Effective corporatization of ports is a function of effective legislation: legal issues in the existing paradigm

Almost a decade since port corporatization was introduced in Australia it is becoming clear that initial objectives are not being realized. This paper explores some of the legal and legislative causes, the effect on port operation and investigates what necessary conditions are required to deliver an effective corporatized port business. The paper argues that effective corporatization is a product of effective legislation—one which, while emulating private sector business practices—can deliver a business model that is innovative, entrepreneurial, commercially oriented and free from self-serving political constraints.

The legislation and corporatized artifacts in Australian mainland ports have failed, in general, to deliver this. Arguably, the legislation has, in fact, created a model with inherent flaws and serious contradictions. The legislation enacted is such that while it has set in place a model that articulates commercial objectives, the model created is in fact one in which political objectives may override commercial ones; where strategy may be determined by a bureaucratic elite without the requisite skills and insights, and the resultant strategy appears ad hoc; and a corporate culture that frequently has failed to transcend that of the statutory authority and public utility model. This paper will test these assertions against the developments in the port of Melbourne.     

Corporatization: a legislative framework for port inefficiencies

It is now some five years since the restructure of Australian ports and their transformation into corporatized entities. This strategy was adopted in an endeavour to improve efficiency by distancing government from day to day operations—the element that was perceived by many to be the cause of sub-optimal performance. While there is widespread agreement that port performance has improved significantly, dissatisfaction persists with the continued political intervention which is considered to be the reason for ongoing sub-optimal performance and ports' commercial potential from being realized. This paper investigates some of these issues but argues that political intervention per se should not be the focus of research and what is widely perceived to be the cause of the problem. Rather, that political intervention is an effect of something more endemic, of a legislative framework which may not be appropriate for the operations of a commercially focused port. It is argued that the focus should therefore be on the cause, a legislative framework, rather than the outworkings, or the effects of that framework.     

降低二氧化碳要立即行动

今年的12月7日全世界的目光将聚焦丹麦首都哥本哈根．因为在这里将要举行一场与地球未来气候变化密切相关的大会各个国家都将就温室气体排放指标展开讨论．以达成一个行动指南。     

Port reform in Australia: issues in the ownership debate

Australia port reform initiatives have taken on a variety of forms — from out-right sale and transfer of ownership, to the sale of particular assets of infrastructure or services, or to long-term lease arrangements; or in some cases state governments, unable to relinquish control, have opted for corporatization or commercialization strategies. Reform is driven by the belief that ownership impacts on efficiency and efficiency is perceived to suffer if governments either retain ownership or direct control. As a result a major aim of reform is to either remove or distance governments from day to day port operations. The sale of ports removes government control outright and privatized ports are subject to identical regulatory constraints as any company in the private sector. But corporatization strategies are such that government ownership is retained and ports have been transformed into statutory state owned corporations. Effectiveness of this strategy requires legislation to be such that port corporations are free to operate like their private sector counterparts. To date this has not occurred and some serious impediments are emerging which are embedded in legislation and which, rather than reduce, have indeed, increased government control.     

降低二氧化碳要立即行动

今年的12月7日.全世界的目光将聚焦丹麦首都哥本哈根,因为在这里将要举行一场与地球未来气候变化密切相关的大会,各个国家都将就温室气体排放指标展开讨论,以达成一个行动指南.     

The dynamics of port reform: different contexts,similar strategies

Research into port reform in Taiwan and Australia indicates that reform was undertaken in different contexts while committed and adopting similar strategies. Reform in both countries has been consistent with paradigmatic shifts towards market orientation, and within this context, privatisation was considered the preferred option. In both Taiwan and Australia, however, governments, reluctant to relinquish control over their ports, opted for corporatisation models. This article discusses the dynamics and drivers of reform and examines the outcome of these strategies. Both countries commenced port reform with deregulation of dock labour employment and introduced enterprise-based employment replacing the labour pool system. Privatisation of stevedoring operations was introduced at the same time in Taiwan. In the second reform phase, Taiwan amalgamated the four major commercial ports under a single state-owned port company in March 2012, with the objective of reducing inter-port competition and creating a central port planning mechanism. Australian ports, on the other hand, have undergone restructuring with the implementation of corporatisation, privatisation and commercialisation strategies since 1990s. Reform strategies in both countries display some similarities, e.g. rationalisation strategies in both Taiwan and Tasmanian ports, but also display some distinct dissimilarities with the increasing move to privatisation in Australia, e.g. the sale of South Australian ports and in 2010 the sale of the port of Brisbane.     

Corporatization: a legislative framework for port inefficiencies

It is now some five years since the restructure of Australian ports and their transformation into corporatized entities. This strategy was adopted in an endeavour to improve efficiency by distancing government from day to day operations--the element that was perceived by many to be the cause of sub-optimal performance. While there is widespread agreement that port performance has improved significantly, dissatisfaction persists with the continued political intervention which is considered to be the reason for ongoing sub-optimal performance and ports' commercial potential from being realized. This paper investigates some of these issues but argues that political intervention per se should not be the focus of research and what is widely perceived to be the cause of the problem. Rather, that political intervention is an effect of something more endemic, of a legislative framework which may not be appropriate for the operations of a commercially focused port. It is argued that the focus should therefore be on the cause, a legislative framework, rather than the outworkings, or the effects of that framework.     

Making the Australian flag fleet efficient: dysfunctional policy processes and the 'play of power'

In 1997 the Australian government introduced reform measures aimed at improving the efficiency and cost effectiveneess of the Auistralian maritime sector. These measures are part of an ongoing reform programme initiated in the early 1980s; but despite concerted efforts by a succession of governments and the payout of high labour redundancy costs the problems of inefficiency, high costs and low profitability persist. This paper focuses on the structure and mechanism of the policy making processes that have attempted to deal with the problem of making the Australian national flag fleet efficient and competitive. It does so because it is a fundamental tenet of the paper that it is the process of policy making that so frequently—if not invariably—determines policy content and outcomes.     

A Numerical Model Coupling Electromagnetism and Thermomechanics Application to Induction Heating Modeling

Introduction-TheinductionheatingprocessInductionheatingiswide1yusedinindustrialProcessesinvolvingmetallurgyheattreatthentsuchasquenching,hardening,brasing,Preheatinforforgillgoperations,sdsecoatinormeltnginelectromagneticcrucibles[DAV].ThemainadVatapesofinductionheatngProcessesarethefastheatinrate,greatPrecisionintheheatinlocalisation(suPefficialheatngedhighfrequencypowersuPpliesforschcetreatmentProcess),instarestart/top(nowimuPrequlredforeachcycle)andagoodreProducibilityThebasicinducton…     

Policy making and planning for the port sector: paradigms in conflict

Policy making is a complex and diverse process—particularly in relation to the provision and location of port and port related infrastructure. The planning stage of port infrastructure, or indeed transport planning more generally, may be finalized only to experience policy failure as implementation of the planned facility cannot be successfully completed. When this occurs planning and implementation failure is invariably perceived to be driven by a political agenda and it is argued that 'politics gets in the way'—that politics 'distorts' a scientifically rational planning process. Is it the case that politics 'gets in the way'? Or that politics distorts a technical and scientific process? Or is it the case that planning constitutes only one part, but an integral one, of the policy process—a process that is inherently political? And if that is the case, can we legitimately separate the planning process from that of policy making? This paper discusses the fundamental differences between the planning and policy-making processes. It argues that transport planning is one element in a broader process of policy making which incorporates political and other social/economic/environmental elements. It will argue that planning is a fundamental part of the policy-making process and, if successful completion is to be achieved, it cannot be divorced from that process. The paper will provide a conceptual framework which will incorporate these apparently conflictual activities. This model, if adopted, is likely to enhance both the planning and policy-making processes.