Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 June 2011:

With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 156 (Senate Hansard, 8 February 2011, p. 137) relating to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and Mr Brooke Groombridge:

(1)   In regard to the answer to paragraph (3) and generally: did the ACCC advise Giant Bicycle Company Pty Ltd that it decided not to pursue the matter in response to its receipt of the AMAT Materials Engineering Pty Ltd report; if so:

  (a)   when was the Giant Bicycle Company Pty Ltd advised by the ACCC; and

  (b)   when was the AMAT Materials Engineering Pty Ltd report received.

(2)   In regard to the answer to paragraph (8):

  (a)   who authored:

     (i)   the letter dated 29 November 2005 to Giant Bicycle Company Pty Ltd, and

     (ii)   the draft letter dated 13 December 2005 for the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer (Mr Pearce);

  (b)   which area in the ACCC deals with the functional responsibility of product safety policy and how many people work in this area; and

  (c)   given the change in the terminology in the two letters referred to above, not to include the word 'seriousness' in the second letter, can the Treasurer advise if:

     (i)   any available information had changed; and if so, what was it, and

     (ii)   a change in professional assessment was undertaken; if so, by whom and on what basis.

(3)   What documentary evidence, if any, did the ACCC have in its possession to 'establish' the reason for the bike component failure.

(4)   In regard to the answer to paragraph (12), does the ACCC acknowledge that it has no basis for describing the bicycle examiners as 'bicycle specialists'.

(5)   In regard to the answer to paragraph (13), was the ACCC unaware that the bicycle examiners were both authorised Giant Bicycle Company Pty Ltd dealers, and does the ACCC consider such a relationship disqualifies the examiners from being considered 'independent'.

(6)   In regard to the answer to paragraph (18):

  (a)   are the ACCC's Melbourne office staff who dealt with Mr Groombridge's complaint the ACCC's representatives on the Standards Australia Technical Committee for pedal bicycles; if so, do each of the staff hold technical qualifications, and in each case what are those qualifications;

  (b)   were the staff referred to fully acquainted with the preface of AS/NZS1927 (1998); and

  (c)   were any ACCC staff who were representatives on the Standards Australia Technical Committee for pedal bicycles consulted about the assessment of the HRL Technology Pty Ltd Compliance Assessment Report; if so, when.

(7)   In regard to the answer to paragraph (19), can the ACCC provide examples where it alleges Mr Groombridge has selectively quoted and misled; if so, can examples be provided.