Hollow ring to SA as “safest state” for business

Author: Jason Gehrke on Print 
The passage of the Small Business Commissioner bill in South Australia's upper house last week heralds a new and dangerous era for franchising in that state.

Despite a shoddy consultation process by the SA Government and selective descriptions by SA Business Minister Tom Koutsantonis which labelled the bill as "based on the successful Victorian model", media releases by Koutsantonis and Parliamentary colleague Tony Piccolo leave no doubt that franchising will be the first business sector in the crossfire.

Indeed a weekend media statement from Piccolo specifically mentioned franchising and farming as areas that will most likely receive almost immediate attention once the bill is enacted.

Never mind that the bill does not limit its legal reach to South Australia alone, or that it is silent on the issue of whether or not it will defer to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) if both state and national bodies find themselves investigating the same thing.

Aside from the extraordinary powers it conveys to the state Business Minister, who can prescribe an industry code (such as for franchising) at any time and use the office of the Small Business Commissioner as a kangaroo court to enforce it, what is most breathtaking about this bill is the naiveté of the rhetoric behind it.

"South Australia will now be the safest place in Australia to do business" trumpets the chest-beating media releases, because the SA Government has now usurped the role of the Federal Government in determining franchise regulation.

Perhaps while they're at it, the South Australian Government might like to take on other federal roles, like defence, border security or taxation?

Meanwhile as the "safest place to do business in Australia" hoards of interstate business migrants will of course relocate to SA to set up shop, secure in the knowledge that their businesses can't possibly fail as the Small Business Commissioner bill will provide universal protection from economic cycles and other normal daily challenges in running a business.

Maybe word of South Australia's new reputation as a risk-free zone for aspiring business entrants will spread offshore, prompting people smugglers to redirect their boats to Kangaroo Island instead of Christmas Island?

In this utopian business paradise, market forces will be replaced by peppercorn rents and customers with bulging wallets who have no desire to shop online but will once again flock to retail outlets in their droves. Any ripples in this pond will be dealt with most severely by the Small Business Commissioner using the legislative baseball bat with which they are equipped, and where the bat falls short, the Business Minister will prescribe a new industry code to extend its reach.

Aspiring business entrants will be required to do nothing to ensure their future success other than to complain to the Commissioner when things go wrong, and the Commissioner will then leap into action and fix everything in no time at all.

Business planning, due diligence and the use of appropriate legal and accounting advice before entering any kind of business or franchise agreement will no longer be necessary, because the existence of the Small Business Commissioner bill alone has now made South Australia "the safest place in Australia to do business".

This "safest place" statement is ridiculous nonsense that lulls the gullible into thinking that there will be little or no risk involved in running a business in South Australia because the Small Business Commissioner will prevent any harm occurring. What rubbish.

Instead of peddling rhetoric and misinformation about SA being the "safest place", the South Australian Government should be following the recommendations from its own franchise inquiry in 2008 to provide better pre-entry education for potential franchisees and small business intenders. Instead, it has continued to ignore its own recommendations to proactively assist people on the way into business by creating a blunt instrument to swing at random when someone may be going out of business.

It's the equivalent of removing driver training and safety tests, but increasing the penalties for traffic infringements after damage or injury has already occurred.

Meanwhile potential business intenders in SA may find the opportunities to buy a franchise reduced, as franchisors such as Game Traders and others decide to concentrate on other markets where only one, not two sets of franchising codes will operate. International franchise brands seeking a foothold in the Australian market have already excised SA from their growth plans due to the uncertainty over its future legislative landscape as a result of the Small Business Commissioner bill.

The only saving grace in the passage of the bill last week was an amendment for a consultation period before a code is prescribed. Given the way that the bill surreptitiously included the ability to prescribe industry codes after its consultation period this time around, the likelihood of a future consultation period being timed to minimise the amount of consultation required (such as over a December-January holiday period) is quite high.

But that's okay, because we have to believe the politicians who have promised that SA will be the "safest place to do business in Australia".

Jason Gehrke is the director of the Franchise Advisory Centre and has been involved in franchising for nearly 20 years at franchisee, franchisor and advisor level.

He advises both potential and existing franchisors and franchisees, and conducts franchise education programs throughout Australia, and publishes Franchise News & Events, a fortnightly email news bulletin on franchising issues and trends.

Read more on:


Comments (7)
Scott Cooper
...
written by Scott Cooper, October 26, 2011
Jason's stance (closely aligned to that of the FCA given he is a director of the FCA) on the SA Bill has been made more than clear over a long period of time, and the FCA had PLENTY of time and consultation to make their point. How many franchisees got to consult one on one with individual members?

Anger and total diatribe now seems to be the plan of attack as those oppose try to find the dummy they have spat....

'a new and dangerous era'

'shoddy consultation' (because we didn't get out way this time)

'kangaroo court'

'prompting people smugglers to redirect their boats to Kangaroo Island instead of Christmas Island?'....c'mon Jason, really - that truly is out of line on so many levels!

'This "safest place" statement is ridiculous nonsense'

One jumps right out though....'Instead of peddling rhetoric and misinformation'.

Isn't that what the FCA do all the time, except this time people have seen through it and arrived at the truth.

Sadly, I suspect this will be the first of many media onslaughts from members of the FCA.



...the list goes on


CyberGod
...
written by SEO, October 26, 2011
The SA government missed the point - as has every government inquiry into franchising. Australia has an overly complex regime of franchise regulations. It also has a costly and time consuming court system, with magistrates often ill-equipped to deal with the realities of franchising arrangements. The only true winner in Australian franchising are lawyers. These opportunistic parasites often fan the flames in any franchise dispute, guaranteeing that the dispute moves to the courts for resolution. Paid exorbitant amounts of money, regardless of outcome, lawyers have no incentive whatsoever to resolve disputes for their clients. Much and all as FCA lawyers have shouted about the horrors of new regulations in SA, they are no doubt secretly rubbing their hands together with delight at the new income generating opportunities presented to them by the SA government. Once again, the lawyers win and everyone else loses.
Carolyn Dufton
...
written by Carolyn Dufton, October 26, 2011

Jason Gherke in my opinion is spot on in this article. Surplus, state based franchising regulations achieve nothing but confusion in the marketplace.
In my experience there are as many "rogue" (to use the term adopted by Piccolo) franchisees as franchisors. I have no bias, I work with both franchisees and franchisors.
Franchisors and franchisees are human after all!
Best franchising practice can only be achieved by both parties understanding the specifics of the franchise system they are entering into or creating. Unnecessary legislation as in the SA case, further complicates an already fully regulated industry. "Rogue" business players who are certainly not exclusive to franchising, will always find a way of exploiting the system. Each franchise party, understanding their obligations and taking responsibility is the only way forward.

S.A. will be a safe place for franchising as no-one in their right mind will do business there.

Australian franchises employ more than 400,000 people and turn over around $130 billion a year. Well done S.A. for ignoring your economic future.
David Martin
...
written by David Martin, October 26, 2011
G'day Jason,

Do the new SA Laws require Franchisors to enter into "good faith"negotiations with aggrieved Franchisees as in the WA Small Business Commissioner law?

It's interesting that Franchisors Jack Cowin of Hungry Jacks and KFC and Jim Penman from Jims Franchise for Everything support "good faith" laws for Franchisors.

I'm interested in your thoughts.
dozz67
...
written by Colin Dorrian, October 27, 2011
Hard to disagree with Scott Cooper here - I don't doubt Jason's expertise and experience in franchising generally, but some of his comments here are way off the mark. A bit more considered reflection and a bit less emotion would have made for a more informative article and a much better contribution to the debate. So politicians use rhetoric when describing a new law - what's new?

As usual, the devil in this law will be in the detail, as there will need to be regulations and a draft code prepared, which presumably will include such matters as good faith.

The FCA has been asked before, and I'm yet to hear a satisfactory response - on what basis can any reasonable franchisor object to a requirement that it (and franchisees) act in good faith in negotiations, dispute resolution etc? Obviously Jim Penman and Jack Cowin don't have a problem with it.

If the unnamed "international franchise brands" don't want to do business in SA because our government is actually doing something to protect franchisees over and above the pitiful efforts of the Commonwealth, then that is their loss, not SA's.

By the way, I heard Bill Vis on the radio (in Adelaide) this afternoon spruiking the benefits of a VIP cleaning/home services franchise. Seems that perhaps SA's biggest or at least best known franchise brand is still keen to get new franchisees on board. The fact is, if franchisors think they can make money and grow their brand in a particular market, they will, and they will adapt to the laws in place. The USA - probably where many of the "international franchise brands" hail from - where franchise laws (where they exist) are state-based and are diverse, is a good example of this.

The funny thing is, on my quick reading of it the new SA law could be used to enact a retail leasing code of conduct - something the FCA and no doubt Jason is very much in favour of. On 27 July 2011, SmartCompany reported that:

"FCA executive director Steve Wright says a voluntary code for landlords, tenants or representative organisations has been drafted to address member concerns over the "extreme behaviour that occurs far too frequently".

These include:
* Excessive rental increases in major shopping centres.
* Unreasonable behaviour in relation to end of term arrangements for sitting tenants.
* Unreasonable and costly requirements in relation to shop fit-out and signage.
* The substantial information imbalance between landlords and tenants.
* Abuse of market power where landlords offer contracts on a "take it or leave it" basis."

(The funny thing is, a lot of franchisees have experienced very similar behaviour from their franchisors.)
Ray Borradale
...
written by Ray Borradale, October 27, 2011
Carolyn Dutton wrote: “Best franchising practice can only be achieved by both parties understanding the specifics of the franchise system they are entering into or creating.”

My response: Would that be devoid of the smoke and mirrors perpetuated by the industry, with ‘some’ government funding, where the franchise benefits may or may not be delivered and where the risk is trivialised and where the imbalance of power extends to our expensive legal system.

Carolyn Dutton wrote: “.. an already fully regulated industry”
My response: Someone did not follow the 3 franchising inquiries did they?

Carolyn Dutton wrote: “S.A. will be a safe place for franchising as no-one in their right mind will do business there.”
My response: Franchising exists on the back of the investments by FRANCHISEES and franchisors will do business where ever franchisees are confident. Experts both here and in the US agree that the suggestion that franchisors would leave the state or not enter the state is both naïve and ridiculous.

I cannot be sure as yet but it is looking like South Australia is the safest place to sign a franchise contract compared to anywhere in the world.

But no matter what the laws or regulation, serious due diligence will always be critically necessary before signing any contract. Nothing protects the foolish.
Ida.Veritas
...
written by Ida.Veritas, October 31, 2011
Franchisees are the silent victims of the franchising industry.

Congratulations to MP Tony Piccolo and Franck Zumbo for fighting for the rights of franchisees who remain unprotected from rogue Franchisors.

Franchisors know where their bread is buttered as does the Franchise Council of Australia (FCA) for their organisation is funded by Franchisors not franchisees, which is why the FCA fights tooth and nail for the rights of Franchisors. The FCA Board of Directors comprises of Franchisors, CEO’s and Lawyers who look after the interests of Franchisors not franchisees. Only one FCA Director is a franchisee Tony Melhem and the FCA awarded him the 'Franchisee of the Year' two years in a row in 2005-06… Therefore, the FCA has no independent franchisee lobbying for the interests of franchisees.

The FCA Directors comprise of Stephen Giles, Chairman (a Lawyer and partner with national law firm Deacons/Norton Rose); Michael Paul, Deputy Chairperson (Franchisor, CEO and founder of Pack & Send); Tony Melhem, Deputy Chairperson (aligned with the FCA who awarded him the 'Franchisee of the Year' two years in a row in 2005-06); George Yammouni, B.Bus., CPA, Director (CEO of the Bathroom Werx Group); Jim Cornish, Director (co-founder of Ecowash Mobile); Ralph Edwards, Director, QLD State President (Owned and successfully managed Bright Eyes Sunglass Stores Australia); Jason Gehrke, Director (18 years at franchisee, Franchisor and advisor. Jason is the director of the Franchise Advisory Centre (FAC) a lobbyer for Franchisors); Mark Langford, Director, SA State President (Managing Director and the founder of the computer games retail franchise Gametraders); Elisabeth Ritchie, Director, NSW State President (Lawyer and partner of HWL Ebsworth's Franchising & Licensing); Dean Salomone, Director, VIC State President (Managing Director of FC Business Solutions, a specialised Consulting Company); Mike Stringer, Director, WA State President (Franchisor of Car Care and Housework Heroes); and Steve Wright, Executive Director (Ex FCA Chairman, a media and communications professional).

The Franchisee Association of Australia (FAA) is the only independent group interested in the plight and rights of abused franchisees. No surprise that the FCA does not have a member of the FAA on its board of Directors....

Franchisees need better protection, help and support. Hopefully, Tony Piccolo and Franck Zumbo will pave the way for national fairness, equity and justice for franchisees the silent abused victim of the franchising industry. ACCC have a duty of care to help and protect franchisees, not just hide behind the FCA and FAC's bullying antics and prejudice claims. Hopefully, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Chairman Rod SIMS will take action against rogue Franchisors and not emulate the arrogant indifference of the former ACCC Chairman, Graeme Samuel.

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy