The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission last week cracked down on 750 contracts which prevented smaller competitors from setting up shop near Coles and Woolworths. (Torsten Blackwood/AFP/Getty Images)
It has publicly rebuked the Retailers Association for questioning why 20 per cent of anti-competitive rental agreements have been allowed to continue.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) last week cracked down on 750 contracts which prevented smaller competitors from setting up shop near the two grocery giants.
It announced the restrictive clauses in 80 per cent of those contracts would be made invalid as of last week, in agreement with Coles and Woolworths.
But the remaining 20 per cent - leases signed less than five years ago - will remain in place and be phased out within the next five years.
The Retailers Association's executive director Scott Driscoll sent a memo to its members on Tuesday criticising the consumer regulator for not stamping out all unfair leases.
"Are these leases identified as locations that are strategic to Coles and Woolworths as to have such provisions in these supermarket leases between the duopoly and shopping centre owners that prevent leases being offered to competitors still remain effective for five years?" he asked.
The minister's office has taken offence at the inference.
"This is an adverse and unwarranted reflection on the ACCC," a statement from Consumer Affairs Minister Craig Emerson's office read on Wednesday.
"As spokesperson for a registered organisation, (Mr Driscoll) has some responsibility to The Retailers Association and its subscribers to familiarise himself with the facts and not misrepresent them publicly."
A spokesman from Dr Emerson's office said the comments suggested impropriety and were not acceptable.
Mr Driscoll was incorrect to suggest the remaining leases would be kept in place for five years, when in fact, they would be phased out over five years, he said.
When contacted, Mr Driscoll had not read the public rebuke, but said he was stunned by the minister's comments.
"That's just bizarre," he told AAP.
He stood by his earlier statement and said the government, and the consumer watchdog, should come clean on why the remaining 20 per cent were given special consideration.
"If the minister would like to point out exactly which leases have restrictive covenants remaining and why they have restrictive covenants remaining, I would like to hear it," he said.
