It’s official. We are getting ripped off on food and grocery prices.

If you thought these celebrations were big, wait till you see what Frank has organised at his local mall

A review of OECD statistics over the past 10 years clearly demonstrates that Australia consistently has some of the highest levels of food inflation in the developed world.

This is a wake-up call for Federal Minster for Competition Policy and Consumers Affair, Craig Emerson. The evidence of the power of the supermarket duopoly is now overwhelming and the Minister must move quickly to inject new competition into the Australian grocery sector.

The OECD numbers are a timely reminder that duopolies are not good for competition and consumers.

It is a fundamental economic reality that consumer prices go up as markets get more concentrated. With fewer and fewer players in a market there is greater opportunity for the remaining players to act as a cosy club.

With Coles and Woolworths having such a stranglehold over the market, its clear that Mr Emerson needs a plan of action to deliver greater price transparency to consumers and more diversity in the supermarket sector.

Mr Emerson must honour the Labor Government’s pre-election commitment to do all it can to put maximum downward pressure on grocery prices.

Mr Emerson can tear down the supermarket duopoly by strengthening Australia’s competition laws and ensuring that Coles and Woolworths give their customers full price transparency.

Mr Emerson can ask Coles and Woolworths to put all their supermarket prices on a publicly available website. As part of their commitment to customers, Coles and Woolworths could develop their own websites where they would put all their supermarket prices online for customers to check before shopping.

Despite the failure of the Federal Government’s Grocerychoice website, the Government must not walk away from the need to give consumers full access to supermarket prices. Coles and Woolworths can and should give their customers full price transparency on a website in “real time” so consumers can find the cheapest individual supermarket in their local area.

Mr Emerson can remove all remaining restrictive leases that currently prevent new competitors from entering shopping centres to challenge Coles and Woolworths. The recent removal of 80% of restrictive leases involving Coles and Woolworths in shopping centres was long overdue recognition that these restrictive leases have been detrimental to competition and consumers and have been helping to push up grocery prices.

There are another 20% of restrictive leases that will continue to operate for upwards of 5 years. It’s very disappointing that these 20% of restrictive leases will continue to operate to the detriment of competition and consumers. Given the strong competition concerns regarding restrictive leases, all remaining restrictive leases should be removed immediately.

Mr Emerson can do much more to promote a competitive grocery sector and to push down grocery prices.

Mr Emerson needs to seek a commitment from Shopping Centres that they will make space available to new competitors to Coles and Woolworths. It’s one thing to remove lease restrictions, it’s another matter for competitors to secure space in those shopping centres to be able to compete in the centre with Coles and Woolworths.

Mr Emerson needs to remove all restrictive covenants which impose restrictions on the use of land outside of shopping centres preventing new competitors from taking on Coles and Woolworths. These restrictive covenants strongly favour Coles and Woolworths and must go.

Mr Emerson needs to deal with the substantial land banks that Coles and Woolworths have accumulated enabling them to lock up possible development sites. These land banks also prevent the entry of new competitors across existing and developing suburbs. Like restrictive leases, land banks are a barrier to entry to new competitors and raise competition issues.

Mr Emerson needs to stop geographic price discrimination. That is the practice where Coles, for example, may charge a different price the same product in different locations depending on the intensity of competition in the particular local market. So in markets where there are strong price competitive independents consumer prices are lower. The problem is that in markets where there are just the duopolists prices can be higher for the simple reason that competing aggressively on price when they are the only two in the market just cuts their profit margins.

Sadly, geographic price discrimination can also be used to drive independents out of the market. Once the independents exit the local market consumer prices will go up.

Mr Emerson needs to deal with creeping acquisitions so as to prevent Coles and Woolworths from undermining competition by acquiring independent retailers in a piecemeal fashion that means that those creeping acquisitions are not caught by the anti-merger provisions of the Trade Practices Act.

Mr Emerson needs to add a general divestiture power to Australia’s competition laws. The United Kingdom and the United States have a general divestiture power that can be used to break up dominant companies that are behaving in a manner that is detrimental to competition and consumers. Senator Conroy has already set a precedent by wanting to break up Telstra. The rest of the Government could follow Senator Conroy’s lead on this all important issue for consumers.

28 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Joel B1 says:

      06:57am | 11/11/09

      “Coles and Woolworths can and should give their customers full price transparency on a website in “real time” so consumers can find the cheapest individual supermarket in their local area.”

      Rubbish, “watch” schemes tend to reduce competition. (See http://42south147east.info/categories/Retail.aspx for some reasons why) Often the “cheapest” supermarket is the closest in real terms or time and money.

      The best thing to encourage competition the government could do is to stop Aldis. Sure, it seems counter-intuitive but Dick Smith Foods have seen the true effect of this false competition.

      There are plenty of small “markets” that provide cheaper vegetables and meat than the big two, and so does your corner shop. You don’t need the government to tell you that it’s cheapest to shop locally for milk and bread and do a “dry-food” shop every week or so at Coles or Woolies.

    • John A Neve says:

      07:16am | 11/11/09

      I have no truck with Coles or Woolly’s any more than I do with the oil companies. However, we do boast a free enterprise, competitive system.
      Part of competition is buying out your opposition.
      You either want market control or a free market, you cannot have both. Oh and I forgot, those nasty banks are ripping us off as well.
      Come on!! What do we want?

    • Mr Hyde says:

      07:49am | 11/11/09

      John A Neve: we want sensible, effective market control in a market-based system, same as every democratic nation has or wants. Every advanced economy has competition laws to a greater or lesser extent. Can you name a totally ‘free’ market economy where there are no labour laws, no competition laws, no consumer protection etc?

      Our competiton laws haven’t worked that well. They need reform.

    • COF says:

      07:57am | 11/11/09

      John A Neve:
      “Part of competition is buying out your opposition.”
      No John, it isn’t. Eliminating competition is not competition. Remind me not to get in a running race with you, I might get killed.
      “You either want market control or a free market, you cannot have both.”
      Depends on how you look at it. If the competitive nature of a market is influenced by public or private hands, does it matter? If private companies reduce competition in a market it will be less efficient or more costly than what it was - that is the way it works. If let run riot, the system will collapse.
      It’s the same as playing chess, you need rules or you can’t play properly.

    • John A Neve says:

      08:02am | 11/11/09

      Mr Hyde @ 0849hrs.
      In answer to your question; I don’t know of a genuine “free” market system.
      Most people want to “eat their cake and have it to”.
      Reality is that real competition creates monopolies, but that’s what shareholders want, this in turn creates bigger dividens.

      Tell me Mr Hyde, how can you expet people to invest money and then tell them how to run their business?

    • John A Neve says:

      08:25am | 11/11/09

      COF @ 0857hrs,
      The whole aim of competition is to be the best. In business the more successfull you are, the less business for your competition. They go broke you buy them out or you just let them fold, either way you get more of the market. Then there is less competition and monoplies are created.
      The people how really kill competition are the public, if they all go to Coles or Wooly’s, only Coles and Wooly’s will survive, End of story.

    • Mr Hyde says:

      08:37am | 11/11/09

      ‘Tell me Mr Hyde, how can you expet people to invest money and then tell them how to run their business? ’

      Easy. By expecting them to be aware of the legilsative limits that might apply to the company’s operations in Australia or elsewhere. Hasn’t seemed to deter the investors too much or dampen the profits of the large companies, has it?

      Your posts on this topic display a distinct lack of understanding about competition regulation.  Maybe you could read up on it by starting here:
      http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/142

    • COF says:

      08:39am | 11/11/09

      “Reality is that real competition creates monopolies”

      Only if, like in your previous post, Competition=Elimination, which it doesn’t. The monopoly creates dividends for that company at the expense of every other company it deals with. If no other company made revenue other than our monster here, there would be few people left to invest in it!

      “how can you expet people to invest money and then tell them how to run their business?”

      I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to ask an investor not to manipulate the market to their own advantage. This action does three things:
      1. artificially increases purchasing power, effectively sucking equity from their supply chain.
      2. allows the business to increase prices artificially, with no advantage to the efficiency of supply
      3. The macroeconomic effect - increases inflation for no growth - that nasty word most right leaning pundits hate, Stagflation.

      Effectively companies that manipulate the market to create a monopoly are theiving from the country they operate in. If you think this shouldn’t be stopped, I’m sorry John, but you’re wrong.

    • COF says:

      08:59am | 11/11/09

      “The whole aim of competition is to be the best. In business the more successfull you are, the less business for your competition. They go broke you buy them out or you just let them fold, either way you get more of the market. Then there is less competition and monoplies are created.”

      Your logic is sound John, but you are not thinking of the entire picture. This does not take into account that if a business goes broke in a competitive market, this relieves competition in that market and creates an equity opportunity. This may be filled by existing companies, but most likely it is filled by a new player. There is hundreds of years of economic thinking and analysis behind this competitive theory. The market balances itself out as long as no one stuffs around with it - examples of this are deliberately reducing your prices in a sector to below cost to eliminate a competitor from the market (predatory pricing), coercing a supplier through threat of taking away business not to deal with your competitors (secondary boycott), and finally, buying out all your competitors (creating an artificial monopoly). There are more, and they are simple rules everyone has to live by, not just coles and woolies.
      Your last statement is a joke, isn’t it? Consumers create monopolies? Did they all go to coles and woolies thirty years ago? No. They went to Jewel, Flemings, Franklins, Waltons, Gowings, David Jones, Target, Kmart, and many others (they were all separate entities back then). As well as coles and woolies.

    • John A Neve says:

      09:21am | 11/11/09

      COF @ 0939hrs.

      At no stage have I said I’m either for or opposed to monopolies, what I have stated and I believe it’s correct. Is that in the business world competition creates monopolies.

      Your suggestion that it’s not “too much of a stretch to ask an investor not to manipulate the market”, is in fact too much to ask. History would prove me right. Just ask the Paker’s and Murdock’s.

      More to the point, you talk about “ask”, I don’t object to you asking, I just think it’s hypocritical to legistlate how a person runs their business in a “free market”

      As stated before, the real culprits are the consumers, they build or destroy companies.

    • John A Neve says:

      09:46am | 11/11/09

      COF @0959hrs.

      Firstly we are not talking about “thirty years ago”, we are talking about now.
      Secondly you talk of “Jewell, Franklins, Waltons etc”, just proves my very point, competition has been lost.

      Mr Hyde @ 0937hrs.

      It always amuses me when people assume what I don’t know. Why won’t you admit a free market and market legistlation are diametrically opposed?

    • James Canon says:

      09:59am | 11/11/09

      I wonder why Frank hasn’t mentioned the fact wages have risen by more than food over the last decade and so food, as a proportion of the family budget, has actually decreased.

      Or that food is not the only price that has risen over the same period.

      I find it odd an academic would fail to mention all the facts and instead would just focus on those isolated stats which grab the headlines.

    • Mr Hyde says:

      10:20am | 11/11/09

      John A Neve: up to your old tricks, trying to define the debate on your own terms. As happened last time we crossed swords, I’ve answered your points but you choose to pretend I haven’t. It’s not about free market v regulated market because as you’ve already conceded at 9:02am, a free, unregulated market doesn’t exist anywhere.

      Well, you’ve now got all the response you’re going to get from me on your sham debate.

      And I haven’t ‘assumed’ anything about your lack of knowledge, I’ve seen the evidence of it right here.

    • COF says:

      10:23am | 11/11/09

      John,

      That is the most ridiculous display of denialism I have seen in a while.

      I’ll leave it at this. Pretending to read what I write and then stating exactly the same illogical economic conclusions is not debating a point. If you are going to debate me, read my comments, and formulate a reply based on those comments. If that is too much for you, I have better things to do with my time than debate a denialist.

      Mr Hyde has good reason to debate your knowledge. Your “beliefs” fly in the face of hundreds of years of microeconomic theory and have no basis in both in theory and empirical observation, I suggest you need to read more economics before you post again.

      James Canon: “I wonder why Frank hasn’t mentioned the fact wages have risen by more than food over the last decade and so food, as a proportion of the family budget, has actually decreased.”

      A good point. You’ll find that manufacturing in general has experienced zero inflation since the late 1980s - could it possibly have to do with a duopolistic retail sector having an unreasonable amount of purchasing power?

      Check the sectors that have gone up in the last twenty years and the sectors that have gone down or are constant. You’ll probably find that the nature of competition in each market directly effects the rise and fall of price and hence, inflation. For example, the fastest increasing price for a commodity would have to be oil. How many companies in the oil market? Not very many, its an oligopoly due to an ecoonomy of scale. Take that into account with the fact that the producer countries actively produce a cartel to artificially inflate the price.

      That is why competition laws are there - they save the market from itself. There is no point having a free market if it is ultimately going to destroy itself.

    • Jan says:

      10:32am | 11/11/09

      I had a Coffe Shop in the Shopping Centre next to the Bakerry.
      When Coles opened next to it, the Menagment of the Centre came to the bakerr with the list of what they can bake from now.
      They spend so much money and time to fight Coles and the Centre Menagment in the Court that the husband killed himself.
      The wife continued the bussness and the fight in Court and won the case.
      They still are open, what is missing is my friend, her husbund and father to thier children.
      This is only one side of domination by two Shoping Collossalss .

    • John A Neve says:

      10:32am | 11/11/09

      Mr Hyde @ 1120hrs.

      Don’t you get tired of walking away from debate?

      If you suggest what I should read, as you have done, you have obviously made an assumption. Now tell me that’s incorrect.

    • AdamC says:

      10:44am | 11/11/09

      Graeme Samuel cast some doubt on the influence the grocery duopoly had on these OECD figures. The argument that Coles and Woolies are to blame for price rises is not settled. Policy makers need to accept that real markets don’t always operate like the text books tell them to. There is a balance to be struck between scale economies and competition in providing the best prices to consumers. For example, sophisticated and efficient supply chains require substantial capital, and scale, but result in lower prices.

      Many of the policy ideas in the post are absurd, almost embarrassing. Specifically, the GroceryWatch mk 2 proposal is a nonsense and the enforcement of national pricing would simply create geographical winners and losers, not lower prices overall. The restrictive leasing problem is a real one, but interfering in commercial tenancy arrangements is hardly a panacea for retail competition problems.

      Frank, you are trying to have your cake and eat it. On the one hand, you argue that the problem here is the duopoly (not geographical pricing or lack of transparency) but your policy proposals do not actually address the duopoly issue itself. If you want Kruddy to do a Standard Oil on the supermarket giants, just say so and then defend your position!

    • John A Neve says:

      11:16am | 11/11/09

      COF @ 1123hrs.

      My posts are based on the article, not on your point of view, which in my view is incorrect. What you endeavoured to do was spread the debate across the whole business spectrum. This article was and is about supermarkets. It never ceases to amaze how people can digress from the topic and then accuse others of being in denial.

    • Mr Hyde says:

      11:37am | 11/11/09

      John A Neve, I concur with what COF wrote at 11:23am. Debating you is like the scene in Monty Python’s ‘The Holy Grail’, where a knight has all his limbs cut off but insists he has won the fight, calling the real victor a coward for walking away. Debating you further on this is of no interest, so I could hardly get tired of not continuing it, could I?

    • John A Neve says:

      12:11pm | 11/11/09

      Mr Hyde @ 1237hrs.

      Now I know your problem, you live in a Monty Python world. Try sticking to fact not fantasy. It makes for better debate

    • AB says:

      12:34pm | 11/11/09

      John A Neve, Mr Hyde and COF are right. You’ve been pwned, you know it,  and you’re not even big enough to admit it.

    • Daniel says:

      01:33pm | 11/11/09

      It will be interesting to see what Mr Emerson actually does on this. He is a funny guy or tries to be on QANDA. where is his actions though?

    • Cameron Price-Austin says:

      01:36pm | 11/11/09

      Maybe a good start would be universal pricing—forcing major supermarkets to offer a product at the same price nation- or state-wide.

      This would eliminate predatory pricing and geographic price discrimination.

      It may also make it easier for them to post their prices online (I remember one of their arguments against cooperating with GroceryChoices was that it was simply too hard to provide prices for every individual product when they varied from store-to-store).

    • Chase Stevens says:

      01:57pm | 11/11/09

      Do free markets or state owned markets ever work? I’d suggest no.

    • COF says:

      02:51pm | 11/11/09

      Adam C: I agree with you in the fact that it is only conjecture that a rise in grocery prices is due to the retail duopoly. I don’t believe that is actually the case and has more to do with general rising commodity prices worldwide than it does with coles and woolies. If anything the duopoly will keep prices down, because of their incredible purchasing power. So I’m with you, I disagree with Frank on this issue.
      I also disagree with Frank’s solutions in the realm of grocery watchdogs and the like. The law is there already to protect the market from abuse. Whenever a large duopoly occurs, it is due to that law not being enforced properly. If the ACCC got off its bum, then we wouldn’t have this problem, it would have been resolved years ago. All that’s left to do is make sure the law is enforced, and the market will eventually correct itself, as we are seeing with Aldi and Costco (and it will keep happening).

    • COF says:

      03:04pm | 11/11/09

      “Maybe a good start would be universal pricing—forcing major supermarkets to offer a product at the same price nation- or state-wide.”

      That’s a massive manipulation of the market Cameron -  who sets the prices? What if the prices are too low? What if world commodity prices change? It is an unresponsive pricing system and could set up a system of disastrous business corrections and general instability. I think I would prefer the duopoly thanks.

    • E says:

      04:16pm | 11/11/09

      blah blah blah .. the salient question is ‘Why have Aussie prices risen faster than the rest of the world?’ , thats it.

      Also ‘consumers create monopolies’ what a load, the ‘competitors’ which were bought out by Woolies/coles were not broke, they were viable businesses. The consumers were happily choosing to shop elsewhere, until the big boys came and took away their choices.

    • Cameron Price-Austin says:

      11:20am | 12/11/09

      @COF

      I think you mis-understood my suggestion.

      I’m not suggesting the prices themselves be regulated—the supermarkets could still set their own prices. However, if a supermarket owns more than one outlet, the price for an item in each outlet must be identical. For example, the price of a hot chicken would be the same in Woolworths Elizabeth as it is in Woolworths Salisbury (to use my local region).

      This would simply prevent a supermarket from predatory pricing (where, to follow the same example, Woolworths Salisbury might sell hot chickens at below cost to drive a nearby chicken shop out of business).

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

Under pressure himself over his crusade against Craig Thomson, Tony Abbott has moved to present a softer…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter