based on limited (or selective) experience with public and private companies.
The point of this, however, is not to say "we're both right, so let's be friends", but to illustrate that the very premise of the proposal falls flat. Poor outcomes do not result simply because a particulary industry or company is private or public, more often it is the specifics of the situation, such as management, economic situations, overall government policies, regulation or lack thereof, social factors, etc. - specifics which I do not believe the WA could reasonably deal with in a resolution, if it even should at all.
