Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 1
Reasons for the inquiry
...are we going to sustain a
viable independent sector, or are we not? If we do nothing the reality is that
this independent sector is on a one-way street to oblivion at some point in
time.[1]
1.1
The National Association of Retail Grocers of Australia (NARGA) has
raised concerns with the Commonwealth Parliament about the growth of the large
supermarket chains, and the implications this has for the ongoing viability of
small and independent retailers, particularly those in rural and regional
Australia. These concerns were taken up by the major political parties during
the 1998 election campaign, with a commitment by the Coalition parties to set
up an inquiry into retail domination as soon as possible after the election.
The inquiry received cross-party support.
Background
1.2
Over the past twenty years or so, the major chains have increasingly
established themselves throughout Australia in competition with traditional
family-run stores. The expansion of the major chains, the senior management of
which may consist of outsiders coming into the town, has placed significant
pressures on smaller stores, often run by well-known local identities. This has
created a degree of ill feeling and resentment in the retailing sector.
1.3
At a micro level, Australia has seen the demise of hundreds of small
grocery stores, butchers, bakers, florists, greengrocers, pharmacists,
newsagents, liquor outlets and other small retailers as a result of the
continuous expansion of major supermarket chains. At a macro level, the process
of globalisation has seen increased pressures placed on the supply side of the
market, with primary producers having to compete for markets not only against
their fellow Australians, but with others in the same business around the
world.
1.4
From the point of supply to the consumer, the need to be competitive has
led to an increased emphasis on cost minimisation, an important component of
which is the exploitation of economies of scale. In rural Australia, this has
been manifested by farm aggregation, the centralisation and closure of bank
branches, and the move of retailing businesses to major regional centres.
1.5
Other factors affecting rural and regional Australia over the past
decade include downward trends in world commodity prices, lower demand
resulting from the economic downturn of some important trading partners and
increased environmental concerns over land use. The combination of these
factors appears to have eroded confidence in the prospects of many smaller
towns.[2]
1.6
From a wider perspective, the National Competition Policy (NCP) aims to
improve the efficiency of the Australian economy through competition, leading
to lower prices and higher living standards. The NCP recognises that economic
efficiency arising from increased competition must be balanced against other
factors, such as protection of the environment, employment and regional
development. In theory, the benefits of this policy reform should be able to be
distributed so that all members of the community benefit. For this reason,
there is a public benefit requirement built into the NCP, with the aim of
spreading the gains from increased competition across the country to assist in
those places where the policy may otherwise have an adverse local impact.
1.7
At the consumer level, competition in the retailing sector appears to be
healthy, with retailers vigorously competing with one another on price and
choice. This is evidenced by declining real prices of many grocery items over
the last decade, and a massive expansion in product range to the point where
major supermarkets now offer over 40,000 different items in their larger
stores.[3]
Table 1.1 shows the percentage increases in nominal prices of a range of
grocery items, and the percentage increases in average weekly earnings from
1991 to 1999.
Table 1.1
Percentage Increases in Nominal Prices of Groceries
Compared With Average Weekly Earnings *(AWE)
|
Sydney
(%) |
Melbourne
(%) |
Hobart
(%) |
Perth
(%) |
Milk
|
33 |
56 |
47 |
35 |
Cheese
|
18 |
15 |
-6 |
19 |
Bread
|
47 |
39 |
68 |
49 |
Cereal
|
9 |
15 |
14 |
15 |
Flour
|
25 |
12 |
29 |
16 |
Peaches
|
21 |
6 |
6 |
14 |
Peas
|
-9 |
-16 |
-10 |
-2 |
Eggs
|
71 |
73 |
38 |
21 |
Sugar
|
20 |
20 |
24 |
15 |
Coffee
|
41 |
46 |
39 |
27 |
Margarine
|
28 |
-2 |
18 |
46 |
Detergent
|
4 |
1 |
-5 |
5 |
Tissues
|
-17 |
-11 |
-11 |
-12 |
Toothpaste
|
23 |
19 |
11 |
17 |
*AWE (%)
|
24 |
21 |
17 |
16 |
Sources: Price increases calculated from ABS Catalogue No
6403.0 Average Retail Prices of Selected Items, March Quarter 1991 and
March Quarter 1999, for the respective capital cities as shown. Average Weekly
Earnings increases calculated from ABS Catalogue No 6302.0 Average
Weekly Earnings, February 1991 and February 1999 (using total earnings for all
employees across the relevant States).
1.8
In recent years, the retailing sector has had to react to changes in
consumer demand patterns, brought about by shifting demographics, the ageing
population and generally smaller households. In addition, the higher
participation of women in the workforce has driven demand for time-saving
products and longer trading hours, which has been assiduously promoted by the
major chains. Innovative retailers have reacted to these demands, with
consumers being the major beneficiaries from:
- deregulated trading hours;
- a greater product choice;
- lower prices; and
- the convenience of one-stop shopping.
1.9
Consequently, consumers have not been a force in the establishment of
this inquiry.
Previous inquiries
1.10
On 14 August 1936, the Honourable John Montgomery Dunningham, the New
South Wales Minister for Labour and Industry, directed the Industrial
Commission of New South Wales to inquire into and report on the management,
control and operations of chain stores in that State. For the purposes of the
inquiry, ‘chain stores’ were defined as having four or more outlets in New
South Wales, selling the same classes of goods and under central control for
‘all important matters’. The inquiry dealt separately with eight classes of
chain stores, which included the ‘variety chains’ of Coles and Woolworths.[4]
1.11
The terms of reference (which are reprinted in Appendix 10) focused on
the effects of the chain stores on other parties, including producers, wholesalers,
storekeepers and consumers, and whether there was any evidence of unfair
competitive practices or undue restraints of trade. Of particular concern was
whether the proprietors of chain stores had obtained trade advantages, which
were not available to small retailers, whether their profits were excessive,
and whether there were any advantages over other retailers under their terms
and conditions of employment.[5]
1.12
The Report was presented to the Government by Mr J.A. Browne, President
of the New South Wales Industrial Commission, nearly three years later, in July
1939.
1.13
In relation to variety chains, the Report concluded that:
- The operations of the stores were not detrimental to the
interests of other shopkeepers and storekeepers, manufacturers, producers and
consumers.
- The variety chains’ dispensing of wholesalers did not have a
detrimental effect on consumers.
- The variety chains were often able to obtain quantity discounts,
but these were almost always available to other large purchasers.
- The profits of the variety chains were not excessive, nor were
they advantaged over other stores in relation to their employment practices.[6]
1.14
The Report also listed 22 grocery chains across the State, and concluded
that:
- The low prices of certain goods sold in some grocery chains were
detrimental to small independent retail grocers who could not make a decent
living by selling at the same prices.
- There was a need to place some restriction on the extension of
grocery chain stores. A method proposed was that they be required to obtain a
licence for each new branch, with such a licence being refused where it was
decided by the appropriate Government Department that the needs of the public
were already adequately met.[7]
- The operations of the grocery chains were not detrimental to the
interests of other parties such as manufacturers, producers and consumers.
1.15
Findings in relation to other matters accorded with those for the
variety chains.[8]
1.16
More recently, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Industry, Science and Technology, Finding a balance: towards fair trading in
Australia, May 1997 (the Reid Report), commented on the social and
economic implications wrought by economic restructuring and the practices
engaged in by big business to maintain and increase profits and market share.
The Reid Report concluded that small businesses were often disadvantaged in
their dealings with big business and recommended a number of specific measures
to induce behavioural change on the part of big business towards smaller
businesses, and to provide unfairly treated small business operators with
adequate means of redress.
1.17
The areas of concern identified in the Reid Report were unfair conduct,
retail tenancy, franchising, misuse of market power, small business finance and
access to justice and education.[9]
1.18
Many of the submissions to this inquiry dealt with issues which had
already been considered in some detail in the Reid Report.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Top
|