ACCC code submissions 

Last week the ACCC issued a further Issues Paper calling for submissions in regard to the mandatory Horticulture Code of Conduct. This is the fourth call for submissions in the last six months.

The first two relate to the review progressed by the Horticulture Code Administration Committee (HCAC), and the latter two have been made by the ACCC.

This latest ACCC paper appears to be focussing on issues that were being taken up by the HCAC. It is a shame that elements of the ACCC paper rely on some very broad and biased generalisations which work to portray all wholesale traders negatively.

The statement on Page 4 of the Issues Paper that "retailers have been able to achieve a competitive advantage over wholesale traders by offering growers detailed supply contracts, prompt payment, stable revenue streams and access to a dispute resolution process" appears to infer that all wholesalers do not pay promptly, cannot offer a stable revenue stream and provide no access to a dispute resolution process.

This is or course, wrong. It ignores the arrangements that many wholesalers have with their growers and which provide for the marketing of the grower's entire range of production, facilitate prompt payment, a secure revenue stream and access to a range of dispute resolution frameworks which include as the likes of the Grower Hotline operated by Brisbane Markets Limited and Brismark, the mediation service available under the Produce and Grocery Industry Code of conduct, and the framework now available under the Horticulture Code of Conduct.

The ongoing inference that wholesalers (traders) have not offered access to dispute resolution processes under the Produce and Grocery Industry Code of Conduct, is incorrect.

With the Centre for International Economics stating that there are 1100 wholesalers operating nationally, there remains an ongoing lack of evidence to suggest anything else but the fact that the majority of growers and wholesalers have a good commercial relationship.

It is also of significant concern that while the draft and final Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) compiled by the Centre for International Economics has been used to provide statements supporting the exclusion of the supermarket retailers from the code, other critical information was not included.

For example, the final RIS highlighted underlying objectives of ensuring the code is effective, with a need to minimise costs and ensure flexible trading options exist.

These statements represent a significant basis which should be at the core of any review of the code.

The wholesaling sector has continued to express support for the use of documented terms of trade and the dispute resolution framework contained in the code, but the code must be cost effective and flexible.