Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to address this motion on Australia Post. From listening to the member for Bendigo you do not get the sense that her understanding of economics would make it in the real world. That of course underscores what is going on here with this motion today from the member for Ballarat. Because of the economics, there are changes occurring with Australia Post. At the moment all of us know that there are severe challenges facing this business. Far from being some sort of utopian Communication Workers Union plaything, this is a business fundamentally.

With the volume of letters decreasing over time in Australia, the core model of business for Australia Post is diminishing. It is unsustainable. The member for Bendigo said we need to subsidise it. She should have said who should subsidise this service. The government? The taxpayer? Of course, the taxpayer. It is always someone else's money. It is easy to say but harder to do.

Times are changing. We as members of parliament can communicate with our electorates via email, no longer by letters. It is interesting to note that there have been only three price rises for stamps in about 20 years. The consumer price index will have risen many times more than the price of the stamp—the basic service delivery—yet we have members in this place trying to completely disconnect the cost of the service from the actual delivery of the service. That is something you cannot do when you are talking about running a business.

Of course the standards have to be met. The standards of course do not just include next day delivery; they go up to four business days in the service charter—and I refer members opposite to that part of the act. It is important to note that when certain conditions are not met it takes sometimes two days, three days or four days, as per the service charter. This motion says six days and I think it is quite deliberately worded, with six days being four business days and two non-business days. I am not inspired by the examples that have been presented by those opposite. I am especially not inspired by the Communication Workers Union sending each other letters in the mail.

You get the sense that the members for Ballarat and Bendigo would have been amongst those 100 years ago lamenting blacksmithing going out of business with the advent of the motor car and saying: 'We need to do something to subsidise blacksmiths. Maybe we should provide horses to blacksmiths so they can still shoe them.' That it is the sense you get from this motion. There is nothing realistic about it. Does it address price increases, needed by this business to survive? No. Does it address the fact that all other postal services around the world have diversified? Has that word come out of the mouths of members opposite? No. They have diversified into other services to enable themselves to be viable as businesses, to continue to function—into banking services, into all kinds of other services and business models, that have been working in other parts of the world. This is a service that needs a subsidy and always the members opposite say, 'We need a government subsidy first'.

The fact is that, in the history of this issue, not once has the minister written to the board saying that it should do something—not once: no Labor minister and no Liberal minister. The opposition has never written to the board to request them to do anything in this business for anybody in regional Australia or anywhere else—not once. So it is pretty odd that we find ourselves here today with a motion from the member for Ballarat saying that from 7 September suddenly mail was not being delivered—from cuts that have not occurred! There have been no cuts. There have been no regional postal centre closures.

Of course things are being flagged about viable models for the future. All businesses have to look at the future and what may happen. The member for Bendigo comes in here—I know she is new—to say we are flagging voluntary redundancies. What a terrible thing: voluntary redundancies. When businesses have to continue to operate under increasing cost pressures, with challenges to their viability, voluntary redundancies are the best way—much better than having to fire people.

See this speech in context