Author: Mark Fletcher

Further to my post on Friday, Mark Hawthorne reports in The Age today the details of what was presented to the committee of creditors at Friday’s meeting.

I received a call yesterday from a newsagent who had not stopped the direct debit arrangement for the Bill Express equipment because of advice from the Australian Newsagents’ Federation. She rang me after reading the advice from the ANF three days ago that newsagents suspend the direct debit arrangement. She was in tears at what she calls at least two months of “lost” payments. As she explained, the two months payments was more than a year of ANF membership fees.

Her story is not uncommon. She went into Bill Express on the advice of the ANF and, in her words, has always done what they told her.

In a business with annual sales of $345,000 and a net profit of under $20,000, the $6,534 a year in Bill Express equipment rental fees for no return will be a huge cost. This is why she was in tears. As she put it to me, had she ignored the advice of the ANF and listened to other newsagents she would have stopped the direct debit earlier and saved, maybe, two months of payments.

My caller told me that when she spoke to the ANF twice about this they were adamant that she should continue to pay for the equipment and that they had legal advice newsagents should do this. She tried called the ANF Friday but could not speak to anyone who knew why they changed position.

My understanding is that the ANF did not receive any different legal advice before it revised the advice it provided newsagents on Thursday to “suspend” direct debit arrangements for the Bill Express equipment. I hope I am wrong and that the Board issued the changed advice based on new legal advice and not political expediency.

While some on the Board will not like this blog post – it is more of the “third party commentary” they criticised on Thursday – the questions I post warrant answers. Did the Board get new advice? If so, what are the details? If not, why did the Board take the u-turn on Thursday and why not sooner? It would appear that the ANF Board has misjudged the mood of their constituency on the Bill Express matter.  The Chairman said most West Australian newsagents were not affected when he spoke to a group of newsagents in Melbourne earlier this week.

I know I should welcome the u-turn by the ANF and focus on next steps. The call I received yesterday does not permit that. While I get calls about Bill Express daily, yesterday’s was highly emotional. The cost could lead to the owner shutting the business and walking away such is her trauma of the financial situation and being let down. I felt helpless in listening to her situation.

I have told people at the ANF and at VANA of these calls.  Others have told them too.  Many newsagents cannot afford to have to pay for equipment from which they can achieve no return.  They feel let down for having been told that Bill Express by organisations they trust only to find that those organisations had not done their homework.

Hopefully the ANF will better explain its advice this week and ensure that its staff are well equipped to explain this to callers. Newsagents need certainty. They also need to know that their national association has empathy for their position.

What has happened to newsagents over the last few months with Bill Express is a crime. Newsagents need to see justice pursued by ASIC, the ACCC, the Administrator and any other avenue so that the closure which is important to victims of crime can be achieved.

I participated in a meeting organised by the Administrators of Bill Express this morning.  Newsagents who have registered as creditors should receive a report from the Administrators in the mail next week.  This will detail progress to date.  Confidentiality precludes me from publishing anything discussed at the meeting.

The Australian Newsagents’ Federation today did a u-turn in advising newsagents to suspend direct debit authorities for the Bill Express equipment. They also said that their goal is the dissolution of the equipment rental agreements and that the present ANF Board had been placed in a complicated situation.

Today’s communication matches what I put to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman when I met with them, at their request, at the VANA offices on Tuesday this week. I explained the flaw in their approach to then of trying to negotiate a deal with Mobius on a discount on the equipment rental agreement. I was pleased to see the ANF u-turn. However, I suspect that my advice to them on Tuesday was not the first time this advice had been given to them.

It is important the ANF now disclose what they are doing to seek the dissolution of the Bill Express equipment agreements given that up to Tuesday, nothing was being done or had been done on this. Until then, their focus had been on negotiating a discount on the amount newsagents owe.

The ANF today also said:

We are also deeply concerned that there is third party commentary and we see this as serving no ones interests. This continues to fragment our industry.

Given the performance of the ANF, third party commentary such as my posts here and the comments of others serves newsagents well. If newsagents had relied only on the ANF then many would have paid one or two months of direct debit payments and the ANF probably would not have changed its position as announced today.  Sure I am critical of the ANF from time to time. They could take this as an indication that I think the organisation has an opportunity to be relevant.

Debate is healthy. It does not fragment the newsagency industry.

Click here to download a copy of the proof of debt form newsagent can complete to register as a creditor of OnQ. OnQ is the company which committed to paying a monthly rebate to newsagents. I have lodged a form for rebates not paid this year. Once you have completed the form, keep a copy and post the original to Worrells, GPO Box 1834, Melbourne 3000.

While there is no money in OnQ and therefore no apparent chance of getting the rebates repaid, newsagents shold still register as a creditor. I have claimed $1,050 for each of my newsagencies – rebates payable as per contract.

Based on ANF advice to newsagents, the organisation appears to be collectively bargaining on behalf of newsagents with Allco and Mobius in pursuit of a discounted settlement over newsagent’s Bill Express equipment rental agreement.

I cannot find authorisation from the ACCC on their Collective bargaining notifications register for the ANF to act on behalf of newsagents on this Mobius issue. Nor has the ANF sought permission from newsagents on this.

Newsagents may wish to email the ANF asking that they not represent them in discussions with Mobius and Allco. Emails could be sent to: reception@anf.net.au.

The ANF would be well advised to compare the number of newsagents registered with its legal strategy compared to those registered with the Class Action which was started by an independent group of NSW newsagents.  I expect that the numbers will show newsagents want the Bill Express equipment agreement challenged before there is any consideration given to negotiating a settlement.