Hypocrisy: Costco anti-competitive over Auburn store
It’s no secret that the Australian retail sector is massively monopolised between Coles and Woolworths. I know it, you know it, the Australian government knows it.
When Costco opened in Melbourne it gave those of us who were sick of feeding the duopoly of Coles and Woolworths an alternative. Whilst not quite the bargain store that is offered in the US, Costco Australia has thus far provided a viable alternative that unlike Aldi, doesn’t revolve around no-name home brands.
Now looking to expand its Australian store base Costco is wanting to open up a store in Auburn New South Wales. Not surprisingly the big guns over at Westfield, AMP Capital and the Shopping Centre Council of Australia, who let’s cut the crap and just state are lobbying on behalf of Coles and Woolworths, are now whinging about Costco’s proposal to open up in Sydney.
Not on the merits that they’ll be able to compete or because they’ll haemorrage business to Costco. No, Coles and Woolworths are simply objecting to the fact that a Costco in Auburn will “cause major traffic congestion” around the area, and that due to existing zoning laws building a Costco in Auburn would be illegal. They also claim that any modification to the existing planning laws or exceptions made for Costco would of course be massively anti-competitive to other retailers.
Ladies and Gentlemen welcome to the abysmal state of anti-competitive retailing that currently exists in Australia.
Firstly let’s address the traffic issue. Now if traffic levels increase, as they did when Costco opened up in the Docklands this is because of one reason: People are sick to death of being ripped off blind and are flocking to Costco.
If people are shopping at the new Costco store then they aren’t shopping at Coles or Woolworths and paying stupid money for their groceries. If Coles and Woolworths offered any sense of value and competitiveness then there’d already be traffic jams with people trying to get to their stores.
But no, instead of addressing the issue of charging bullshit prices for things Coles and Woolworths have decided to pretend to give a crap about traffic levels in the surrounding area when half of Sydney rush to escape their price monopoly.
‘Oh noes, our prices are so stupidly high that people will cause traffic jams the second a viable alternative opens up! OMG WE CAN’T LET THIS HAPPEN!’
Then there’s the issue of the planning laws. Current planning laws prohibit the Auburn site to be used as a supermarket or department store. Costco hope to get around these planning laws by defining themselves as a ‘bulk goods retailer’.
Currently no such category exists within NSW planning laws.
I believe due to the fact that they don’t bulk offer higher end goods (whitegoods and such) that the store cannot be classified under the existing ‘bulky goods retailer category’.
Why a bulk goods retailer category doesn’t exist already I have no idea but the category defines Costco to a T, or should that be C. Seriously have you tried walking into a Costco and not buying 99% of the day to day stuff in bulk?! There’s a reason their trolleys are huge and people walk in there spending hundreds without realising it. Everything practically comes in bulk or at the least a small multibuy pack.
This is the very definition of bulk and Westfield’s claim that
the proposed store is in breach of existing state planning laws, is “inappropriate” and that to create any special exemptions would be “anti-competitive” for other retailers.
is a load of utter crap. Anti-competitive for other retailers?! These are the crafty bastards who move into an area, operate at a loss until everyone else closes down and then jack up the prices to unheard of levels.
In 2006 Coles and Woolworth controlled 78% of the Australian grocery market and 25 cents out of ever dollar spent found it’s way into either company’s pockets.
Today both Coles and Woolworths refuse to allow their market shares to be made public, arguing that the information “is commercially sensitive“. This of course is code for our market share is now so ridiculously high there is no way to put a positive spin on it. Better the general public don’t know just how much they are being shafted.
The Victorian government helped establish the Docklands Costco store in Melbourne and that didn’t seem to turn out anti-competitive.
Last year the federal government acknowledged that the Coles and Woolworths duopoly forced “Australians pay more for food“. Not only that but
OECD data (showed) Australians were paying the fastest-rising food prices of any developed nation – up more than 40 per cent this decade.
Official data shows that since 2000, the pace at which food prices have risen has been 15 per cent faster than general costs.
Of course this just shows that the Australian retail market is already so competitive and simply can’t handle Costco and it’s anti-competitive behaviour of not shafting the Australian public.
In response to this alarming statistics Consumer Affairs minister Craig Emerson pledged that “the Government would concentrate on promoting competition“.
If redefining zoning categories to accommodate a new type of bulk retailer is what’s needed to promote competitiveness in the retail market then it should have been done years ago. Costco simply doesn’t fit into Coles and Woolworth’s existing ‘we are the only choice therefore you will pay whatever the hell we charge’ business model, hence the grandstanding over traffic congestion and zoning permits.
Is it anti-competitive to evolve existing planning permit laws to introduce competitiveness directly into the Australian retail sector? Or should we continue with out current duopoly system which sees Australia with some of the highest food prices in the world…
If the government is serious about combating anti-competitiveness then there’s really only one choice to make here.
Related posts that might interest you:



April 7th, 2010 at 9:41 am Elbowgrease(Quote)
I couldn’t agree more bra.
April 7th, 2010 at 11:19 am Leper(Quote)
My local Woolworths supermarket seems to profit quite well from having a near-monopoly on the town’s grocery supply. However, when you drive 15 minutes out of town to another Woolworth’s store, prices on many items magically fall. Why is this? Oh look there’s a Coles and an Aldi here as well.
Aldi also wants to open another store in town here and the residents near the proposed site are complaining. I’m not sure whether Woolworths is actually complaining with them, although it wouldn’t surprise me.
April 7th, 2010 at 11:48 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
The ACCC did some research and concluded exactly the same as you did.
How this is not anti-competitive I have no idea, and good on the ACCC for doing absolutely nothing about it.I guess the government might not be within their rights to dictate a private company’s pricing policy, but it’s pretty clear what’s going on here.
If they can’t force them to be competitive then the government can at least do what it can to actively promote competition by allowing competitors in. It’s long overdue someone told Coles, Woolworths and Westfield where to shove it.
April 7th, 2010 at 3:11 pm me(Quote)
well said Shard- funny how prices are up but what Coles and woolies pay the farmers/producers is way down…
April 7th, 2010 at 9:55 pm phife(Quote)
Westfield did the same in 2004 forcing the closure of the Orange Grove Factory Outlet centre over the same ‘bulk goods zoning’ issues. The factory outlet was just down the road from the Westfield Liverpool monopoly. The local council who approved the site asked the state govt to change the zoning but did nothing.
Information about ‘dealings’ between the Premier and Westfield (who are a major political donator and lobbyist) resulted in an ICAC investigation but alas were all cleared. In the end about 200 jobs were lost in an area which sorely needed employment opportunities.
When the centre finally reopened 4 years later as weekend market, Westfields still put in a complaint despite the new development complying with all the new zoning requirements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Grove_affair
http://www.smh.com.au/national/new-life-for-orange-grove-20090314-8yep.html
April 7th, 2010 at 10:24 pm phife(Quote)
There isn’t a Coles or Woolies within cooee of the proposed site and the traffic excuse is debatable.
The site adjoins Parramatta Rd which is claimed as already heavily congested in the area. The reason being is that motorists were avoiding the toll on the motoway that runs parallel with Parramatta Rd.
The toll has been removed at the same time of the submission, therefore logic would tell you that the bulk of the traffic passing through the area would now remain on the motorway.
April 7th, 2010 at 11:33 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
So Westfield (lobbying on behalf of Coles and Woolworths) have already pulled this crap before to maintain their business interests. Only this time they’re up against more then some local business.
As for the traffic situation and scope of Costco, when it opened in Melbourne we had people from all over Victoria shopping there and even interstate. Costco in Auburn will attract people from all over NSW. Because the store is uniquethere’s a strong demand for it, and due to the lack of Costcos it’s not like Coles/Woolworths where you can just drive over to the next suburb for one.
I have no doubt traffic will explode in the area but is that the reason to stifle competitiveness or merely a symptom of a lack of competitiveness? In which scenario does the public benefit more from. From what I understand it’s an industrial zone so who cares about traffic problems on the weekend?
April 8th, 2010 at 1:36 am JYG(Quote)
As an American living in the Melbourne suburbs for a little over a year now, it sickens me to see how anti-competitive the Australian food retail industry is and I’d dare even say the entire Australian retail industry (with it being dominantly controlled by Woolworths and Wesfarmers).
I was speaking with an Aussie retail area manager in regards to the opening of Costco in Docklands and he suggested the idea that Australians don’t buy in bulk but would rather make several trips to the stores per week for small purchases, and therefore does not see Costco becoming a major threat.
It initially puzzled me as to why anyone would do that. After all, wouldn’t it be less of a hassle if you did your grocery shopping on a weekly basis?
However, after spending some time in this country, I’ve found myself to have broken away from my habit of buying groceries on a weekly basis to buying groceries multiple times over the course of a week. I paid little attention at first but then it became apparent to me. It all came down to spending.
In the states, I could grab an entire shopping cart full and it’d be enough groceries for the week. Here, buying just a hand basket full of food costs me just as much, therefore I only buy what I need immediately. If the absolute need for something arises later in the week, I’ll just make another trip however inconvenient it may be.
Since the opening of the Costco in Docklands, I have shopped there routinely and avoid Woolworths and Coles whenever possible. For Woolworths and Coles to call the opening of Costco anti-competive is indeed a case of “the pot calling the kettle black”.
Meanwhile, the ACCC is far too preoccupied inserting various objects into “certain” bodily orifices. Who elects these guys anyways? Did they round up all the village idiots and collectively called them the ACCC?
April 8th, 2010 at 1:25 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Don’t get me started on the ACCC JYG. My contempt for them goes way back when Telstra was the only viable broadband solution in Australia (cable). Despite blatant anti-competitive behaviour on Telstra’s behalf and widespread condemnation and complaints, all the ACCC did was put out damning reports and carry about their day.
Some things like vegetables and milk I don’t mind shopping for multiple times a week but for staples I’d rather just compile a shopping list over the week and do it in one hit. Coles and Woolworths drag people in with specials, this is their biggest drawcard in keeping people coming back in a few times a week which then results in spur of the moment purchases.
With Costco is just low prices all the time and in bulk, much easier and hassle free. You can shop on your own terms rather then the company’s. I think Australians starting to enjoy this style of shopping culture is one of the biggest things Coles and Woolworths worry about.
It’d force them to adjust their own shopping models which will cost them $$$. Coles did seem to at one point have plans to go down this path by merging Kmart and Coles but I guess Wesfarmers realised the current Australian retail market was an anti-competitive golden goose. So long as they didn’t ruffle Woolworth’s feathers too much they could enjoy a stable slightly smaller but still very profitable slice of the retail pie.
Till they’re forced to change, why bother?
April 10th, 2010 at 12:27 am bushrat(Quote)
Agree with all of the above. All these government “regulators” are just like the barbers cat – all piss and wind!
As long as we let them do it, as long as we do not become forceful and demand alternatives from both the Government and Private sectors, and vote and shop accordingly, we will keep right on getting screwed.
Nothing will change unless we change it, therefore we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
April 15th, 2010 at 1:01 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Suck it Coles, Woolworths and Westfield, Costco is coming to Sydney!
http://www.news.com.au/business/green-light-for-second-australian-costco/story-e6frfm1i-1225853854421
April 16th, 2010 at 10:59 pm Sydneysider(Quote)
YAHOOO!!!
Been waiting!!!
I live in Auburn just 3 minutes walk from the place.
YAY YAY YAY!!!