Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Good mail on privatisation

By Mikayla Novak - posted Friday, 26 October 2012


The Gillard government has urged states to sell their electricity assets, but at the same time has left privatisation of its own assets off the reform table.

While the general public impression may be that all the federal government's 'family silver' has been sold off, the privatisation lull since the early 2000s has meant some entities which would be more efficiently operated in private hands remain firmly under government control.

One of the remaining candidates for privatisation is Australia Post.

Advertisement

In similar fashion to government postal services in other countries, Australia Post is being squeezed in regard to both the revenue and cost aspects of its operations.

Technological developments such as the internet and mobile phones have meant that the use of letters as a mode of communication has waned significantly, eating away at a traditional source of revenue for Australia Post.

The latest figures show that Australia Post has lost about $91 million through the exclusive 'reserve service' requirement imposed by the government to deliver letters within Australia and from overseas to Australian addresses.

The organisation is also labour intensive, which is not altogether surprising given another regulatory requirement by government that it physically provides weekday deliveries to most Australians, and maintains 4,000 odd postal outlets including a mandatory share in rural and regional areas.

But with its highly unionised workforce prone to strike action opportunities to use labour-saving technologies, such as vending machines for standard letters or Express Post envelopes, have not been fully exploited.

Australia Post appears to be holding its own in the competitive market for parcel deliveries, thanks to a boom in online retailing not of its own making, however its responses to the fall in letters have starkly illustrated that it remains an inefficient, unresponsive government entity.

Advertisement

Very soon Australia Post will party like it's 1996 because it will launch, wait for it, a 'Digital Mailbox' service in which people receive email, pay bills and store documents in one online location.

Even those with a cursory knowledge of the internet know that Hotmail (which was launched in 1996), banks, telephone companies and other private concerns already provide such services, raising questions about the inherent wisdom of a government-owned entity duplicating that which already exists.

There has also been speculation in recent years that Australia Post wish to move more deeply into the financial services arena, a field in which governments in the past have had poor management records.

Australia is grouped together with a small cohort of countries that have engaged in partial liberalisation of postal services during the 1980s and 1990s.

In 1989 the Hawke government enacted the Australian Postal Corporation Act, which 'corporatised' Australia Post entailing that the organisation would be subject to general taxation and regulatory requirements similar to those facing private sector businesses.

The objective of corporation was to improve Australia Post's efficiency by enforcing it to act 'as if' it were a private entity whilst remaining under government ownership, with the Communications Minister being Australia Post's sole 'shareholder.'

The Act, and subsequent legislative developments, reduced the degree of exclusive monopoly rights held by Australia Post in the distribution of heavy-weight letters and parcels helping to enhance the growth of private courier services.

These measures were steps in the right direction, however other countries have proceeded further down the road of postal services liberalisation.

In countries such as Germany, Malaysia and the Netherlands the government post offices have been either partially or completely privatised, mainly through the public offerings of shares.

The monopolistic rights accorded to government post operators to carry letters have also been abolished entirely in several countries, including Germany, New Zealand and Sweden.

Australia should follow the path of the postal reform pathbreakers to improve the efficiency of the presently government - owned postal carrier, and deepen postal and courier services markets.

At the very least Australia Post should be fully privatised, and could be expected to perform effectively as a private operator given that it has existed for almost a quarter - century on the 'training wheels' of corporatisation.

What of the community service obligations applicable to the carriage of letters and physical services accessibility?

One option could be that the government sell off the rights to a bidding company to deliver the CSO arrangements for a fixed term on a least cost basis.

However in a country characterised by ever - increasing access to internet services, such as email and online bill paying facilities, and greater private sector competition there is a case to further liberalise the regulatory requirements entailed under the CSO.

About a decade ago the Howard government proposed that private companies could charge market rates for the delivery of letters weighing between 50 and 250 grams, a reform not implemented due to political considerations.

The government's 'no privatisation' stance is lamentable, as it deprives consumers of the potential benefits provided by the realisation of private sector efficiencies.

And in the short term to not privatise government assets also deprives the government of financing options to plug its yawning budget deficit gap.

But with the radical innovations witnessed in communications markets over the last two decades, no sound rationale remains for the government provision of increasingly antiquated letter and small parcel postal services.

There is still some lucrative low hanging fruit of prospective privatisation ripe to pick; it is time for the government to pick it.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

10 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mikayla Novak is a Research Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs. She has previously worked for Commonwealth and State public sector agencies, including the Commonwealth Treasury and Productivity Commission. Mikayla was also previously advisor to the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Her opinion pieces have been published in The Australian, Australian Financial Review, The Age, and The Courier-Mail, on issues ranging from state public finances to social services reform.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mikayla Novak

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 10 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy