NZ Herald

Auckland bus passengers are assured of 2 years of industrial peace after drivers agreed yesterday to end a long and bitter pay dispute.

About 600 NZ Bus drivers and cleaners voted by an 80 per cent majority to accept a company offer amounting to a 20c hourly pay rise in three instalments. That will lift the top hourly rate for drivers with at least nine months service to $17.45 now, $18.15 next year and $18.75 in February 2012.

The deal includes a minimum of $560 in backpay dated from July 5 and a $500 contribution from the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to wages lost when NZ Bus locked out 875 workers and suspended all its services for seven days last month.

Although the pay rises are the same as offered in a package rejected by 55 per cent of drivers at a rowdy and emotional meeting three weeks ago, union negotiators welcoming a softening of "clawbacks" sought by Infratil subsidiary, which provides 70 per cent of Auckland bus services.

Auckland Tramways Union president Gary Froggatt said the company dropped its demand to be able to review the jobs of drivers absent because of incapacity for more than two months, and had reverted to an existing three-month threshold. It also agreed to add just 24 hours to an existing 48-hour time limit for submitting complaints to drivers, which was half of what it sought earlier.

The deal retains a new weight limit of 115kg for driver recruits but the unions say that is outside their control as a pre-employment requirement, even though Auckland University of Technology nutrition and obesity expert Professor Elaine Rush believes it will discriminate against Polynesians, with higher average weights than other ethnic groups.

Drivers spoken to outside a Tramways Union meeting at Alexandra Park were generally pleased to have settled up before Christmas, given the added financial strain the festive season puts on families, but one said he believed they should have held out for more money. He believed the length of an agreement locking drivers into what he still considered to be low wages would make the company an attractive sale proposition.

Mr Froggatt acknowledged a general suspicion that Infratil may be grooming NZ Bus for sale, but said that gave the drivers no great concern as they had lost confidence in the company. He said that although hourly pay rates were now higher than that of other Auckland bus company, NZ Bus drivers received just time and a quarter for overtime hours and were determined to fight for time and a half after the new agreement expired.

Company operations general manager Zane Fulljames said NZ Bus was confident it had secured an agreement that would meet the needs "of our customers, our people and the business" and looked forward to rebuilding long-term relations with the four bus unions is it reshaped its operation. "This agreement allows us the stability and certainty to move forward with confidence into the Rugby World Cup 2011 and beyond," he said.

Regional transport authority chief executive Fergus Gammie also welcomed the return of stability for bus passengers.

Mike Lee sounds weary. He, along with bus drivers and 80,000 Auckland commuters, is winding down from a long, tough week.

The Auckland Regional Council chairman has already made strong comments about home-grown infrastructure company Infratil, the successful group of investors behind the standstill of much of Auckland's bus system, and he's not finished.

Infratil invests in airports and energy offshore and public transport at home, running buses in Auckland and Wellington through subsidiary company NZ Bus.

On day five of the lockout of the bus drivers, Lee threatened to sack NZ Bus for not fulfilling route contracts, only to find this was not so easy.

The process is more drawn-out than he anticipated.

Lee sounds mystified about the tactics of the "reckless", "clumsy" and "ruthless" men in striped suits who are behind Infratil, the ones really calling the shots over required profit margins and future vision.

Though the buses are back on the street, for now, he says the seven-day lockout, which disrupted life for so many school students and workers, has taken other tolls.

He estimates the region will lose nearly a million passengers from the annual scoresheet, vital statistics which are needed to justify extra investment in public transport.

There's another big impact, too. When you have a dispute such as this, people go away from public transport.

"It's enormously disruptive but they do find alternatives and if they're going back to their cars then, you know, you've got to try to get them back out of their cars.

"There will be a lasting impact."

Lee hesitates at the next question. He's somewhat at a loss, he admits tiredly. He's not quite sure how to fix this problem of ensuring buses stay operating despite employment disputes.

Though this dispute between NZ Bus and its drivers is patched for now, it is only a plaster and could erupt again.

To be honest, Lee says, he has other important things to be doing, such as getting ready for the looming Super City instead of figuring out disputes involving buses.

So when he is asked how he plans to stop such massive disruption again in the future, he is thrown for a minute. "I would much prefer we didn't have this going on but, however, you ask a valid question. What is going to be done about it? "We need to sit down with Arta (the ARC's transport co-ordinating agency) and discuss that very point and resolve on a plan of action, a contingency plan. We can't hand over a mess to the Super City," he says.

Lee says he has been quite shocked at the hardline tactics of Infratil/NZ Bus. The drivers wanted to work to rule while their pay claim was on the table but the bosses locked them out - and, in doing so, locked out Aucklanders. Infratil/NZ Bus have taken such a militant approach, he says, he thinks they have done serious damage to their reputation.

Lee describes the Infratil directors as "guys with Beatle haircuts and striped suits" and "cheery chappies". "You know, if you meet them you're thinking you're dealing with Herman's Hermits, but actually these guys are ruthless operators."

Ratepayers and taxpayers spend around $94 million in subsidies for buses every year - and $58 million of this goes to NZ Bus.

Given the large public subsidies, we asked Infratil CEO Marko Bogoievski whether his organisation cares about bus drivers and Aucklanders.

Bogoievski explains Infratil is a huge investor in both New Zealand and overseas and has been for 20 years. The company's intention is to grow businesses and for them to flourish. He doesn't see how improving and upgrading bus fleets, rebranding buses and schedules, training bus drivers and introducing technology is anything other than a positive for Aucklanders.

He says he understands the havoc the dispute has caused Aucklanders and says this was not an outcome anyone wanted to see, "so obviously you're in the middle of a dispute and it's a live conversation, we're trying to get it resolved".

What about the perception that Infratil directors are ruthless, cold and hard-nosed?

He replies: "We've been around for a long time and we've earned every bit of our positive reputation as a high-quality investor, so the proof's in that really." Infratil is trying to get the best situation in Auckland too, he says. Employees, shareholders and customers of all their services are important parts of the overall equation but they're looking long-term, not just at whether buses run next week.

They have to manage the overall cost of delivering public transport services in the long run, he says.

Every time there is a tender from a local transport authority to run a major bus or public transport service, tenders are given to the lowest-priced operator.

In the process, service levels and the amount of compensation are determined - there is no free lunch for anyone.

He says if you end up increasing cost structures in the medium term, you end up increasing public subsidies for public transport, but that is a policy issue for planning agencies like Arta. Bogoievski also says he believes the bus drivers are quite well compensated relative to their peers.

"The average wage of a driver, if they were to accept our proposal, would be higher than the average wage of a New Zealander."

One of the accusations against Infratil is that they have been lobbying the Government to repeal parts of the new Public Transport Management Act, which would require them, as a commercial operation, to open their books regarding the public subsidies.

Bogoievski says the problem with the Act is that local authorities want to control every aspect of public transport, including confiscating commercial routes that NZ Bus and other operators have been investing in for a long time.

Infratil's preferred model is to let private provision of these services reduce the need for subsidies, "so in effect, Infratil's leading the charge, through NZ Bus, to try to manage the overall cost of public transport to Auckland ratepayers".

Bogoievski says the Infratil directors are not mean people, "no, I think we're pretty average blokes who are just trying to continue investing in New Zealand and we hope we can".

The company stands by its achievements, he says.

"I know it's provocative to refer to merchant bankers sitting in Wellington, but come down and have a look, have a cup of tea with us, we don't look anything like that."

Part of the problem with buses is division over the extent to which public transport should be publicly controlled and run, or whether private operations are best.

For Infratil, obviously private operators must have a big say in how they run.

Others, such as New Zealand urban researcher Dr Jago Dodson, say local authorities have far too little control.

The Brisbane-based Griffith University research fellow warns strongly against any watering-down of the Public Transport Management Act, saying we are already seeing Infratil starting to test its strength in the current dispute with the bus drivers.

Transport Minister Steven Joyce says he is certainly taking a look at the Act because of concerns from NZ Bus and other operators about the ability of councils to contract over the top of commercial services where they are operating successfully and don't require a subsidy.

He doesn't cosy up to anyone, he adds, pointing out that though he has talked to NZ Bus, he's probably talked "way more times" to Lee, "but no one accuses me of cosying up to Mike".

For Lee, the end is not in sight. Joyce has announced a new Auckland Transport Agency which will operate under the Super City, replacing existing Auckland transport entities.

Lee says though the river of public money will flow - "$160,000 a day into Infratil once normal services are resumed" - public control and accountability over it will be weakened by the Minister's new transport authority.

"So when there's another lockout in the Super City, people will ask the Super Mayor what's going on and the Super Mayor will probably have even less power than I do now to get it sorted."

SERVICE CHARGE

The contracting of services for bus routes is a complicated business and though many routes qualify for subsidies, others don't. Ratepayers and taxpayers pay around $94 million in subsidies for buses each year.

Around 26 per cent are commercially run, so don't get a subsidy, but even these will often get a concessionary fare top-up. The bulk of the services - 74 per cent of which are contracted services - are paid for through subsidies.

Even many of the main routes, including the Link bus, and main arterial corridors such as Dominion, Eden and Sandringham Roads, have parts of the service provided through subsidies.

Arta says without the subsidy the number of weekday peak period services offered along Dominion Rd, for example, would be significantly reduced and services after 9pm may not be provided.

Auckland ferry company Fullers is assuring its thousands of passengers and 174 staff that service levels and fare concessions will not be cut under new ownership.

That includes free travel on NZ Bus services throughout mainland Auckland for holders of monthly passes for the Waiheke ferries, Fullers chief executive Douglas Hudson said.

His assurance followed an announcement yesterday by Infratil - which also owns NZ Bus - that it had sold the 11-ferry Fullers operation for $40 million to Souter Holdings, the private investment arm of Scotsman Brian Souter. Mr Souter was also chief executive of multinational public transport operator Stagecoach, which sold its New Zealand bus and ferry operations in 2005 to Infratil for $250 million.

Since that sale, he had returned to New Zealand to buy Howick and Eastern bus company in Auckland and a 74 per cent stake in Mana Coachlines in Wellington.

His New Zealand-based executive chairman Bill Rae said there would be no retrenchments or restructuring of the Fullers operation and his firm had full confidence in the management.

Campaign for Fairer Ferry Fares spokeswoman Cathy Urquhart, whose group was continuing to push for a reversal of fare rises imposed last year on the Waiheke Island runs, said she feared having to deal with yet another tier of decision-makers and wondered about the future of the free bus travel for monthly ferry ticket holders.

Infratil's sale of Fullers ferries is part of a retreat from underperforming businesses to repay debt.

The infrastructure investor yesterday announced that subsidiary NZ Bus is selling its interest in Fullers for $40 million to Souter Holdings, majority owned by Stagecoach co-founder Brian Souter. Infratil will retain its NZ Bus operations in Wellington, Hutt Valley, Auckland and Whangarei.

Infratil says the deal was part of a programme of divestments which would realise more than $100 million in this financial year. The money would be used to repay debt of about $1.2 billion including infrastructure bonds, perpetual bonds and bank debt. Infratil executive Tim Brown said the $100 million also included exercising the right to sell Lubeck Airport in Germany, worth about $60 million, and the sale of some bus depot properties in Auckland.

"In this environment we do have to look at recycling some capital and cut back on where you can't see them generating strong returns. The short term for us is going to be debt repayment but in the medium term there are various opportunities."

He would not comment directly on one analyst's suggestion that Infratil's other underperforming European airports could be next but said it was hard to run with a loss on a low-return asset in the current environment. Around 75 per cent of Infratil's investments, including Wellington Airport and TrustPower, were performing well, Brown said. "You have to say to yourself, can you have 25 per cent of the business not generating a return? In this type of environment you can't."

Souter's purchase of Fullers sees Brian Souter back on deck there after four years. In 2005 Stagecoach NZ sold its bus services and ferry business to Infratil for $253 million. Souter Holdings, which operates Howick & Eastern buses in Auckland, also has a 74 per cent ownership of Mana Coachlines in Wellington.

Brown said the Fullers sale signalled the intention of NZ Bus to focus on developing its core bus business. "The bus business is definitely one we like and we're enthusiastic about it."

Fullers' sale price reflected the market. "It wasn't a great price but I think it was a fair price," he said.

Forsyth Barr's head of research, Rob Mercer, said the sale was a signal that in tough conditions assets that were not strategic would be sold. "Their European airports are underperforming and I suspect they'll be looking to liquidate those unless they want to hold on to them long term. "It sets the scene for how they're going to shore up their balance sheet and get themselves in a position to go forward when they can see the light of day."

Infratil shares closed unchanged at $1.47.

Small rural operators lose historic routes in industry shakeup.

Ian Cave has been driving school buses around Reporoa so long, he now picks up the children of children he once delivered to the local primary and college. But after more than 20 years operating his Cave Coachlines bus company in the rural area south of Rotorua, his driving days look set to end.

This week, Mr Cave learned the Ministry of Education had axed his contracts for the school bus routes, which he says will force the closure of his business.

"We've got nothing left," he told the Weekend Herald.

The 46-year-old owns six buses, employs two staff in addition to himself and his wife _ and is not alone in his predicament.

About 60 bus companies around the country are facing severe cuts to their operations after the ministry slashed their school contracts for next year and awarded them to different providers following a tendering process.

Many of the companies affected are small rural operators who Mr Cave said had been "carting the kids to school since the horse and cart days" and were now "wiped out". He and the other operators said the ministry had awarded the majority of new contracts to two big providers, Auckland-based Ritchies Transport and Hamilton-based Go Bus, to the detriment of family businesses.

"They have divided and conquered and blindsided a lot of us," Neil Jamieson of Bethlehem Coachlines in Tauranga said. Mr Jamieson said his company stood to lose between 60 and 70 per cent of its income despite his fleet of 55 buses passing an initial evaluation by the ministry. In identifying the company's suitability as a school bus operator, the ministry had given it a score of 85 points, when the minimum required was 30 points.

Mr Jamieson said he had invested millions of dollars training staff and upgrading vehicles to bring them into line with ministry requirements in the past two years, so he was shocked when the company lost school bus contracts it had operated for up to 22 years. He believed the Bus and Coach Association had exerted influence on the ministry because its president was Craig Worth of Go Bus, and the vice- president was Andrew Ritchie of Ritchies Transport.

But the ministry defended its tendering process, saying it consulted with the transport sector on rules for the tender and ran open workshops.

"These workshops were designed to ensure all providers had access to impartial advice about submitting a tender to the ministry,"
said Anne Jackson, the ministry's deputy secretary of schooling.

She said the Bus and Coach Association had not been represented on the ministry's evaluation committee and an independent observer had overseen the process.

Go Bus and Ritchies also rejected any notion that the association had influenced their success in gaining contracts.

Don Richards, owner of the East Coast's Waipawa Buses which has lost all its 70 school bus contracts, said his fears were for the management of the routes. "It's hard to imagine that a new bus company that doesn't know the area, doesn't know the roads, doesn't know the schools, doesn't know anything locally, is going to manage it." Another rural operator said children who the ministry deemed lived close enough to school to walk, but who lived on main roads with heavy traffic and without footpaths, were also likely to suffer.

"We pick 20 kids up and don't charge them," the operator said.

"That's something we've done for their safety. That's the sort of stuff that doesn't happen with big companies."

Don't you love the strange bedfellows MMP throws together? Any day now, all going to plan, Parliament will pass a bill permitting the control of Auckland's highly subsidised public transport network to return to public hands. And joining Labour and its more natural allies such as the Greens and Maori will be that supporter of free enterprise, the Act Party.

Leader Rodney Hide assures me his planned move is very "pro-market". He says Auckland Regional Council (ARC) chairman Mike Lee had lobbied him, arguing that a party representing consumers and taxpayers had to support such a bill, and after consideration "I said, absolutely".

Mr Hide says what the bill allows "is exactly what you'd want to do if you were looking at spending a $94 million subsidy and looking at getting best value for money, so I was on board".

Not on for the ride is the National Party, which, when in power 15 years ago, forcibly privatised the publicly owned Yellow Bus Company, and, strangest of allies, Winston Peters and his New Zealand First Party.

The Public Transport Management Act won't drive private bus operators from Auckland's commuter bus network. It just gives the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) the power to design an integrated passenger transport network that serves the needs of the passengers and the subsidisers first, rather than the bus company shareholders.

Merchant bankers Infratil, owners of Auckland's biggest bus operator, New Zealand Bus, have been lobbying around Parliament as though Karl Marx was coming up the hill behind them. But the case for the status quo does not stand up to scrutiny.

When Infratil bought the old Stagecoach Bus company in 2005, patronage in the year to June was 43.1 million passenger trips. A year later, the service had shed 900,000 passenger trips. By the year ended June 2007, a further 200,000 passengers had disappeared.

It took a war in Iraq and rocketing fuel prices to reverse this downward trend. In the year to June 2008, passenger numbers bounced back to 2005 levels. In that time though, subsidy payouts soared. When Infratil entered the scene, public handouts to regional bus operators totalled $45 million. Just five years on, the budgeted annual subsidy has more than doubled to $93.1 million.

As ARC chairman Mike Lee wryly noted in a letter to Transport Minister Annette King this year, "It would appear that the private bus companies in Auckland are much more interested in increasing bus subsidies than increasing passenger numbers."

As the law stands, despite these huge subsidies, ARTA cannot inspect operators' books to check whether they are gouging the system. Their need for a subsidy has to be taken on trust.

ARTA has no powers to design a transport network linking buses and rail and ferry services into a rational, user-friendly web. It can't even insist on integrated ticketing. Operators can cherry-pick the profitable routes, calling them "commercial", then stand aside and wait for the public to come to them, cap in hand, offering subsidies if they will graciously fill in the "non-profitable" gaps left unserved after the plums have been plucked.

ARTA and ARC lobbied strongly for the right to introduce a fully contracted system in which ARTA would design a network of services where, for example, subsidised buses didn't compete with subsidised rail services. Regional councils up and down the country backed Auckland's campaign, even though they were not faced with Auckland's problems.

The bill initially offered a compromise which annoyed both sides. Ms King was sympathetic to ARC's case and has enlisted the Greens to introduce the amendment supporting the full contract model. With luck, and Rodney Hide's support, the amendment will be passed tomorrow or Thursday and the bill itself soon after.

The revolution won't occur overnight, more's the pity. First, a new regional public transport plan will have to be drawn up and go through the normal consultation processes. Seeking changes to existing commercial services requires a 12-month transition and existing contracts don't expire until the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010.

The only quandary now is what the National Party might do if it wins the election. With such broad support in Parliament and across Auckland for this bill, leader John Key owes it to voters to signal whether he will throw this act in with the recently passed Regional Amenities Funding Act as bad law he will repeal if he becomes Prime Minister.

Household power bills are set to rise across much of Auckland, in the latest of a string of price hikes by power companies.

In a move that will add between $5 and $6.50 to the average power bill, Mercury Energy will increase central Auckland power bills by 4 per cent on October 1. Customers in Manukau, Papakura and Franklin also face bigger bills, with rises of between 2.5 and 5.7 per cent on top of the average monthly bill of $165.

Mercury Energy said the rise was to cover "general increases in operating costs" including the cost of third-party suppliers. But consumer advocates said the latest round of price increases showed there was too little competition for our power bills.

Meridian Energy and Contact Energy have said they will raise prices by 6 per cent in coming months - an increase of around $10 a month for the average household.

And while energy analyst Molly Melhuish said the latest price hikes were no bigger than expected, there could be worse to come, as the effect of the winter's low lake levels continues trickling through into power bills.

Consumer New Zealand chief executive Sue Chetwin said households missed out on the benefits of competition in the power market. Most of the competition was for commercial and business users, she said. "The companies have this cosy arrangement where they don't really compete for new [household] customers," she said. Ms Chetwin said that since the power sector was deregulated, household power prices had risen while commercial and industrial power users had seen their bills flatline or even go down.

Ms Melhuish said New Zealand's power prices were high relative to the cost of making and distributing the power.

Ms Melhuish said the latest hikes would be too much for some people in Auckland. "It's a huge amount to people who cannot afford even the tiniest increase," she said.

Consumer New Zealand figures show household power bills rose between 7 and 10 per cent in the year to March.

The organisation runs a website where people can find which power company is the cheapest in their area: Powerswitch.

The prevailing Government policy of "internationalisation" presents the idea that New Zealand can develop a robust and growing economy, even if manufacturing companies send the "dirty bits" of their production process overseas. They promote the view that labour cost differences between New Zealand and low-cost countries make the relocation of the "dirty bits" (production) away from New Zealand inevitable, therefore we should focus on keeping the "shiny bits" (design, research and development, marketing and ownership) in New Zealand.

This message is clear in the Advancing Economic Transformation Cabinet paper released last year, which says: "The key challenges arising from international integration are for New Zealand to:

A. Position itself as an attractive location for investment and skills and for those parts of international supply chains that relate to high-value products and activities and that provide the greatest return (eg R&D and design). This includes an imperative to develop more and/or larger internationally successful New Zealand businesses, networks of businesses, and segments of the economy; and

B. Capture the best return through our businesses being part of international value chains offshore (return profits to New Zealand), through developing new business models of operating internationally (such as investing directly in offshore product and distribution chains), rather than transferring valuable activities offshore."

Few would have a problem with the document's objectives and the recommended actions appear deceptively rational. However, they are constructed around a fundamentally flawed concept that "valuable activities" can be separated without penalty. Internationalisation might work in theory, but the message from New Zealand's manufacturing sector is clear that at a practical level this will not work. For global businesses, the interaction between each of their "separate" components has a subtle and pervasive impact on their performance and effectiveness.

It is not only important to get all of the elements of the business system right, but also the interconnections between those elements. Much of the literature on internationalisation simply shows the different elements or activities of the business system. Diagrams show different components of the supply chain - customers, marketing research, development, production, etc - as different blocks. While it is obvious that a global business is not compelled to physically co-locate activities, a superficial analysis can form the view that individual blocks can be separated without penalty or risk. This view underestimates the importance of supporting interconnections between functions.

Good businesses will make decisions about the location of their activities based on suitability for the activity itself and the effectiveness of interconnections with other elements of the system. There will be tradeoffs. A firm may not seek lower labour costs because it is too important that they can produce new products rapidly, suggesting they should have all their functions in the same place. Alternatively, a company may locate R&D closer to its low-cost labour production site or locate product management closer to end markets.

This might compromise the quality of the R&D, but this affect can be outweighed by the importance of the low-cost production, the productive use of multiple time zones or some other component of the competitive landscape. The cost and reliability of the supply is also a critical factor of internationalisation. The disruption to supply chains may be a huge strategic risk, and the greater the international interdependence, the worse the effect of even short-term disruption.

In reality wage costs are a fairly minor component of the overall picture that controls the profitability of manufacturing. It is worth noting that a direct labour content of less than 5 per cent of sales is not unusual in high technology products, and exchange rate fluctuations could have five times the impact of the difference in labour rates. Many factors contribute to a country's international competitiveness so the priority for Government must be to maximise the advantages available in the policy framework. What does this mean for a country like New Zealand?

There is no one-size-fits-all solution regarding the location or value of business activities. What might suit garment manufacturing will not necessarily suit high technology electronics or other complex products. The strategy for each business will be different but there are some common themes for New Zealand, given the country's attributes of isolated geography and small population.

A number of our firms now compete globally at a micro level in small markets or in the post-processing of our "primary" outputs. Policies and assistance need to nurture the creation of entire businesses in these areas, rather than trying to prescribe which bits should be encouraged and which bits should be neglected. Even if some businesses do send production overseas, it would make sense for our policies to maintain a neutral or positive bias towards locally-based production.

Policy settings need to make it more attractive for innovative business to create wealth in New Zealand through personal incentives, company incentives and national infrastructure. Factors such as broadband, transportation networks and tax incentives for productive activity can encourage activity. This comprehensive approach to policy support will promote the retention of as many of the supply chain components as possible, rather than focusing on individual links of the supply chain. The Government must not seek to pick winners or favour particular supply chain activities, as businesses will determine the profitability of their activities themselves.

Effective policy must provide incentives, or at least no disadvantage, for winning behaviour. Investment in research, development, productive activity, skills and capability development and new ventures will all assist in increasing our international competitiveness. Incentives are best delivered through the tax code generally to encourage investment in productive activity rather than in static assets. The support of winning behaviours and monetary policy that secures a stable exchange rate will help mitigate disadvantages of the wage rates. Given such changes, perhaps more companies will keep more of their supply chain in New Zealand.

* John Walley is the chief executive of the Manufacturers and Exporters Association.

Grocery giant Foodstuffs' presence in liquor retailing could get a shot in the arm as it looks to swallow Liquorland.

The co-op, which controls around 56 per cent of the grocery retailing sector, is understood to be one of several parties interested in purchasing the 72 stores of DB Breweries' franchise retail chain. Besides supermarket wine and beer retailing, Foodstuffs also operates the large format liquor store Duffy & Finn's, and the smaller format Henry's.

Success in the Liquorland bid could add fuel to the already intense rivalry with Woolworths.

The Australian-owned supermarket firm is still pursuing Liquor Licensing Authority approval for store-within-store models selling spirits as well as beer and wine - despite being denied a bid to set up in a Christchurch Countdown in what was regarded as a test-case decision.

And success for Foodstuffs could spell trouble for independently owned stores, which cannot compete with the supermarkets' buying power. Large liquor chains have a slight edge in market share, controlling around 53 per cent, to the independents' 47 per cent.

Foodstuffs was not commenting on speculation of the bid, as was DB, citing confidentiality agreements. A DB spokeswoman said the company decided to review the option of selling the Liquorland franchise after several unsolicited expressions of interest. "We're not committed to a sale - we're investigating the possibility. "We just received a bit of interest and like any business, we evaluate opportunities as they arise. "Liquorland is a successful asset for DB Breweries, so while we are looking at the option to sell, we will only consider this if a suitable buyer is identified."

Cranleigh Merchant Bankers was appointed last month to evaluate bids and manage the sale process. Evaluation of a possible sale will take place over the next few months. The spokeswoman said any sale would ensure the future interests of franchisees and staff, and the continuation of the franchise as a whole. A sale would also need to ensure that DB retained "an excellent relationship" with the franchise, retaining placements for DB products within Liquorland outlets, the spokeswoman said.

Foodstuffs and Woolworths have up to 20 days to decide on whether to appeal the court decision blocking any takeover bids for The Warehouse.

Legal experts were surprised at yesterday's Court of Appeal decision, having previously believed the Commerce Commission faced an uphill task overturning the High Court judgement granting the all clear to the two suitors. "These competition issues are difficult, and it's the hard cases that go to court," said Tony Dellow, competition lawyer at Buddle Findlay. To me I always thought that they would get the clearance. We've got to see the reasons I guess but to me, the High Court decision was very factually-based and they're hard to turn over, so I suppose the commission's done well in that sense. That being the case, there must be a fair prospect of an appeal."

The reasoning behind the decision has yet to be made public, as lawyers for Foodstuffs, Woolworths and The Warehouse are still to appear before the court again to be heard on what commercially sensitive information should be deleted from the judgment that is to be made publicly available.

Simpson Grierson senior associate James Craig said the parties also needed to work out if an appeal to the Supreme Court was an option.