The Franchise Owner's most trusted news source


Log In / Register | May 24, 2018

Comments regarding this article:

Add new comment


7 Comments

Franchise panel backgrounds

I have looked into the people that make up the panel. They may know something about contracts but they do not have any idea about franchising. Don't expect anything from Emerson. He hand picked them.

Ray Borradale's picture

The Urgency of Emerson

The Australian Small Business Minister announced in November 2009 that the findings of the Expert Panel would be finalized by the end of January 2010.  He never said when he would present them to Australia. 

Perhaps he is just waiting until the FCA return from the International Franchise Convention in San Antonio. No doubt there will be much back slapping and free lunches.

But the government is working toward dealing with a future Australian economic problem where our aging population is growing to the extent that it seen to be leading toward an inevitable and major drain on our economy.  In fact the last 2 governments have been working to ensure that our older population stays in the workforce longer.

Announced Tax incentives might be a great move for many but franchising has been doing its bit in the national effort to ensure older Australians have no choice but to work until they drop and this has been happening long before there was a Federal government effort.

As usual I don’t mean to be pushy but this did start with State Inquiries announced in 2007/8.

The Inclusions and Considerations

Ray Borradale's picture

Not a mention but there is a definite link

The obvious question
was, why weren't the recommendations from our regulators anywhere near as tough as in the US and Europe?
All that effort, and the end result is that nothing will change

thanks yes that worked fine

having a quick look over the paper that was issued, i was left wondering exactly what emerson hopes to gain from this.


 It would appear it  will continue to leave zees at the mercy of rogue zors. It refers mainly to how the courts will determine the actions and conduct. what about the part before the courts, what about the ACCC, will it make any difference to how they act against a rogue


I can tick off many things that my zor did and does under the current definaition of unconsionable conduct. The ACCC are aware of some misrepresentations and ommissions in the FDD which enables this conduct. yet nothing concrete is being done to uphold that which is already in legislation. The only action available is private action, a rogue zor makes sure the zee has no money left to take the private action.


as you said simon: It is not the Court's fault that so few cases are put forward; that has more to do with the cost of access to justice rather than any problem with the definition of 'unconscionable conduct".


I ask: how does this panel expect that this will help zees being the victim of unconsionable conduct when the rogue zor knows there are no penalties, the law makers wont enforce the laws and the rogue zor have ensured the zee they are about to screw over has no funds left thus ensuring court action is kept out of reach through costs.

Ray Borradale's picture

Bernie Ripoll Wasted

Given the almost total disregard of the recommendations that came from the Inquiry into franchising by the Small Business Minister Craig Emerson it isn’t surprising that Bernie Ripoll MP has come up with a ‘whatever’ conclusion to the Inquiry into scams regarding financial products and services.  Strangely this non-result comes from an Inquiry where the industry in question had welcomed the Inquiry.

But these Inquiries have more in common than Bernie Ripoll and a non-result waste of tax payer money.  Here again we see another government authority reaping massive criticism for failing to perform to the point where those that abused existing regulation were able to confidently rely on that authority to be uninterested. 

For franchising the ACCC have done nothing but allow the major scammers to go on without fear of penalty where the little folk who could not afford access to any level of justice were ignored.

Financial products and services have the Australian Securities and Investment Commission [ASIC] as its spectator regulator.  The Rudd government has fast become a government of Inquiries into anything.  But a government that does not know how to handle the results of what they find.

ASIC was the second choice of many franchisees in Australia who have been forced to sit by and watch their franchisors rape them and then drain
the entity that held their contracts.  Kleenmaid
and Midas are only two examples where ASIC was warned for years that the directors were taking whatever assets they could as their businesses went backwards.  They did nothing and now Emerson does nothing and I suspect Bernie has been forced to accept that Rudd Inquires go nowhere.

The critical issue ignored;

It is not the Court's fault that so few cases are put forward; that has
more to do with the cost of access to justice rather than any problem
with the definition of 'unconscionable conduct".
Simon

Too few get to Court so the factors that may determine an outcome become irrelevant if the scam destroyed the ability to seek remedy from the scammers.  But somehow I think that is the rather lucrative plan.

simon young's picture

try this link to get the issues paper

http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?NavId=037&ContentID=1676


If this does not work, navigate through the Treasury website to "Reviews, Inquiries & Consultations"


The Issues Paper itself is fair enough and reasonably detailed but they are looking for answers to difficult questions.  The problem with providing some sort of list of examples is that it might start limiting the definition of 'unconscionable conduct" or the equal and opposite problem is that it might catch franchisors or franchisees inadvertently.


It is all about the circumstances of each transaction and that is why it is left to the Courts to decide each individual case.  It is not the Court's fault that so few cases are put forward; that has more to do with the cost of access to justice rather than any problem with the definition of 'unconscionable conduct".


It may be worth noting that one of the factors a Court can take into account under the current legislation in determining unconsionable conduct is the extent to which the parties acted "in good faith".

got any insight ???

hey ray, thanks for that, I see in the media release from emerson, it refers to additional submissions being requested to assist the panel. But does not make reference to how it is best to do so. Do you have a link or any ideas to make it easier to find. I had a quick look at the aph.gov but it wasnt any more helpful. Thanks