Governments – particularly state governments – have long been captive to two very powerful lobbies:  the small retail business operators, and the owners and operators of the traditional taxi business.

There is a long history of powerful incumbents using their muscle to retain their economic position. In the late 1900s, the horse-and-buggy lobby in Britain famously won legislative support for the Locomotive Act (known as Red Flag Rule)  requiring self-propelled vehicles to be led by a pedestrian waving a red flag or carrying a lantern to warn bystanders of the vehicle's approach.

However, it is technology that will ultimately force governments to abandon restrictive retail hours as customers increasingly shop online. Indeed, all sensible retail businesses offer online goods and services that are accessed at the customer's convenience – be it within traditional shopping hours or at 2am on a Sunday morning.

Trying to arrest that tide is futile.

Having said that, in preceding decades the limits on retail trading hours have been whittled down. But it shouldn't take another decade to get rid of them entirely.

It is no surprise that Harper's team set aside the taxis for special mention – because it is one of those industries that time forgot. Thus it is ripe for disruption.

As the Harper report notes, it is the access to digital information that was the crucial enabler of the Uber and other taxi and ride-sharing services.

Consumers have taken to Uber's more traditional taxi-like service but state governments have not given the green light to the more controversial and the potentially more revolutionary UberX ride-sharing service.

Despite Harper's recommendations to allow such ride sharing (as long as strict safety requirements are met) there is a sense already that states will insist on conducting another review rather than finding the appropriate way to allow these entrants properly supervised access into the market.

The report notes on ride sharing, "such innovative solutions to information problems in markets can pose challenges for regulators. Where regulation is inflexible, it may prevent markets from responding to innovative service offers that do not fit neatly within existing regulated categories. Regulation must be reviewed regularly to ensure that it is still required and not inhibiting the emergence of new service offerings".

It was not Harper's job to deal with the potential fallout from incumbent industries whose competitive positive position has been protected by arcane laws and regulations.

His remit was to look at promoting competition and thus providing a better outcome for consumers – and lower prices and better service.

The fact that governments had been issuing expensive taxi licences for years that are now depreciating in value on the back of the inevitable rush of technology-enabled competition, is sufficient reason to retard the progress of new entrants.

While it is fair to sympathise with taxi licence owners that bought these highly limited licences from state governments (or other existing holders) for hundreds of thousands of dollars, the reality is that in many cases consumers received poor service and a fairly expensive ride.

This restriction on the quantity of taxis has the effect of limiting responsiveness to consumer demand, according to the report.

Harper quotes the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal's  finding, which estimates that in New South Wales 15 to 20 per cent of the taxi fare arises as a result of restrictions on the number of licences and notes that the passengers who stand to benefit from reform include a significant number of lower-income earners.

Indeed, there have been recommendations from a variety of independent bodies concerned with the competitive problems enshrined in the current laws around the taxi industry. And it is no surprise that the Uber-type interlopers are sceptical about whether the Harper review will be enough to force action from the states,

Like the taxi industry, retail trading hours have been the subject of reviews from numerous bodies – including the National Competition Council and the Productivity Commission.

Those cited by the Harper review all recommended deregulation of trading hours. One of the state deregulation laggards is Queensland. Its own competition body concluded the benefit of removing the current restrictions was as much as $200 million a year, and noted  the "potential benefits of the reform include an increase in retail productivity, more shopping convenience for the broader community and lower prices".

While there will be plenty of pushback, particularly from some smaller retailers who said it was costly and unprofitable to open longer hours, the Harper review had a different view.

It said: "Restrictions on retail trading hours impede suppliers' ability to meet consumer demand. They can discriminate among retailers on the basis of factors such as products sold, or retailer size or location. They can also impose costs on consumers by creating inconvenience and congestion. The rules can be complex and confusing and create compliance costs for businesses."