The Commission this week released a much-anticipated report into PIRs which concluded that the federal government should repeal these restrictions for books, despite acknowledging that “the Australian printing industry would likely contract without the PIRs”.
The 240-page report included a chapter on the impact lifting PIRs would have on the printing industry, admitting that “PIRs have created more demand for Australian printing, particularly as a result of the 30 day rule”.
“In the absence of the PIRs, publishers (and printers) would generally need to make adjustments, with some finding new efficiencies that would at least partly compensate them for the greater degree of competitive pressure,” the report states.
The report goes on to say that the benefits of PIRs for local industry “are largely paid for by Australian consumers of books through higher prices and restricted access to better value editions of the titles they wish to purchase”.
Printing Industries has condemned this conclusion, claiming that lifting PIRs will “open the flood gates into the book market, putting at risk hundreds of jobs in book printing across Australia and severely affecting employment prospects in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales”.
“The fact that the Productivity Commission has made such a recommendation not only shows its total disconnection from the real world, but also a disconnection from its own inquiry process as the vast majority of submissions supported the retention of the existing arrangements,” said Printing Industries chief executive Philip Andersen (pictured).
Indeed, the report cites submissions from Printing Industries which claimed that as much as $80 million worth of business would be lost to the printing and associated industries.
“Based on industry feedback, Printing Industries projections point to the loss of [a] significant number of jobs in regional centres, with the impact not just limited to book printing, but also associated industries such as paper manufacturers and suppliers, inks and other consumable suppliers, pre press companies, post press companies such as book binders and local transport companies are all expected to experience reduced activity”, the report states.
Submissions from several printers echoed these concerns, with Griffin Press claiming they could “cease to be viable” if PIRs are lifted. In another submission, Ligare estimated 26 per cent of its revenue could be “wiped out within 12 months”.
However, the report then adds that “the PIRs were not designed to operate as a regional support mechanism, and dedicated, targeted policy instruments would be more effective and efficient”.
Printing Industries also rejects the report’s claim that consumers would benefit through falling book prices as a result of lifting PIRs.
“The only English-speaking nation that has introduced an open market is New Zealand and book prices did not fall there,” said national manager for policy and government affairs Hagop Tchamkertenian. “Instead, fewer New Zealand books were published relative to the trend in other English-speaking countries and publishers rolled back their infrastructure in New Zealand.”
“If implemented the Commission’s recommendations would represent a mindless destruction of a thriving, creative industry without a skerrick of evidence of any offsetting national benefits.”
The printing industry association said it will now lobby the prime minister and his government to ignore the recommendations.
Comment below to have your say on this story.
If you have a news story or tip-off, get in touch at editorial@sprinter.com.au.
Sign up to the Sprinter newsletter
