The Howard Government is infuriatingly 'political'. Policy follows electoral timetables and when they have chosen ideology over politics, it has been in the wrong areas, such as GST and Workchoices. It appeared in the news they have 'no plans' to sell Australia Post - well, they should take an ideological stance, and sell it.

With GST the federal government should have told the states to raise their own taxes, the bunch of no good beggars. Now the feds do 85% of all taxation in Australia.

And Workchoices, while enhancing individual bargaining, prohibits collective bargaining. The latter being a liberty which should not be prohibited legislatively for those that choose to negotiate that way. To add to the problem, both are anti-federalist legislation.

From the article:

Australia Post is not about to follow the long line of privatisations such as Telstra, Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the federal government says.

The Howard Government has not been good at privatisation anyway, Qantas has a government protected market on the Pacific routes, and Telstra remains a monopoly that is inhibiting broadband adoption in Australia. So even if Australia Post is sold, it will probably remain with some kind of government legislated or regulated market advantage through a botched policy implementation.

There is really no reason to keep Australia Post public. There are already private competitors to Australia Post such as Fedex and UPS. While capital intensive to set up a competing distribution infrastructure, it is not impossible.

One other thing; Netflix in the US is made super simple and convenient by the US Post Office picking up the mail from *your* letterbox. Maybe if Australia Post had direct private competition it would have to innovate in these areas and help other tangential services.

Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • tps12 . # . 1/1
    Well, the USPS is public...they don't pick up from people's homes because they compete with anyone, but because a really long time ago the people's representatives decided that the country would be better off if we could all communicate easily and conveniently, so that service was worth subsidizing through tax revenue.
    • cam . # . 1/1
      I am aware that the USPS is public. However all Australia Post's private competitors in the parcel arena do pick up. If that extended to letters, I am willing to bet the increase in customer service pitch would be 'we pick up from your home'.

      Not to Homer Simpson garbage collection levels though ...
      'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.
      • tps12 . # . 1/1
        Yes, I guess I'd just say, there's more than one way to skin a cat. And if the cat's already state funded and directed to act in the public interest, then the most straightforward approach would seem to be mandating that it skin itself. (There are infinite ways to torture a metaphor, of course.)
        • cam . # .
          Even though it is publicly owned, it is for-profit. IIRC it made something like 300 million AUD last year in profit and its sale price would be about 7 billion AUD.

          The Nationals' concern is that rural mail service will disappear because of high costs. But that outcome can be achieved by other policy methods and subsidies, such as tax breaks for rural letter delivery. The main competitor to letters is email, and that falls under broadband policy - which has been retarded by the Nationals seeking rural perks.
          'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.