Check out Stephen King’s excellent post at Core Economics about plans for Australia Post to enter the broadband sales market. He ends the piece with two excellent questions:
So Australia Post’s internet venture signals two things. It is time to rethink how the govenrment provides ‘basic mail’ to remote Australia. And it is time to rethink the boundaries for what government-owned businesses can do with our money.
A common theme of my posts here about Australia Post is that it trades outside its remit as outlined in the Act under which it operates. Every day newsagents see Australia Post government-owned corporate operate outside what is permitted. When challenged, politicians of both sides ignore complaints – they want the profits that flow.
Government owned business should only be able to conduct business in areas not already covered by commercial enterprises and which require government assistance to reach the population. The government should not be able to get into station, ink and gifts competing with family owned small business newsagents.
This is not a new argument. I doubt the politicians will listen. Australia Post is too well connected. I have been writing about this issue for seven years and have personally lobbied many politicians on it from John Howard down. Until politicians feel there are votes in it, the issue will not be addressed.
The line has already been drawn, the Act that the Post Office operates under is quite clear. The trouble is the Act is ignored.
As the Post Office contributes funds for the Federal Government as a result of this abuse, I doubt we will see a politician ever change it to our advantage.
Have a look at the back page of the Fin Review today. Full page article on Ahmed Fahour the AP CEO and what he’s paid to help make AP successful.
Interesting that state and federal governments across Australia continue to sell of revenue producing assets (SALotteries in SA is the latest case in point) and yet this beast continues in it’s current bloated form. The staff don’t want to be there, most of the product is rubbish (out local Cheap as Chips is better merchandised) and there are better and cheaper ways to move parcels at a time that is convenient to the customer. Hamstrung by the unions, hurt by the internet and still it exists. I bet it wouldn’t if it was privately owned!
I have raised this again this year directly and face to face with two politicians – one labour and one liberal. They have no interest in the sales AP is taking from newsagents.
And in todays Inside Retail email blast
http://www.insideretail.com.au/IR/IRNews/Upgrade-for-Australia-Post–6368.aspx
It is not valid to single out corporate outlets in your criticism of AP. These represent only 17% of AP outlets. If AP corporate is abusing the act then so are LPOs. We are governed by the same act. As the owner of a standalone LPO I would like to know which sections of the act I am abusing.
Ben, if the products are rubbish and the staff disinterested the you have nothing to fear. “Hamstrung by the unions, hurt by the internet and still it exists. I bet it wouldn’t if it was privately owned!” I bet it would. I don’t see any profitable privately owned businesses closing there doors.
Mark & Aaron, I would say stationery, ink and gifts as well as cards, calendars etc are very closely related to the core postal service.
Rob, as a LPO your business is not the same as a 100% government owned business competing with nearby family owned businesses, like newsagencies.
the Act relates to Australia Post itself and not LPOs as I understand it.
Rob, our local Corporate PO sells Sewing machines, BBQ tools, Bocce sets, the list goes on. Are they closely related to the core postal service? Oh, and quite often they are out of stock of stamps, envelopes etc, leaving us to cop the abuse from customers when we refuse to sell them 100 stamps.
Shane, the idea that AP outlets, corporate or LPO, should only provide core services and related products is peculiar to this website. There is nothing in the act about related products, only core services and community service obligations. The items you mention are not closely related to the core services but nowhere in the act does it say they have to be. The act also doesn’t mention banking, bill paying, ID services etc.
Mark, the act relates to me in that I have to provide those core services and I have to abide by the provisions of the act with respect to things like the sale of stamps, delivery of mail and dealing with dangerous or illegal items in the post. If I sold you stamps at a discount price, deliberately failed to deliver your mail to your PO box or knowingly allowed you to post a kilo of explosive or heroin I would soon feel the force of the act because while I am not an employee I am the licensed representative of AP.
Rob is correct on my understanding of the act and how it relates to me as an LPO. The act basically just defines the minimum service that AP has to provide not what it can or cannot do outside of the core service provisions. Part of that is also probably because the act hasn’t been ammended for some time to take into account more modern services as the AP Corporations Act is now 23 years old !