Well, the time has come for Graeme Samuel to finish up as ACCC Chairman. His departure will no doubt provoke mixed feelings and for that reason it’s worth pondering some of the alternative perspectives on Samuel’s tenure at the ACCC.

Competition…? Nup, doesn't ring a bell, sorry.

There will be those that will applaud his departure for the simple reason that they believe that Samuel could have done much more to promote vigorous and effective competition in a wide variety of sectors. With key Australian sectors having become more highly concentrated during Samuel’s time at the ACCC, there is a real and growing danger that consumers will increasingly be price gouged.

Samuel doesn’t appear to be too concerned about the growing concentration in key sectors. Free market theorists like to say that Australia is a small market and because of that we shouldn’t be too concerned if we end up with just a couple of large and powerful companies dominating particular sectors.

The problem is that the ACCC’s own research shows that where there is an ALDI supermarket in a local market the prices at a Coles and Woolworths in that local market are on average cheaper than other local markets where you only find a Coles and Woolworths supermarket. The point is simple; the more efficient competitors there are in a local market the lower the prices will be in that market.

Suggesting that the size of the Australian market somehow justifies allowing already large and powerful companies to get even larger and more powerful misses the key point of competition law. And that is, for competition laws to safeguard competition from the naturally predatory instincts of those large and powerful companies.

Large and powerful companies benefit from destroying competition so that they can raise prices and profit margins to the detriment of consumers. Those companies are about charging their customers more where they can get away with it. Deep discounting strategies are only short term and narrowly targeted as deep discounting is merely a gimmick to get more customers into the store so that they can be fleeced on other products and over time.

Contrary to the preaching we get from free market theorists about the size of the Australian market “justifying” the emergence of duopolies and oligopolies, the size of the market should never be a licence to rip off consumers. Of course, we should also never forget that monopolies and duopolies were the hallmark of failed communist regimes, and that ultimately private monopolies can be just as bad for consumers as public monopolies.

A free enterprise system is about promoting diversity of competitors in the marketplace. All markets in a free enterprise system can typically sustain a diversity of players. That competitive diversity needs to be safeguarded in the consumer’s interest as that diversity can be easily destroyed by the self-interested predatory behaviour of large and powerful companies.

Our competition laws are there to safeguard and promote competitive diversity as it is that diversity that safeguards sustainably low prices for consumers over time and across the full product range in the particular market.

Competition laws need to vigilant to rein in the market power of large and powerful companies as these companies generally have no interest in sustainably low prices over time and across their full product range. Quite simply, large and powerful companies want to raise prices and profit margins over time and across their product range, while using carefully targeted price cuts on a small part of the product range as a way of putting competitors out of business.

This is where Samuel’s tenure will come under the spotlight. The green light that the ACCC has given during Samuel’s time to mergers and acquisitions by large and powerful companies will certainly be well received by those companies and all those legal and other advisers who have financially gained from the mergers and acquisitions.

For those smaller companies and farmers on the receiving end of those large and powerful companies there is likely to be a less flattering view of the ACCC under Samuel’s tenure. Those smaller companies and farmers have not only received little or no comfort from the ACCC, but may have started to feel that the ACCC was more concerned about defending the pricing practices of Coles and Woolworths.

For those smaller companies and farmers the ACCC’s green light to Coles’ milk pricing practices was both predictable and disappointing. What was especially disappointing was that the public comments by the ACCC were short on key details and took a simplistic view of Coles’ pricing strategies.

During Samuel’s time the ACCC has typically been dismissive of predatory pricing allegations. The ACCC appears to have a simplistic view that any pricing behaviour by Coles and Woolworths is fine.

In the Coles home brand milk pricing matter the ACCC failed to publicly articulate when it considers that discounting becomes predatory pricing. Allegations of predatory pricing require proof that a company is selling a product below the company’s cost of supplying the product.

It’s not clear what measure of cost the ACCC used in the Coles matter. The measure of cost is the critical piece of information in a predatory pricing case and that piece is missing from the ACCC’s public comments.

The ACCC took a simplistic approach to whether consumers are better off because of the Coles price reduction on home brand milk. There was nothing to indicate that the ACCC compared the home brand price reduction with any price rises there may have been on other products that consumers may purchase at Coles. If Coles has raised prices on other products by an amount exceeding the home brand milk price reduction, then consumers would be worse off.

The suggestion that Coles is “self-funding” the home brand milk price reductions was naive as Coles could be raising prices across their product range to offset the reduction on home brand milk. A key issue left unanswered was what would the ACCC do if Coles tried to pass the cost of the price reduction onto milk processors at future contract negotiations?

Finally, the ACCC’s media comments did not address any allegations of misleading conduct where the various Coles advertisements about “prices coming down” may give the impression that the all or the majority of prices are coming down across the supermarket when indications are that only a fraction of products have been reduced in price.

So as Graeme Samuel leaves the ACCC it is opportune for his successor Rod Sims to have a long hard look at where the ACCC stands on effectively enforcing competition laws with a view to safeguarding competitive diversity as a key driver of a vigorously competitive Australian marketplace for the benefit of consumers.

Most commented

33 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Sceptic says:

      05:42am | 03/08/11

      Anyone able to provide a positive example of what the ACCC does?

    • VVS says:

      08:53am | 03/08/11

      Good luck…

    • acotrel says:

      09:04am | 03/08/11

      ‘A key issue left unanswered was what would the ACCC do if Coles tried to pass the cost of the price reduction onto milk processors at future contract negotiations?’

      The purchasing groups of the supermarkets are dealing with country people who are typically anti-union, and cannot organise themselves to get decent prices for their products.  Milk costs around 27 cents per litre to produce, the farmers get 21 cents per litre.  And these were the people who stood around in our town complaining when the Bracks government introduced controls on the way kids were being exploited on their parent’s farms.
      There are two sets of rules in Australia - the city rules, and the country rules.  There are no unions in the bush, and the wages are lower.  In country towns it’s common practice for businesses to undercut the opposition until they close, then raise the prices back to normal levels.

    • Tom says:

      10:04am | 03/08/11

      The market prevails, the nanny state fails. Always did, always will.

    • Roddy Sexton says:

      10:08am | 03/08/11

      No, unfortunately.

    • Anubis says:

      10:15am | 03/08/11

      Ahhhhhhhhh…..They forced a labelling change on those silly elastic “power” wrist bands.

      Can’t think of any other success they have had

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      12:29pm | 03/08/11

      Well, during my studies of Trade Practices, I found countless examples of positive things the ACCC has done. They are often small things, irrelevant to many, but important nonetheless. An example that comes to mind is a case of a Chinese manufacturer of baby cots. The bars on the cots were too far apart, enough for a baby’s body to slip through, but not enough to let a head through. As a result, there was potential risk of injury or death to the babies. It was the ACCC who investigated the matter and prevented the cots from being sold.

      So, I mean, people wouldn’t usually notice things like this, and those without kids may not even care for it, but it is arguably a positive contribution by the ACCC.

    • S.L says:

      05:50am | 03/08/11

      The Aussie dollar at $1.10 US and petrol $1.42 a litre….....Good riddance Graeme Samuel!

    • Anubis says:

      10:27am | 03/08/11

      The last time petrol was at these bowser prices the Australian dollar was hovering around 63c US and oil was over $120 a barrel. There are only two possible reasons for prices to be as hiogh as they are now:

      1) Price gouging and profiteering by the leading players (Coles & Woolies)
      2) Government instruction to keep the price high in order to maintain increased revenue. The higher the price the higher the amount of GST the Government collects.

      So which is it, or is it a combination of both?

    • Fiddler says:

      07:42am | 03/08/11

      Does he actually have any real power? The US DoJ fought a long battle with Microsoft to prevent what was becoming a monopoly (a little late perhaps) but our government does nothing. Why doesn’t the ACCC recommend the allowing of parallel importing laws?
      Going off topic why doesn’t the federal government drastically cut immigration and the state governments open up land, to drastically cut the price of houses? Yeah property investors will take a hit but everyone else will find they have a lot more disposable income and the economy will pick up. Sadly neither party seems to have the slightest interest in these matters which make far more impact on the lives of Australians than shipping 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia.

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:10am | 03/08/11

      The problem with things like this is the “thousand cuts” approach that big businesses take.

      1% here, 1% there.  WoW players will know what I’m talking about - gain a percent here and there with a new piece of equipment and before long you have a massive advantage to your power base.

      Same goes for Coles and Woolworths.  They’ve been doing it for years - now with milk and white bread.  Next time, it’ll be fresh produc…oh wait.  And each time, because it’s only a little 1% thing, it gets let through.

      Big businesses have learned from the examples of companies like Microsoft who used far more blatant and aggressive tactics (and copped massive anti-trust lawsuits as a result).  Now, it’s gentle yet relentless intrusions.

      The answer is both very simple and very difficult - draw the line.  That far, no further.  When someone crosses that line, even with the very best arguments and the best stated intentions, smash them utterly with the full force of law.

    • VVS says:

      08:56am | 03/08/11

      WoW…? You closet nerd!

      I kid though - love your stuff Mahhrat!

    • Mahhrat says:

      11:50am | 03/08/11

      @VVS - I know what WoW does, never said I played it.

      (I did, but then I realised what it was - a time sink - so now I play Bejewelled Blitz instead smile )

    • Damocles says:

      08:13am | 03/08/11

      ACCC a total waste of space and money. Useless! Bye bye Mr. Samuel, bring on the next clown!

    • Bazz says:

      09:10am | 03/08/11

      He always was, is, and always will be a lackey to the big end of town. You gotta remember he loves those Melbourne business clubs

    • Joel B1 says:

      09:11am | 03/08/11

      Not sure I entirely agree with your analysis. But it does appear that Coles has not reduced farm-gate prices for the milk they purchase.

      As you say, they might in the future.

      But that hardly matters. Surely it’s best to leave any future as just that. If they do let’s deal with it then. Not now.

    • Jack says:

      09:53am | 03/08/11

      Dear Frank,

      As much as you whine and moan, ‘price gouging’ isn’t a real thing. And int illegal. Businesses are free to set prices as they see fit, and despite your constant assertions, aren’t forced to only charge ‘hard working battlers’ like yourself input cost + x%.

      It doesn’t matter how much the CBA gets charged for money, Woolworths pays for its milk or the guy on the corner buys his crack for.  Given you have a BComm, I assume you know this.

      So stop the bleating. Or move to 1970s Russia.

    • acotrel says:

      11:48pm | 03/08/11

      @Jack
      ‘Businesses are free to set prices as they see fit’

      What makes me laugh is when they grizzle when the customers begins to negotiate a lower price!  “FREE MARKET ?” -What a JOKE!

    • RyaN says:

      10:16am | 03/08/11

      Good riddance to a complete oxygen thief and a waste of space. Please put someone in now that will actually look out for consumers for a change.

    • Anubis says:

      10:17am | 03/08/11

      A whimper - sort of sums up the entire span of time Samuels was with ACCC doesn’t it.

    • Mike says:

      10:26am | 03/08/11

      The ACCC successfully landed a major prosecution against Optus for misleading and deceptive conduct just last month. They also busted a price fixing racket in the packaging industry that cost Australian consumers millions. The telecommunications industry is more competitive because they’ve forced down the wholesale price of mobile network access. Consumers would also be significantly less safe if it weren’t for the ACCC’s enforcement action in product safety. I agree that the ACCC isn’t perfect but they do have a very clear reason to exist.

    • Ron V. says:

      12:01pm | 03/08/11

      Your right Mike, they do have a clear reason to exist. Shame it wasn’t so clear in their own minds. Small business will be very glad to see the back of him.
      Ron V.

    • Punters Pal says:

      11:47am | 03/08/11

      How they ever thought that allowing Westpac to take over St George was good idea? Since St George at the time was the fifth largest bank, it was pretty easy to see that this will have a hugely negative effect on banking competition. After that, they couldn’t really say no when CBA took over BankWest either.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      11:49am | 03/08/11

      The ACCC has always been our politician’s excuse for being seen to be doing something. It is a toothless tiger.
      Our politicians thrive on “Good News Items”. Though they profess to hate the media, accuse it of being biased solely on the grounds that it tells us, the Voter, what they won’t tell us: The Truth, Like harlots they seek out the media when they want to tell us something they think we will regard as Good News. The ACCC is no different they love the publicity they get on the odd occasion they actually prosecute some naughty corporation or individual.  The ACCC’s favourite expression is “This matter is outside the charter of the ACCC"or somesuch nonsense. Sure, they have had some high-profile ‘wins’. Why have they not addressed the rip-off, profit-gouging of the Telcos when it comes to Pre-Paid Mobile Phones? The Telcos set an Expiry Date on re-charges & if you have not used up that re-charge by a set date they simply grab what is left! Money does not have a “Use By “, “Best Before” or “Expiry Date”.
      Once you buy that re-charge the money should be yours until you have used it all up. The Telcos are simply holding that cash in trust. It is not, nor until you actually spend it, the property of the Telcos.
      If the ACCC had the guts to change the rules then many of us would simply have a mobile permanently in our cars for Emergency Use Only. Unless we are prepared to lose our $20 or $30 Re-Charge we can’t have that “Safety Feature"in our vehicles.

    • Jack says:

      12:13pm | 03/08/11

      How does any of that sit under the TPA, exactly? Cant read simple terms and conditions? Hell, the expiry period is pretty prominent from what I can tell.

      Whinge, whinge, whinge.

    • Bryan says:

      01:24pm | 03/08/11

      Frank, blind freddy can see that Coles and Wollies are well and truly into predatory pricing. Ask anyone that shops regularly and you will see evidence of it in the local shopping centres. Local butchers, fruit and vegetable vendors, bakers and many others who reside within the same centres are exposed to the (pricing) strategy of these two giants. The fact that Samuel could not see that there was a problem or refused to do anything about it speaks volumes about his abilities.

      As far as I am concerned if Coles and Wollies want to engage in the thye of predatory pricing that they continue to do - it is easily solved! For instance if Coles at one location is having an “in store special” on Oranges marked down from $3.99 kg to $1.39 a kg (because the local fruit and veg is selling at $1.45) then Coles should be bound to offer the same price at all locations within a 50km radius. Coles and Wollies engage in predatory pricing in a very skilful way by chanting the mantra of lower prices for customers. These are the same people that also own and operate Petrol stations where goods purchased at these outlets are 2 to 3 times more expensive than at their stores. Why? Because they can get away with it and because the likes of Samuel would not do anything about it. Let’s hope his replacement will be better!!

    • Jeremy Clarke says:

      01:43pm | 03/08/11

      Mr Zumbo, your diatribe is getting a little boring. 6 months ago you talked about the cosy duopoly of Coles and Woolies. This argument fell over when the two market leaders entered into “aggressive competition” to quote Samuel in Milk (as you mentioned) bread, beer, some non perishable items including tinned tuna and a number of fruit and vegetable items which they agreed to fix for 12 months (all of which you conveniently left off) It was nice of you to finally recognize the existence of Aldi and their benefits, but you forgot to mention Cosco and most importantly you forgot to mention the biggest problem of all here the Metcash Group. In small regional communities often it is the IGA group who are the only local supermarket. The IGA is supplied by Metcash who charge their suppliers a much higher wholesale rate than is necessary forcing the local IGA to put up prices for consumers. Metcash is not some small little company. It’s a massive multimillion dollar profit company that only last week agreed to pay its CEO 5 million a year. Hopefully with a number of online companies supplying non perishable items online, these small communities will now have an alternative. You can’t claim one minute that Coles and Woolies are running a cosy duopoly (before the discounting) and the next that they are “drunk on market share.” It is just a completely contradictory argument and shows that you care more about attacking Samuel than you do about protecting consumer interests which is very sad as consumers are doing it extremely tough out there. Finally, without wanting to let the facts het in the way of your good story, farm gate prices have not gone down since the discounting started and the amount of milk consumed has increased. This has actually helped competitive farmers.

    • stephen says:

      04:59pm | 03/08/11

      One aspect of competition is not that companies may compete against each other, but that they may in fact compete TO us, the consumer.
      Competition, especially in the retail sector, is a 3 point system : retailers compete not so much for advantage through, what I would call a comparitive pricing structure, but that they, through a response to local economic conditions, all discount, sometimes as of now, as much as 65% of normal retail. They price to us, and not against each other.
      This appears an almost new flexibility : I have not seen such a quick reaction of traders to garner a customer’s business ; perhaps this openness has something to do with an atmosphere of accountability, one that may be attributed to the ACCC ?

    • Prince says:

      05:24pm | 03/08/11

      ACCC please address the terrible monopoly in Australian politics. Voters are effectively stuck with 1 of 2 PM’s regardless of who they vote for - and both outcomes are POOR.

    • The Dead Wood Liberals Society says:

      08:09pm | 03/08/11

      Your comment:the AVCC is free market globalised bullshit thats is bloody worthless, bloody teethless and bloody hopeless!

    • Ron Vincent says:

      08:31pm | 03/08/11

      You can bet your life Samuels won’t open a shop in a large shopping complex where he would meet competition from one of the   big companies he’s been protecting. Perhaps, if he exclusively sold tissues, he’d sell some stock but would use most of it himself.
      Ron V.

    • Jodecy says:

      10:45am | 23/11/11

      That’s the best aswner of all time! JMHO

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter