Re 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd
[1998] ACompT 3
•18 Nov 1998
AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
Trade Practices Act – Newsagents in New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and Queensland – review of determinations made by Australian Competition and Consumer Commission – determinations revoking authorisations of Rules of Newsagency Councils relating to the distribution of newspapers and magazines and granting substitute authorisations – whether material changes of circumstances since authorisations granted – whether authorisations should be revoked – whether it is appropriate to grant further authorisations in substitution for those revoked.
Trade Practices Act (1974) (Cth) ss 90, 91, 101
RE: 7-ELEVEN STORES PTY LTD, INDEPENDENT NEWSAGENTS ASSOCIATION, AUSTRALASIAN ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES INC.
VON DOUSSA J, DR B I ALDRICH & PROFESSOR D K ROUND
SYDNEY
18 NOVEMBER 1998
IN THE AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY 6 and 7 of 1997
1, 2 and 3 of 1998
RE: APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF A DETERMINATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION MADE ON 12 DECEMBER 1997 REVOKING THE AUTHORISATION GRANTED IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION FOR AUTHORISATION No. A90368 AND GRANTING A FURTHER AUTHORISATION IN SUBSTITUTION FOR THE REVOKED AUTHORISATION (DISTRIBUTION OF NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES IN VICTORIA) BY 7-ELEVEN STORES PTY LTD, INDEPENDENT NEWSAGENTS ASSOCIATION AND AUSTRALASIAN ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES INC.
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF A DETERMINATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION MADE ON 12 DECEMBER 1997 REVOKING THE AUTHORISATIONS GRANTED IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORISATION Nos. A15421, A15422, A15423, A15425, A15426, A15605, A30092 and A30093 AND GRANTING A FURTHER AUTHORISATION IN SUBSTITUTION FOR THE REVOKED AUTHORISATIONS (DISTRIBUTION OF NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES IN NEW SOUTH WALES AND THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY) BY THE AUSTRALASIAN ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES INC.
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF A DETERMINATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION MADE ON 12 DECEMBER 1997 REVOKING THE AUTHORISATIONS GRANTED IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORISATION Nos. A2061, A2064, A2089 AND GRANTING A FURTHER AUTHORISATION IN SUBSTITUTION FOR THE REVOKED AUTHORISATION (DISTRIBUTION OF NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES IN QUEENSLAND) BY AUSTRALASIAN ASSOCATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES INC.
MEMBERS: VON DOUSSA J (ACTING PRESIDENT), DR B I ALRDRICH, PROFESSOR D K ROUND
DATE OF DETERMINATION: 18 NOVEMBER 1998
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
INDEX
Introduction
1.1 Newsagency Council of Victoria
1.2 Newsagency Council of NSW and ACT
1.3 Newsagency Council of Queensland
1.4 Authorised newsagents and sub-agents
1.5 The applicationsHistory of Authorisations under the Act
The Relevant Law
The Authorised Systems and their Operation
4.1 The substance of the authorised conduct
4.2 Differences between the States
4.3 Impacts on the conduct of other retailersMaterial Change of Circumstances
5.1 Changes of circumstances identified by the Commission
5.2 Changes in regard to the distribution of magazines
5.3 ConclusionsShould the 1980-1985 Authorisations be Revoked?
6.1The evaluation of net public benefit in 1994
6.2 Strategic responses of publishers and newsagents after 1994
6.2.1 Responses by the authorised newsagents
6.2.2 The viability of the authorised newsagency
6.2.3 Responses of the newspaper publishers
6.2.4 Responses of magazine publishers and distributors
6.3 Re-evaluation of net public benefit in 1998
6.3.1 The relevant markets in 19986.3.2An additional public benefit? – The survival of new magazines and small publishers
6.4Conclusion
A Transition Period?
7.1 Submissions for and against a transition period
7.2 The evaluation method and the issue of managed change
7.3 Consultation and negotiation as mechanisms for change
7.4 The argument about uncertainty
7.5 The scope for introducing change during an authorised transitionConclusions on Elements of the Authorised Conduct
8.1 The Tribunal’s task
8.2 The wholesale distribution of magazine publications
8.3 The wholesale distribution of newspapers to look-alikes8.4The wholesale distribution of newspapers by newsagents to sub-agents generally
8.5 The home delivery distribution of newspapers
The Decision
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
Five applications for review have been made under s 101 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (“the Act”) of three determinations of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (“the Commission”) dated 12 December 1997. The determinations concerned the established systems for the distribution of newspapers in Victoria and of newspapers and magazines in New South Wales (“NSW”), the Australian Capital Territory (“ACT”) and Queensland, which for many years have operated under a number of authorisations granted between 1980 and 1985 by the Trade Practices Commission (“the TPC”). The three determinations challenged by the present review revoke these authorisations and grant substitute authorisations which will have the effect of allowing the same distribution systems to remain in operation until 1 February 2001. The determinations provided that if an application for review were made, the determinations would come into force either on the day that the Tribunal makes its determination or when the application for review is withdrawn.
The determination under review in relation to the distribution system in Victoria was a sequel to the decision of this Tribunal (then the Trade Practices Tribunal) delivered on 11 November 1994 in Re 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd, Australian Association of Convenience Stores Incorporated and Queensland Newsagents Federation (1994) ATPR 41-357 (“Re 7-Eleven Stores (1994)”). That decision contained a detailed review of the distribution systems not only in Victoria but also in NSW, ACT and Queensland; see Chapter 6 and following from 42,661. The distribution system in each of these geographic regions has at all material times been administered by the Newsagency Council of Victoria Ltd (“NCV”), the Newsagency Council of NSW and ACT (“NCNSW”), and the Newsagency Council of Queensland (“NCQ”) respectively.
1.1 Newsagency Council of Victoria
The members of NCV presently are (1) The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd (“HWT”); (2) David Syme and Co Ltd, referred to in the Rules as “the Age Group” (“David Syme”); (3) News Limited and subsidiaries including Nationwide News Pty Ltd (“News”); (4) John Fairfax Holdings Ltd and subsidiaries including John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (“Fairfax”); and (5) the Victorian Authorised Newsagents Association Ltd (“VANA”). VANA represents the majority of the 1014 authorised newsagents who carry on business in Victoria.
News through associated companies publishes the Herald Sun and Sunday Herald Sun, primarily in Victoria; The Daily Telegraph and Sun Daily Telegraph, primarily in NSW; the Courier Mail and Sunday Mail, primarily in Queensland; and The Australian nationally. In addition, News publishes a number of smaller circulation newspapers and magazines.
Fairfax through associated companies publishes The Age and Sunday Age, primarily in Victoria; the Sydney Morning Herald and The Sun-Herald, primarily in NSW; and The Australian Financial Review nationally. In addition, Fairfax publishes a number of magazines, and undertakes the distribution of a number of smaller circulation newspapers and magazines on behalf of other publishers.
1.2 Newsagency Council of NSW and ACT
The rules of NCNSW specify that it shall consist of five members. Each member is a group. The five membership groups are: (1) The ACP Group comprising ACP Publishing Pty Ltd, and its subsidiaries (“ACP”); (2) The Eastern Suburbs Group which consists of three companies trading as “Eastern Suburbs Newspapers” (“ESN”); (3) Fairfax; (4) News; and (5) the Newsagents Association of NSW and ACT Inc. The Association represents the majority of the 1309 authorised newsagents who carry on business in NSW and ACT. The newspapers published by Fairfax and News are referred to above. ACP is the publisher of over 60 magazine titles including The Australian Womens Weekly, Women’s Day, Cleo, Cosmopolitan and The Bulletin. In the 1997 calendar year ACP's audited circulation exceeded 95 million copies. It is the largest publisher of magazines in Australia, by copy sales. ESN through NDD Distribution Pty Ltd (“NDD”) and Retail Delivery Service (“RDS”) packs and delivers approximately 1500 magazine titles to 3647 newsagents on behalf of more than 400 publisher clients ranging from Time Inc Magazines (which publishes the high volume Who Weekly), to small publishers who produce limited runs of special interest titles.
1.3 Newsagency Council of Queensland
The Rules of NCQ provide that it shall consist of five members. The members are (1) Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd; (2) ACP; (3) Fairfax; (4) ESN; and (5) The Queensland Newsagents Federation Ltd (“QNF”). There are 1113 authorised newsagencies in Queensland comprising a number of different categories of newsagency which the Rules of NCQ provide for.
1.4 Authorized newsagents and sub-agents
The Rules of each of these Councils (together referred to as “the Newsagency Councils”) establish and maintain a system of distribution for the publications of each of the publisher members. The Rules, which are discussed in more detail in Section 4 of this decision, provide for each Council to accredit newsagents (referred to as “authorised” newsagents) to sell and distribute publications in a defined and exclusive territory. Typically an authorised newsagency is a family business operating a retail shop which sells newspapers, magazines and a range of other items like greeting cards, stationery, books, tickets, stamps, cigarettes and confectionery. Each authorised newsagent has obligations to deliver the publications within the designated territory to final purchasers. The delivery may be by home delivery, over the counter sales in the newsagent’s premises, or through sub-agents. Historically an authorised newsagent has been the sole supplier of publications to sub-agents who range in size from small outlets like kiosks, milk bars and take away shops to large convenience stores and, almost exclusively in Victoria, “look-alikes”. A look-alike is a large retail outlet that has the appearance of being an authorised newsagency, but operates as a sub-agent, as it is in the territory of an authorised newsagent.
There are close to 6000 sub-agents (including convenience stores and look-alikes variously estimated at between 70 and 100) in Victoria, 4100 in NSW, and 3434 in Queensland.
The arrangements for distribution established by the Newsagency Councils’ Rules were the subject of authorisations granted initially by the TPC and are now the subject of the substituted authorisations granted by the determinations under review. Members of NCV, NCNSW and NCQ are the parties to the authorisations.
1.5 The applications
Applications numbered 6 and 7 of 1997 and 1 of 1998 have sought review of the determination of the Commission in relation to the distribution system in Victoria.
Application number 6 of 1997 has been brought by 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd (“7-Eleven”). 7-Eleven is a private wholly family owned company which operates a convenience store franchise network in Australia comprising 171 stores in Victoria, NSW and Queensland. The stores trade 24 hours a day, seven days a week and sell a diverse range of products including food, drink, household products, petrol, newspapers and magazines. In the 1996-1997 financial year the total retail sales generated by 7-Eleven was almost $199m of which newspaper and magazines sales accounted for approximately $11.4m. All 7-Eleven stores are supplied pursuant to sub-agency arrangements established under the Rules of the Newsagency Councils, except for the direct supply of magazines recently negotiated with ACP (see Sections 5.1 and 5.2 below) and Pacific Publications Pty Ltd (which is not a party to any of the authorisations).
Application number 7 of 1997 has been brought by the Independent Newsagents Association (“INA”). INA is an association of some 50 look-alike newsagents in Victoria who are independent of NCV.
Application number 1 of 1998 has been brought by the Australasian Association of Convenience Stores (“AACS”). AACS was formed in 1991 as a representative body to promote the objectives of the convenience store industry at a local, State and Federal Government level. AACS represents approximately 85 per cent of some 850 convenience stores operating throughout Australia. Members of AACS range from large franchise chains such as 7-Eleven, Quix, Caltex, Shell Select and BP Express to small individual store members. The majority of members’ stores are operated by individual franchisees. Convenience stores carry a limited range of newspapers and magazines. With few exceptions, each of these is obliged by the distribution systems established under the Rules of the Newsagency Councils to obtain newspapers and magazines as a sub-agent from the authorised newsagency in whose territory the store is situated.
Application number 2 of 1998 has been brought by AACS seeking a review of the determination in respect of the distribution system for newspapers and magazines in NSW and ACT. Application number 3 of 1998 has also been brought by AACS, and seeks a review of the determination in respect of the distribution system of newspapers and magazines in Queensland.
It will be noted that none of the applications for review have been made by members of the Newsagency Councils who are the parties to the authorisations. The Tribunal granted leave to the Australian Newsagents Federation Limited (“ANF”) to intervene in each of the applications for review, to 7-Eleven and AACS to intervene in the matters where they were not the applicants, and to ACP to intervene in relation to the three applications concerning the Victorian distribution system. ACP as a member of NCNSW and NCQ, was entitled to appear on the hearing of the review in respect of those applications as it was a person to whom the authorisations were granted; see s 109(1) of the Act. ANF is the peak industry body representing some 3400 authorised newsagents and seven State industry bodies (three of whom are parties to the authorisations under consideration) that also represent authorised newsagents.
At the hearing the primary position of the applicants was that the three substitute authorisations granted by the determinations of 12 December 1997, but not the revocation of the earlier authorisations, should be set aside. If this occurs the distribution systems established under the Rules of the Newsagency Councils would no longer have any authorisation under the Act. As fall back positions, the applicants contended that authorisation of the Rules which prohibit direct supply by publishers to look-alikes and convenience stores (including 7-Eleven stores) should be set aside or the duration of the substitute authorisations considerably shortened. ANF and ACP appeared at the hearing to contend that the determinations should be affirmed. Other publisher members of the Newsagency Councils did not appear on the hearing, although evidence from executives of the major publishers and from other participants in the distribution systems was led before the Tribunal by the Commission. The position of the publishers and the Newsagency Councils was that the authorisations under review should be affirmed.
History of Authorisations under the Act
The distribution systems now conducted under the Rules of the Newsagency Councils have been in place since early this century. They first received authorisation in respect of six applications made on 9 January 1975 in NSW and ACT pursuant to ss 88 and 90 of the Act on 7 February 1980. The history of events leading up to the authorisations granted for NSW was summarised by the Tribunal in Re 7-Eleven Stores (1994) at 42,655 - 42,659. Anti-competitive features of the system as it operated before the 1980 authorisations were identified in passages quoted by the Tribunal from the 1979 draft determination and from the 1980 determination of the TPC.
In the 1980 determination the TPC found that the effect of the distribution system on competition was substantially anti-competitive, essentially because of the territorial monopolies created for newsagencies. However, it considered the anti-competitive detriment was outweighed by the benefits to the public, and granted authorisation. The TPC found the following benefits to the public; subsidisation of home delivery in outlying areas; extended shop hours; and assured availability of a wide range of newspapers and magazines to the public. The TPC said that as a result, particular parts of the market would continue to be served that might otherwise be served only at a higher price or not at all, and that persons who might want newspapers or magazines would be able to get them, at times and by methods that were convenient for them.
Following the NSW authorisations, the TPC, for similar reasons, granted authorisations pursuant to ss 88 and 90 on 28 April 1982 in respect of the Victorian distribution system, and on 18 October 1985 in respect of the Queensland distribution system. Additional authorisations were also granted in respect of the NSW and ACT distribution system on 26 April 1984.
Under the authorised systems, the publications of parties to the authorisations are distributed on a basis agreed between the publishers and the industry organisation representing authorised newsagents in each of the States and Territory concerned. The agreed basis finds expression in the Rules of the Newsagency Councils which administered the systems in the relevant States and Territory. Authorised newsagents receive publications on an exclusive territorial basis. The territorial area is determined by the publishers, through their control of the Newsagency Councils, and by horizontal agreement between them. Each publisher is obliged to appoint the same newsagent for the same territory. In exchange for exclusive territorial rights, authorised newsagents are obliged to deliver under agreed conditions to all addresses within the territory when requested to do so, to supply sub-agents at the direction of the publisher and to operate for prescribed minimum hours a shop for retail sale and display of the publications of the publisher. The practical effect of the Rules is to prohibit home delivery sales and any other supply into the territory of another authorised newsagent, except with the consent of the relevant Newsagency Council.
In November 1988 the TPC announced a study into newsagency distribution systems throughout Australia. In May 1990, it released an issues paper entitled “Study of the Distribution of Newspapers and Magazines”. The paper raised a number of issues which the TPC considered should be addressed and invited input from parties with an interest in the industry. The release of the issues paper was followed by discussions between the TPC and NCV and its constituent members who later lodged applications relating to the Victorian newsagency distribution system which were intended to replace those then existing under the April 1982 authorisations.
After conducting inquiries, the TPC concluded that the proposed distribution system would result, or be likely to result, in public benefits which outweighed the anti-competitive detriments. On 30 July 1993 the TPC granted authorisations which retained core features of the system authorised in 1982, but with certain modifications.
The intended effect of these modifications was discussed in Re 7-Eleven Stores (1994) at 42,660. The modifications were intended to address certain aspects of the highly regulated distribution system which the TPC noted had prevented the industry from adapting to wider changes occurring in the market place, and had insulated it from the need to be innovative in meeting the demands of those changes. The TPC considered that the system might no longer be achieving the benefits for which authorisation was originally granted and might be inhibiting the development of a more efficient distribution system for newspapers and magazines. The 1993 determination was to be for an indefinite period. However, the TPC anticipated that the authorisation would be of a temporary nature, leading in due course to a system substantially more free of anti-competitive detriment and more responsive to market forces. This was intended to take Victorian newsagencies closer to a deregulated system with minimum disruption to a large number of small businesses: see Re 7-Eleven Stores (1994) at 42, 661.
AACS, 7-Eleven, and QNF each applied for review of the 1993 determination. AACS and 7-Eleven argued that the Tribunal should refuse authorisation in terms that made it clear that the TPC should exercise its power under s 91(4) of the Act to revoke the 1982 Victorian determinations. Conversely, QNF argued that the 1982 determinations should continue in operation without modification.
The Tribunal undertook a detailed analysis of the workings of the newspaper distribution system: see Re 7-Eleven Stores (1994) at 42, 661 - 42,685. It considered the power of the newspaper publishers in Victoria was considerable. In effect they operated a private licensing system which created high barriers to entry, determining who shall enter retailing and in what capacity. The Tribunal considered the key anti-competitive features were the horizontal agreements and understandings between publishers. These in turn interlocked with the parallel vertical agreements to deliver an anti-competitive outcome that was qualitatively different from that which would arise out of the independent practice of territorial exclusivity by individual publishers subject to market forces.
In Victoria, the parties to the authorisation were primarily newspaper publishers, and the Tribunal concluded that the authorisation did not extend to approval of a system for the distribution of magazines. However, the magazine publishers had been accorded ready access to the system, so much so that their de facto inclusion re-enforced the barriers to entry that existed against alternative methods of distribution.
At 42,688 the Tribunal expressed its ultimate conclusions:
“We have come to the conclusion that the existing newsagency system is a shackle upon the capacity of the authorized newsagent to adjust to the present world - and the world that is unfolding. There have been enormous changes in the market circumstances since 1980-82: the rise of television; the demise of the evening paper; shifts in the structures and forms of retailing; the emergence of significant newspaper outlets outside the authorized newsagency system; shifts in public attitudes; and shifts in public policy on competition issues. The newsagency too must change; but in a way, and by a process, different from that envisaged in the applications for authorization. In such a case it could be appropriate to build in a period of adjustment, albeit one that is strictly limited…
We are not satisfied that there would be any benefit to the public from the proposed changes to the newsagency system.
We further find that the applications would be likely to give rise to anti-competitive detriment as compared with a continuation of the present system. The present system, in turn, gives rise to severe anti-competitive detriment as compared with the circumstances that would likely prevail were the system not to exist. The 1993 determination purports to be directed to providing for the future, but a confirmation of its terms would serve to entrench a system that is increasingly anachronistic. The present system is subject to considerable tensions and pressures for change. The proposals for variation of the system would have the effect of patching up a system that is ripe for fundamental change. In our view, also, the consultative practices, endorsed by the 1993 determination would reinforce the joint market power of the newspaper publishers exercised through the NCV.
The result of our determination is that the 1982 determination will stand unless and until it is revoked by the Commission.
The present system has been in operation for many years and there has been clear change in some material circumstances since the 1982 determination.
We realize that for changes to be introduced overnight to completely remove the present problems of anti-competitive detriment would be difficult and possibly cause injustice. In any regime of deregulation some parties will claim that their commercial interests will be damaged. Nevertheless, public policy will require that deregulation shall proceed in an orderly manner. In our view and on the basis of the material before us, the interests of public policy would be met if the present bad features of the newsagency system are removed within approximately three years.”
In the result, the Tribunal set aside the 1993 determinations. That left in place the 1982 determinations for Victoria, but the reasons for decision in Re 7-Eleven Stores (1994) plainly raised the question whether the TPC should consider revocation of the authorisations granted in the early 1980’s, not only in Victoria, but in NSW and ACT, and in Queensland.
The decision in Re 7-Eleven Stores(1994) was handed down on 11 November 1994. On 16 June 1995 the TPC issued notices under s 91(4) of the Act to the corporations granted authorisation in respect of the distribution systems operative in Victoria, NSW and ACT, and Queensland and provided copies to other persons it believed to be interested parties. The notices stated that it appeared to the TPC that there had been a material change of circumstances since the authorisations were granted, and invited submissions. The notices formally commenced a review of the authorisations.
The Commission (having by then replaced the TPC) received a large number of submissions, including two from the Federal Government. On 26 November 1997, 7-Eleven filed an application for an order of review under s 7 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act (1977) (Cth) to review the failure of the Commission to make a decision as required under s 91(4) of the Act as to whether or not to revoke the 1982 Victorian authorisation. On 12 December 1997 the Commission published the determinations now under review.
The Commission determined that there had been a material change in circumstances since the issue of the authorisations in the early 1980’s. This view accorded with that expressed by the Tribunal in Re 7-Eleven Stores (1994). In a summary of the decision attached to the determinations, the Commission said:
“The system has a lack of flexibility which creates inefficiencies and reduces the choices available to both businesses and consumers. Authorised newsagents are restricted in the ways they can develop their operations.
While it has been three years since the Tribunal's decision in 1994 which suggested a period of three years to allow for adjustments to the system, the Commission's enquiries and the time taken to receive and consider submissions has meant that no progress has been made by the industry towards making changes called for by the Tribunal, in the past three years.
The Commission understands that there is an expectation, particularly among newsagents, that the present distribution arrangements would continue in full for a defined period from the time of the Commission's decision. Other parties with an interest in the system oppose any continuation. Notwithstanding that, the Commission considers the industry itself still needs time to consider what it has to do to meet the Tribunal's concerns and to put in place and adjust to such changes as are necessary. The Commission considers that there is benefit in allowing a period of stability and preparation for changes to come.
The Commission accepts that there are strong arguments by those adversely affected by the current arrangements to have the system deregulated over a reasonable timeframe. The Commission is also conscious that if it does not allow some reasonable period of transition from the current system many, but by no means all, authorised newsagents will be disadvantaged.
The Commission has concluded that the transition period needs to give both publishers and newsagents time to adjust and in the circumstances the appropriate timing for the expiration of the substitute authorisation is 1 February 2001.
There has been some concern that if the Commission were to find against the existing system home delivery of newspapers would cease. That issue was considered in the Government submission and by the Tribunal. On the evidence before the Tribunal and the Commission and in the submission of the Government, that is unlikely to be the case. The existence of an efficient home delivery system is very much in the publishers’ interests and they are likely to ensure home delivery is done. The Commission takes the view that there is public benefit in an efficient system for home delivery of newspapers. Whilst the current system may not be delivering the full potential of public benefits of an efficient low cost home delivery system this determination will allow that to be addressed for the future.
The Commission has therefore decided to:
· revoke the authorisations relating to the system for distribution of newspapers and magazines in [Victoria, New South Wales and the ACT and Queensland]; and
· grant a substitute authorisation to the existing arrangements until 1 February 2001.”
The Commission in its summary also said that its decision to revoke the existing authorisation and to re-authorise the arrangements until 1 February 2001, was in keeping with the Federal Government’s 1996 submissions to the review, and would give the newsagents the stability the Government said it believed they needed.
The 1996 submissions from the Government are annexed to the determinations. The Government supported the maintenance of an efficient, low cost home delivery system for newspapers. It believed that such a system generated a number of public benefits and that these benefits outweighed any anti-competitive effects that might flow from arrangements necessary to support it. The following public benefits were specifically identified in submissions: (1) home delivery of newspapers provided significant opportunities for small businesses of the kind which it was in the public interest to foster and promote; (2) home delivery promoted the wide, efficient and cheap dissemination of news and editorial comment, important in the functioning of a democratic society; (3) home delivery service was of particular importance to vulnerable consumer groups such as the elderly, infirmed and disabled; and (4) efficiency considerations arising from the reduced wastage and better planning opportunities for publishers flowing from the degree of certainty in supply which arises from home delivery sales. The Government urged that in light of its views about the public benefits attaching to home delivery under existing distribution arrangements, and the significant capital invested by newsagents in such things as delivery vehicles and wrapping equipment, it would be appropriate to retain the present authorisations in their totality for a further fixed period. The Government suggested a further four years from the date of its submission (November 1996) because, it was suggested, the newsagents had been operating in an uncertain business and regulatory environment in the two years since the Tribunal handed down its decision in relation to the Victorian distribution system.
The Relevant Law
The five applications before the Tribunal have been brought under s 101(1) of the Act which provides that a person dissatisfied with a determination of the Commission in relation to an application for, or in relation to the revocation of, an authorisation may apply to the Tribunal for a review of the determination. Section 101(2) provides that a review of the Tribunal is a rehearing of the matter and that ss 90(6),(7), (8) and (9) apply in relation to the Tribunal in a like manner as they apply in relation to the Commission.
The Tribunal must engage in a rehearing in the fullest sense and it must reach its own conclusions on the material before it. The Tribunal is empowered to make a determination affirming, setting aside or varying the determination of the Commission; s 102(1). It is the determination itself, rather than the reasoning process of the Commission that is to be the subject of the inquiry on the review; see Re Media Council of Australia (No 2) [1987] ATPR 40-774 at 48,491 and Re 7-Eleven Stores (1994) at 42,654.
Subsections 90(6),(7),(8) and (9) which by s 101(2) apply to the Tribunal are provisions which in terms empower the Commission to grant authorisations. The determinations under review were not determinations made on applications for authorisation in exercise of power arising under ss 88 and 90. The determinations were made under s 91(4), which empowers the Commission after giving notices of the kind given on 16 June 1995, if satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since the authorisation was granted, to revoke the authorisations, and, if appropriate, to grant a further authorisation in substitution for the authorisation so revoked. In Re Media Council of Australia & Ors [1996] ATPR 41-497 at 42,238 - 42,241, Lockhart J considered the quite “curious hiatus” in relation to the functions and powers of the Tribunal when hearing a review of a revocation decision made by the Commission of an authorisation arising from the fact that ss 90(6), (7), (8) and (9) make provisions in respect of authorisations not revocations. His Honour concluded that as the Tribunal is directed by s 101(1) to review a revocation decision of the Commission, and to do so by way of rehearing: (at 42,239)
“To perform its statutory duty to review such a determination as a rehearing, the Tribunal must, by implication, have the same powers as those specifically vested in the Commission by s.91(4)(b), namely, to revoke the authorisation and, if the Tribunal considers it appropriate to do so, grant a further authorisation in substitution for the authorisation so revoked…
Although sub-sections (6),(7),(8) and (9) of s.90 do not strictly apply in relation to the Tribunal when considering revocation issues, questions of public benefit and detriment, including anti-competitive detriment, must be at the heart of the Tribunal's functions and powers. Reference to the Commission's powers is useful. Before the Commission is empowered to grant an authorisation it must first be satisfied that the requisite degree of benefit to the public exists and that it outweighs the detriment to the public constituted by lessening of competition. That is at the core of the Commission’s task (see s.90(6),(7),(8) and (9)). For the Commission to conclude, pursuant to s.91(4), that revocation of an authorisation is justified on the basis that there has been a material change of circumstances since the authorisation was granted, consideration of matters going to public benefit and detriment to the public are fundamental. So it must be with the Tribunal, because it is engaged in a rehearing of the matter that was before the Commission.”
Proceeding from this construction of the Act, Lockhart J identified a number of matters which a Tribunal should consider sequentially on an application to review a determination to revoke an authorisation under s 91(4). Before this Tribunal, the parties accepted as correct the principles stated by Lockhart J.
To determine whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the authorisation was granted, the Tribunal must commence by examining the circumstances as they existed at the time the authorisation was granted. From that point the Tribunal then moves forward to the circumstances as they exist on the material before the Tribunal at the time it conducts the rehearing. In the present case, the first step requires an examination of the circumstances in each of the relevant States and Territory when the authorisations were granted in the early 1980’s. As the Tribunal must conduct a rehearing in the fullest sense, it is required to examine for itself those circumstances. However, where there has been an earlier hearing and determination by the Tribunal, a later Tribunal, as a matter of practical common sense, will be fully justified in accepting the earlier Tribunal’s finding of facts in the absence of cogent new evidence to show that some other finding should be made. That course was followed in Re Media Council of Australia [1996] at 42,240. In the present case, this Tribunal has the benefit of the assessment of the newspaper distribution system in Victoria in 1982 made by the Tribunal in 1994, and findings in respect of changed circumstances up to 1994. No party has challenged before this Tribunal the findings of fact made in Re 7-Eleven Stores (1994).
Having examined what the circumstances were at the time of the original authorisation, and what has happened in the intervening period, if the Tribunal finds that there has been a change in circumstances, it must determine whether or not the change is material. On that consideration, Lockhart J said in Re Media Council of Australia [1996] at 42,241: “A material change of circumstances includes a change of circumstances which has a significant impact upon the benefits to the public or upon the detriment, including anti-competitive detriment, arising out of the conduct or the provision in question.” The Tribunal must determine, in the exercise of its discretion, whether the kind, magnitude or significance of the change warrants the Tribunal revoking the authorisation previously granted because the net public benefit which justified authorisation has changed or disappeared.
If the Tribunal is satisfied that the authorisation should be revoked, the Tribunal must then consider whether a further authorisation should be granted in substitution for the authorisation so revoked, and the terms of the substituted authorisation.
Central to the exercise of the discretionary powers to revoke an authorisation, and if so to grant a further authorisation in substitution, is the evaluation of public benefit and detriment. The exercise of those powers is conditioned upon the Tribunal being satisfied that a benefit to the public results, or is likely to result, from the authorised conduct or authorised provision of a contract, arrangement or understanding, and that the benefit outweighs the detriment to the public constituted by the lessening of competition.
In the course of determining relevant public benefit and detriment, the Tribunal has consistently applied “the future with-and-without test”; Re Queensland Independent Wholesalers Ltd [1995] APTR 41-438 at 40,928, and Re Media Council of Australia [1996] at 42,241 and Re: AGL Cooper Basin Natural Gas Supply Arrangements (1997) ATPR 41-593 at 44,175). In the present case, in conducting a review of the Commission’s determination to revoke the earlier authorisations, the Tribunal must compare the position which is likely to arise in the future if authorisations in some form were to continue with the future if the authorisations were revoked.
No party has sought to challenge the Commission’s conclusions that in respect of each of the authorisations there has been a material change of circumstances since the grant of the authorisations, and that on the application of the “future with-and-without test”, the authorisations should be revoked. The parties seek only to challenge or uphold the determination in so far as it substituted a further authorisation of the distribution systems until 1 February 2001. At initial directions hearings, the parties urged the Tribunal to confine its considerations on the review to this final issue. In curial proceedings based on the adversarial system, the role of a court is to determine issues identified by the parties, usually in pleadings. Proceedings before the Tribunal are not adversarial in nature, and the role of the Tribunal is not merely to resolve issues in dispute between the parties. It is an administrative tribunal with a much wider role. It is required to determine whether anti-competitive conduct or anti-competitive provisions in a contract, arrangement or understanding that would otherwise be unlawful, should, in the public interest, be authorised because the public benefit outweighs the detriment constituted by any lessening of competition. Determinations of the Tribunal are likely to impact on the commercial interests of many people who are not participants in the proceedings before the Tribunal.
Notwithstanding the positions taken by the parties in this case, the Tribunal in the exercise of its statutory functions, must consider each of the issues arising under s 91(4) which precede a consideration of the terms and duration of the further authorisation granted by the determinations under review. On these essential steps, the Tribunal must reach its own conclusions. It must make its own assessment of both benefit and detriment.
However, where the applicants and other parties participating in proceedings before the Tribunal agree with findings on factual matters set out in the Commission’s published reasons for determination, the Tribunal would ordinarily be justified in treating those findings as common ground which significantly limits the areas of primary fact which the Tribunal is itself required to examine in detail; see Re Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (Media Council of Australia (No 1)) (1978) 17 ALR 281 at 296 where the Tribunal (Deane J, President, Shipton and Walker, Members) observed that fairness and common sense combine to require that the Tribunal determine an application for review within the context of matters which can properly be seen to be in issue between the parties or which the Tribunal itself raises or indicates that it regards as being at large.
The Authorised Systems and their Operation
The Rules of the three Newsagency Councils, which constitute the authorised conduct, are very similar. Correspondingly, the three determinations of the Commission being reviewed in these proceedings were couched in very similar terms. Without any suggestion being made to the contrary, all parties accepted that the applications for review should be heard together, as variants of the same basic conduct. Evidence on behalf of publishers, newsagents, and convenience stores was submitted as being pertinent in all matters, with distinctions being drawn between the States where appropriate.
4.1 The substance of the authorised conduct
All three sets of Rules are directed to the fostering and closely managed use of the long-established and widespread networks of local newsagency retailers, as the predominant channel for the distribution of major daily newspapers, magazines and other publications produced by publishers adhering to the Rules.
There is some variation to the Rules between the States, as described in Section 4.2 below, but the substance of the authorised conduct is common. In each locality across the State, one newsagent is selected by the Newsagency Council and designated as being “authorised”, with sole rights (subject to some exceptions at the publishers’ limited discretion) to distribute the publishers’ publications within a defined territory. Hence, in effect, each publisher that is a member of a Newsagency Council has agreed with other publishers, with the assent of the State association of authorised newsagents, to employ the same distributing agent for the same local territory. Newspapers and magazines are supplied by publishers to authorised newsagents on a sale or return basis. The newsagent is granted credit by the publisher, and a commission of 25 per cent is payable to the newsagent for publications sold. The authorised newsagent is also permitted to charge home delivery customers a fee at a rate determined by the publisher.
Each authorised newsagent enters with each publisher into a “Newsagency Agreement”, which is a contract of appointment as sales agent to that publisher in the defined territory. Operating practices of newsagencies are strictly defined under the Newsagency Agreements, which bind the newsagent contractually to the implementation of the Rules. Correspondingly, the Rules mandate compliance with the contractual terms of Newsagency Agreements. Procedures for enforcement of the Rules are defined, with penalties for non-compliance. Loss of the newsagent’s authorised status is the extreme penalty that may be applied. An appeal process is available.
The Rules and corresponding agreements require that the authorised newsagent undertakes three functions:
retailing of newspapers and magazines;
daily early morning delivery to households and business premises in its territory in response to standing orders (“home delivery”); and
on-distribution to other retailers in the territory (“sub-agents”), who also enter agreements that define their obligations as sub-agents.
While this structure is the norm in all three states, the Rules of NCNSW and NCQ (or their application in practice) allow some flexibility in that certain accredited sellers may be authorised on a more limited basis, not performing all three functions for practical local reasons, or for reasons of long-standing custom. Other rights and obligations of both publishers and authorised newsagents in regard to the sale and distribution of relevant publications are defined by the Rules, including:
the terms on which another publisher can join the Newsagency Council, or a publisher can withdraw from membership; and
the requirements to be met before any authorised newsagency business may be sold, leased, controlled or operated by another party.
Sub-agents are appointed by the authorised newsagent with the consent of, or at the direction of, the publishers to provide a comprehensive retail coverage of the territory, with the intention that newspapers and magazines should in consequence be widely and readily available to consumers. The form and content of their contract of appointment by the newsagent (“Sub-agency Agreement”) is an attachment to the Rules. The authorised newsagent usually conducts sales administration for sub-agents in respect of orders, payment to publishers, and return of unsold copies to the publisher. Sub-agents share with the newsagent the sales commission payable, and customarily the sub-agent receives 12.5 per cent of the cover price of publications sold.
The typical sub-agent is a small retail business for which the owner is willing to supplement the ordinary scope of the business by also selling newspapers (and often magazines). Sub-agents typically operate at such locations within the boundary of the newsagent’s territory, or during such extended opening hours, as will usefully complement the location or opening hours of the authorised newsagent’s shop. The easy availability and sale of newspapers to the public are thereby improved without the publisher being required to deliver to every point of sale. Many sub-agents find that the sale of newspapers, while not especially profitable because of the sharing of commission with the authorised newsagent, attracts customers to their shops and increases sales of other items. A sufficient network of sub-agents in a territory is thought to assure the publisher that sales are maximised, and the authorised newsagency at the centre of the local supply network gains additional income.
It is instructive to examine the practical basis for the distribution systems that take this general form in eastern Australia. The primary considerations in their evolution and continuance have plainly related to the imperatives intrinsic to the distribution of major metropolitan newspapers. The additional use of the systems to distribute magazines has been incidental to this central function.
The newspaper publishers in Victoria showed themselves in the Tribunal’s proceedings in Re 7-Eleven Stores(1994) to be reluctant to contemplate modifying their long established distribution systems, and evidence in this proceeding confirmed their reluctance. As processes for physical delivery of newspapers and for administration of sales and returns, the present arrangements are seen to work reliably and well, to be supportive of economical printing operations, and to be capable of ready and close control. Newspaper publishers understandably consider such factors to be of great commercial importance.
It is characteristic of daily newspapers in a large city that they are printed in very large numbers for urgent delivery to numerous points of sale in metropolitan and other settled areas associated with significant demand. They are displayed for sale to the widest possible body of potential purchasers, and are delivered promptly to customers who have ordered copies. Further, so as to win maximum sales, newspapers are delivered as rapidly as is reasonably practicable for sale in more remote or less accessible locations, where some system of further local distribution may be appropriate. Daily newspapers are a highly perishable product, with most sales made during a short time period, usually only a part of one day. Unsold newspapers are wasted and thus are costly to the publisher, yet it is crucial for the publisher that newspapers be widely available for sale to customers during the peak buying period. Evidence adduced in Re 7-Eleven Stores(1994) was that the average cost of printing and distribution is not uncommonly higher than the cover price less newsagent’s commission, and is sometimes significantly higher, with advertising providing the additional revenue required for profitable publication. Sales can fluctuate from day to day and from location to location in response to many factors. It follows that a newspaper publisher faces a daily conundrum, to print and distribute a sufficient number of newspapers in anticipation of sale, without unacceptably inflating the number of unsold copies.
In this context, home delivery orders are especially important to a newspaper publisher, because they represent secure sales with minimal attendant risk of unsold returns — provided always that home delivery is effected at a time and in a manner that reasonably satisfies customers. The contracts of a newsagent with publishers include strict requirements that newspapers be delivered sufficiently early, and in good order.
The above considerations serve to explain why the distribution systems for newspapers have evolved to the form that is being examined in these proceedings. To the evident satisfaction of the newspaper publishers, the broad architecture of these systems provides for:
knowledgeable ordering by directly supplied retailers bound by contract;
close matching of print runs to predicted demand; and
systematic and reliable distribution, directly by the publisher and secondarily by the authorised newsagent, in good time to satisfy consumer demand.
These imperatives have been considered by the newspaper publishers to justify provisions in the Rules and associated agreements that give them close control, separately and in concert, over their shared distribution system, and indeed allow them to direct the business operations of individual authorised newsagents by way of direct and detailed instructions, or in default by application of the Newsagency Council’s power to exact penalties for non-compliance. Samples of typical publisher instructions to newsagents were filed in evidence.
Close publisher control, actual and potential, is made palatable to newsagents by the protection from competition accorded to their businesses by the Rules. A newsagent’s monopoly in the designated territory is protected — nobody else can make home delivery sales in the territory, nor (with some exceptions as noted below) place orders with the publisher. Sub-agent retailers in each territory operate subject to the newsagent’s control of the supply of product and on shared commission. No authorised newsagent can sell into the territory of another, and publishers are precluded from directly supplying any newsagency-type outlets within the newsagent’s territory that are not authorised.
Look-alike retailers are necessarily supplied as a sub-agent. Proscription of direct supply of newspapers to them is stipulated in Victoria by Rule 11, which says (in part):
“Each publisher, (adopting its own criteria for the purpose) is free to make its own individual commercial judgement concerning the supply of its publications or any of them to any outlet in a territory other than the authorised newsagent but may not in a territory supply to a business clearly identifiable as a newsagency specialising in the sale by retail of a wide range of newspapers and magazines except for railway and airport bookstalls.”
Corresponding provisions exist in the Rules of NCNSW and NCQ.
Thus, while protected from direct competition from near-by businesses of a similar specialised character, the authorised newsagency remains vulnerable under the provisions of the Rules and associated agreements to a publisher supplying newspapers directly and on similar terms to any other retailer that does not so specialise. Although each publisher has the contractual right to supply any of its publications to an outlet that is not a look-alike, historically the publishers have not done so in the case of convenience stores.
4.2 Differences between the States
While the substance of the Newsagency Council Rules is broadly the same in all three States, there are significant differences in detail, which were usefully described in evidence by Mr Dean, the Chairman of ANF. For example, NCNSW arrangements differ in practice from NCV arrangements in some limited respects:
membership of NCNSW includes magazine publishers in addition to newspaper publishers and the newsagents’ association. No magazine publishers are members of NCV;
the administration of NCNSW Rules has resulted in there being “only a handful” of look-alike newsagencies in NSW, many situated in border regions. The number of look-alikes in Victoria is variously estimated in the range of 70 to 100;
in NSW and ACT, sub-agents have a right of appeal against Newsagency Council decisions affecting them; in Victoria they do not;
in the Melbourne CBD, a single territory is shared by eight authorised newsagents competing for retail and delivery business. There is no corresponding scheme in NSW and ACT; and
NSW and ACT Rules (but not the Victorian Rules) provide for a class of seller distinct from the orthodox newsagent. The authorised “news vendor” is defined in terms of a retail location rather than a territory, has no home delivery obligations, and is supplied direct by the publishers. Street sellers and certain country stores operate on this basis.
The Rules of NCQ are more flexible again than those of NCNSW, in that they allow both authorised newsagents and vendors, and also allow alternative permitted ambits for authorised newsagencies. Newsagencies trading only through a retail shop and performing no home delivery are permitted, as are agencies performing home delivery but performing no retail function. The newsagency agreements applying to such newsagents differ correspondingly, although the close publisher control of their operation remains. Sub-agents can be appointed in locations outside a newsagent’s territory where they are not within the territory of another newsagent, as is possible in sparsely populated areas. The flexibility of the NCQ Rules and of their administration was said by Mr Dean to explain why there are very few look-alike newsagencies in Queensland.
Mr Dean also stated in written evidence that:
“…the Rules of the Newsagency Council of Queensland make it less difficult for a prospective purchaser to acquire a newsagency.”
If this is so, the outcome relies on the administration of the Rules rather than their explicit terms, because on their face, the Queensland Rules governing the sale of newsagencies are very similar to the corresponding NCNSW and NCV provisions.
The Tribunal’s reasons in Re 7-Eleven Stores (1994) provide a brief description of the corresponding newspaper distribution practices elsewhere in Australia: (at 42,661)
“Authorizations are also in force for systems in South Australia and Western Australia that are somewhat different, but still involve the appointment by publishers of authorized distribution newsagents. The South Australian system, as amended in 1988, is of interest because it provides for authorized agents who do not operate a retail shop and limit their business to delivery to homes and retailers. In Western Australia, with only one major newspaper publisher, authorised retail agencies are distinguished from delivery agents. Authorized arrangements in Tasmania provide for yet another variant: there is no Newsagency Council, and the newspaper publishers separately authorize agents with exclusive territories in the distinct regions of the state where each newspaper is primarily distributed.
Publishers of newspapers in Darwin and Canberra adopt distribution arrangements that do not rely on authorization under the Act. The Tribunal heard detailed evidence about a distribution alternative recently introduced by the ‘Canberra Times’, under which individual customers in Canberra and Queanbeyan can purchase subscriptions at advantageous prices. The ‘Canberra Times’ manages a sophisticated system of direct home delivery of the newspaper to these subscribers, by-passing and competing with the parallel home delivery arrangements offered by newsagents operating in Canberra under the authorized New South Wales system.”
4.3 Impacts on the conduct of other retailers
The authorised conduct, by selecting authorised newsagents to have a preferred commercial position in the distribution of newspapers and relevant magazines in designated territories, excludes other retailers who might also wish to sell newspapers and magazines directly supplied by the publishers, and subordinates each of them to the role of a sub-agent to an authorised newsagent. Exceptions may occur at the commercial discretion of the publisher when the retailer is not a look-alike newsagency, as already noted.
The applicants in these proceedings each represent groups of sub-agents that are not typical of the traditional sub-agent, and that are dissatisfied with the system’s effect on their retail operations.
Of the applicants, the grievance of the look-alike newsagency is the more immediate and severe. Sales of newspapers and magazines typically contribute much of the sales revenue of a look-alike newsagency, so that it is especially significant that the supply of these product lines should be organised and controlled by another near-by newsagency, who will ordinarily compete directly at retail within the same community, and who will also share the commission income derived from sales of publications by the look-alike. For the convenience stores, sales of newspapers and magazines represent perhaps four per cent to six per cent of their total sales revenue, so that for them the supply arrangements for newspapers and magazines are less fundamental to their viability.
As described in Re 7-Eleven Stores(1994), the look-alike newsagency emerged as a consequence of shifting patterns of retail demand, notably in respect to the decline of suburban retail shopping streets in favour of self-contained shopping malls with convenient car parking. For example, a traditional authorised newsagent, located in an established local shopping street, might not have responded farsightedly to the commercial opportunity of the new shopping mall in its territory – either by moving its retail business there or by setting up a branch newsagency outlet. Nor might the relevant Newsagency Council have paid early regard to the new patterns in retailing and sought to accommodate them. In the upshot, a new retail outlet with all the appearances of being a newsagency might be set up in the shopping mall by another party, selling in that more attractive milieu as a sub-agent, without contractual obligations for home delivery or for on-supply to other sub-agents. Such look-alikes have often succeeded commercially, despite their sharing sales commission with their supplying newsagency – indeed the Tribunal heard evidence of look-alike newsagencies that now sell more newspapers at retail than the authorised newsagencies supplying them. Nevertheless, the look-alike newsagency is far from common in the scheme of things. There are perhaps 100 in total, predominantly in Victoria with only a few in NSW, ACT and Queensland, as against more than 3,400 authorised newsagencies and more than 13,000 sub-agencies.
The Decision
THE TRIBUNAL DETERMINES THAT:
Authorisations numbered A 90368, A 15421, A 15422, A 15423, A 15425, A 15426, A 15605, A 30092, A 30093, A 2061, A 2064, and A 2089 be revoked.
Further authorisations be granted in substitution of the authorisations hereby revoked, as follows:
(a)until 1 July 1999 in all respects to the arrangements hitherto authorised.
(b)until 1 February 2000 in respect of the arrangements hitherto authorised, except
(i)in respect of the distribution of magazines
(ii)in respect of any prohibition or restriction on publishers or any of them from supplying all or any of their publications to any outlet other than the authorised newsagent in a territory designated under the Rules of the relevant Newsagency Council.
(c)until 1 February 2001 in respect of the home delivery of newspapers.
I certify that this and the preceding eighty-one (81) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Decision of the Australian Competition Tribunal
Associate:
Dated:
Solicitors for 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd : Slater & Gordon
(first applicant)
Counsel for 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd : Mr N Styant-Browne with
Ms M Foley
Agent for Independent Newsagents Association : Ms J Schieron
(second applicant)
Counsel for Independent Newsagents Association : Mr N Styant-Browne with
Ms M Foley
Solicitors for Australasian Association of : Cornwall Stodart
Convenience Stores Inc.
(third applicant)
Counsel for Australasian Association of : Mr R J Weber
Convenience Stores Inc.
Counsel for Australian Competition and Consumer : Mr S J Rushton with
Commission Ms M Painter
Solicitors for Australian Newsagents’ Federation : Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Limited
Counsel for Australian Newsagents’ Federation : Mr C C Hodgekiss
Limited
Solicitors for Australian Consolidated Press : Gilbert & Tobin
Limited and ACP Publishing Pty Ltd
Counsel for Australian Consolidated Press : Mr K Andronos
Limited and ACP Publishing Pty Ltd
2