Suchergebnisse

It is now some seven years since the restructure of Australian ports and their transformation into corporatised entities. This strategy was adopted in an endeavour to improve efficiency by distancing government from day to day operations ‐ that element that was perceived to be the cause of sub‐optimal performance. While there is widespread agreement that port performance has improved significantly, dissatisfaction persists and the belief that continued political intervention is preventing ports' commercial potential from being realised. This paper investigates these issues but argues that political intervention per se should not be the focus of research as the fundamental cause of sub‐optimal performance. Rather political intervention is an effect of a more fundamental problem — an inappropriate legislative framework — and the focus of research should be on the legislation and corporatisation model in which political intervention is mandatory.

Discussion on policy‐making and of effective policy‐making mechanisms is once again emerging in the policy literature. Much of the debate in the past focused on whether the method applied in the physical sciences was appropriate for policy and policy‐making. Current debate appears to be reverting to some form of rationalism in so far as good policy processes are seen to yield the most effective results. This article discusses what appears to be a revival of rationalism — the process‐oriented policy cycle. The article argues that there is little doubt that effective policy‐making requires good process but it is erroneous to suggest that the content of policy, particularly in the case of contentious decisions, is derived from the policy cycle itself. It is argued further that the policy cycle is not a substitute for the actual making of decisions but an administrative and bureaucratic mechanism for effectively setting in place a process once the difficult decisions have been made.

Deregulation has dramatically altered the face of Australian industry and associated services throughout the last decade or so. In the transport sector, in particular, changes have been significant and deregulation has led to pervasive changes in market structure, to the actual ownership of infrastructure and to a shift in strategic focus from a public utility to one of commercial viability and market orientation. Competitive pressures in the transport sector as a result of deregulation have meant that traditional public sector organisations such as railways and ports have been transformed. A major impact of these developments has been that transport operators, in an endeavour either to maintain or capture market share, have been forced to restructure and refocus and, in the face of growing competition, have been forced to reinvent themselves and move increasingly towards the provision of an integrated intermodal service. Rail operators are now no longer simple linehaul operators in container or bulk freight markets but have become market–focused third–party service providers of a range of integrated functions.

Abstract
Corporatisation and privatisation strategies in Australian ports are part of an ongoing microeconomic reform program by Australian governments to establish the maritime sector along commercially viable and competitive bases. Privatisation strategies transfer ports to non-government operators and subsequently operate under regulatory regimes identical to those imposed on any other business. Due to the inability of government to separate commercial imperatives from political control the processes of corporatisation becomes rather complex.
Reform strategies in Australian ports are about removing or distancing governments from day to day commercial operations. This places governments in some dilemma for if they retain ownership Ministers remain accountable. Clearly for government owned businesses to operate like the private sector they must have freedom to respond to market demands and have independence from political constraints. This places on governments the onus to separate commercial and political imperatives. To date, this remains unresolved and, moreover, while port corporatisation is in its infancy, some practices are emerging which are anticompetitive and non-commercial. Thus, they do not reflect freedom from political control.