@porcelain_dolls_by_me wrote:
Rubbish - it is the general taxpaying public, via the Australian Government, that subsidises the cheap postage of items into Australia.
What has the fact some people may never receive/send a parcel got to do with it?
Australia Post isn't subsidised by the government (i.e. they don't directly receive tax funds from the government), quite the opposite, they pay money to the gov, from the revenue received from postal services, ergo if an Australian tax payer never purchases a postal service (or, to be more specific, a parcel service), from Aus Post, they are not directly, or indirectly, subsidising the cost of delivering international parcels, because none of their tax money will go to AP.
AP like to cry poor about this issue a lot, though it happens more frequently when there is public outcry about a price increase (that is, they love to play the 'don't blame us, it's your fault we have to keep raising prices' card). I'm not saying that it isn't an issue at all, but I will reserve all judgement on how much of an issue it is until AP actually release some quantifiable figures, instead of what they always do - simply name a massive loss on one very particular aspect of their service, and blame Aussies buying from overseas for it.
They never state what their named figures are based on - it could be actual direct loss after all is said and done, but I doubt it. They get terminal dues based on the difference in volume of mail between us and China, and don't state whether or not that is factored into the loss, nor do they state whether the figure is based on cost to deliver the mail, or the revenue they would have received if the same mail service had been purchased locally. It is very common for businesses to engage in these kinds of misleading statements - "we lost $10 million" when what they really mean is "we could have made $10 million, if only....", and considering some of the manipulative tactics I've seen AP engage in in the past, I would not put this kind of thing past them.
An argument could also be made (though admittedly a more tenuous one) that it's not just the Aussie public that's making up for these costs - I know how much AP can charge for international mail on contract rates, and it can be around half the full price. I get that logistically, one seller sending high volumes can reduce costs quite a bit, but by $10+ per parcel? And what's the deal with it costing $8 to add tracking to an international parcel - I doubt it actually causes any real additional cost to start a number with LK instead of UA, and the barcodes are getting scanned either way. Sellers are more likely to want tracked parcels when posting overseas, so international buyers are paying ridiculous premiums for that.
