The Green Acres franchising scam, in which dozens of new migrants from China and India were bilked of millions of dollars, has sparked a government clampdown on the sector.
It comes in the form of a discussion document that outlines the option of regulations that would have severe financial implications and extra costs.
Commerce Minister Lianne Dalziel, who released the Review of Franchise Regulation at the weekend’s Business Opportunities and Franchise Expo in Auckland, said the regulation model already applied in Australia.
"I was actively involved in meeting with franchisees at the beginning of the year who had been caught up in what is an alleged fraud and still subject to investigation by the relevant authorities including the Franchise Association of New Zealand (FANZ).
“I have initiated this review to see whether there are any issues in the franchising sector that make a case for franchise-specific regulation (as they have in Australia, for example), particularly to give more protection to franchisees," she said.
In May, the NBR reported the Green Acres Group – the country’s largest franchiser – had recovered from the $4 million fraud, which involved an individual selling a home ironing franchise to several hundred investors for more than $20,000 each.
"The brand took a big hit but fortunately the fraud broke over Christmas - that gave the mainstream media a lot to talk about but it was also a quiet sales period for us and we could pull senior management back from holidays,” managing director Andrew Chisholm said.
"That allowed us a month to fix the mess, establish the extent of the problem and see what action we should take. We rolled out a rescue package offering investors to come into Green Acres at no charge and run a legitimate ironing business or move into other areas.”
There is no specific legislation relating to franchising in New Zealand, although franchise agreements are subject to a range of generic laws such as contract law and intellectual property law. There is also voluntary self-regulation of the sector through the FANZ, which requires its members to adhere to a Code of Practice and a Code of Ethics.
The association has argued against regulation and in favour of making the codes mandatory.
The discussion paper seeks feedback on regulatory options that include information disclosure requirements, obligations to obtain professional advice, a cooling-off period, mandatory mediation processes, minimum contractual terms and obligations of “good faith” bargaining.
In here speech, Ms Dalziel said, “The key objective of the review, which will be supported by feedback from the sector, is to explore whether there is some form of franchise-specific regulation that could enhance the contractual arrangements that currently exist.
“The particular focus is on whether those entering into franchise agreements have adequate information to make good business decisions, while ensuring that we don't impose unnecessary compliance costs on the sector that are disproportionate to the risks involved.
“The discussion document identifies three aspects of the franchising relationship that may make a case for franchise-specific regulation:
• information imbalance: franchisees need to do their due diligence before entering into a franchise contract, but may not have all the necessary information, or know the right questions to ask, in order to make a well-informed business decision. Should franchisees be required to get independent advice before entering into an agreement or should there be a 'cooling off' period to enable advice to be sought after the fact?
• cost of resolving disputes: there are few options available, particularly to franchisees, to resolve disputes when they arise. Legal processes such as arbitration and litigation can be expensive, and can be damaging to the franchise relationship which relies on cooperation and collaboration. Should there be a requirement for mediation?
• public perception: the public's confidence in the franchising sector may have been damaged following the cases which involve alleged fraud. It is important that there is confidence in the sector so that high quality business men and women are attracted to the sector, allowing it to continue to grow and prosper.”
Comments
Franchise Regulation
Your article 'Franchisers (sic – the term is ‘franchisors’) face prospect of regulation' contains several inaccuracies.
The document released by the Ministry of Economic Development can in no way be called a 'government clampdown on the sector.' It is a discussion document that sets out the issues as the Ministry sees them, the options for dealing with those issues and the implications of each option. As editor of Franchise New Zealand magazine & website and a long-term observer of the franchise sector, in my opinion the document is clear, concise and realistic in its assessments.
The Green Acres situation, while it may have sparked interest in the possibility of regulation, is actually a red herring because it is allegedly a case of out-and-out fraud. Such actions are already illegal and there is no franchise legislation anywhere in the world that would have prevented a criminal act of this type – something recognised by the Minister.
It is wrong to say that the Franchise Association has argued against regulation. After several debates in recent years with no formal position being taken, the Association made a strong statement in February 2008 calling for positive legislation (see http://www.franchise.co.nz/article/view/576). The Association has since worked with the Ministry of Economic Development to develop the discussion document in a practical manner.
The statement about the option of ‘regulations that would have severe financial implications and extra costs’ is unduly alarmist. The discussion document in several places refers to the need not to impose undue compliance costs on the franchise sector. It recognises the dangers of taking a ‘one size fits all’ approach towards franchisors, who operate across all sorts of industries and who are, in many cases, small businesses themselves, and it also recognises the impact that the introduction of badly-devised franchise legislation initially had in Australia, commenting that ‘it is unlikely that the New Zealand sector could afford even a temporary decline, given the size of the sector is considerably smaller than in Australia.’ This is not the language of a Ministry planning a ‘clampdown’ at any cost.
The truth is that the prospect of well-planned and affordable regulation is now welcomed by the majority of good franchisors in New Zealand. In an article on this topic I wrote earlier this year, I quoted Philip Horrocks, franchisor of Provender, who summed it up thus: ‘As a franchisor I was originally totally opposed to legislation. I have changed my mind - good franchisors have more to fear from bad franchisors than they do from sensible regulation. Now is the time for us to be seen to be taking strong action to protect our industry.’ (see http://www.franchise.co.nz/article/view/623)
The one area of concern that I have heard expressed since the document was launched is about introducing the concept of ‘good faith’. This is hard to define and would be up to judges to interpret; the introduction of such a concept into New Zealand law would have implications far beyond just the franchise sector.
Yours sincerely
Simon Lord
Editor, Franchise New Zealand magazine & website
Past Chairman (2003-2005), Franchise Association of New Zealand
TV commercials
If the relevant authority has already identified The Green Acres as a scam, then why aren't they stop them from appearing in TV commercials before more victims fall prey to them? I just saw the TV advertisement only couple of days ago!
Franchise Regulation
At no point has it been suggested that the Green Acres franchise as a whole is a scam, nor does this article suggest that. The alleged fraud relates to the actions of Keith Lapham, one of the company's master franchisees in Auckland, who appears to have been acting independently of the company.
Post new comment