Ray Borradale
Posted on 2 Nov 2010 9:05 pm

Mr Sherry misses the point and either he has been misinformed or he has not done his homework. Firstly, the previous small business minister, Mr Emerson, was harshly criticised by all except those associated with the Franchise Council of Australia representing franchisors.

The intention of the 2 state franchising inquiries and the federal inquiry was to assess the effectiveness of the Franchising Code of Conduct and install solutions to meet and defeat power abuse in franchise contracts that have and continue to produce generations and waves of franchisees suffering substantial to total loss accompanied by numerous other marital and health costs.

The issues addressed related to systemic abuse and flaws in the then existing Code. Mr Emerson in his wisdom delivered what independent franchising lawyers, academics and unbiased franchising advocates referred to as frills that would not address the issues that erupted from the submissions to those inquiries.

Now all of those inquiries produced bipartisan support for direct action which is reflected in the South Australian and the West Australian franchising Bills to be introduced into state law shortly. And those State laws should not be necessary and the States would have preferred not to get involved.

The failure of the federal government left them no choice but to offer their constituents protection through the introduction of accessible conflict remedy authorities. Previously destroyed and under-funded franchisees handed default Court wins to franchisors prepared to outspend them.

The States are to introduce deterrents and penalties for those who would breach Law where previously the business of systemic abuse was easily justified against pitiful outcomes at the ACCC where breaches generally caused a franchisor to undertake a Trade Practice education course.

To better inform prospective franchisee investors of where to invest there is to be a record of those who operate in an environment of systemic abuse. The States are getting it right.

I dont understand why Mr Sherry insists on backing his predecessor just because his predecessor is of the same party.

Again; in State parliaments and in federal parliament effective franchising reform has bipartisan support and it is agreed that in 3 years time all that will have been achieved is to waste time until the next election when the issue of systemic franchising abuse can be dumped into and out of the next round of pre-election 2012 promises.

There is no excusable reason for Mr Sherry to follow Mr Emersons path. Every politician in Australia, the US, Canada and New Zealand have had franchising casualties knock on their door. Mr Sherry needs to wake up because the media and the internet are offering transparency to ongoing trauma and the immoral stance of this government.

Considering the reality without the spin and it becomes ridiculous to criticise the States for installing what the federal government should have already installed. After all, these are mom and pop investors that are having their lives torn apart and their savings taken at the wrong end of their lives.