Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to 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.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) Yes, at least in part.

(1) (a) ACCC advised Giant Bicycle Company Pty Ltd that the Melbourne office would not be pursuing the matter in a letter dated 22 December 2005.

(1) (b) The AMAT Materials Engineering Pty Ltd report was received under cover of a letter dated 21 December 2005.

(2) (a) (i) The letter of 29 November was signed by the (Melbourne) Deputy Regional Director, ACCC.

(2) (a) (ii) As the letter dated 13 December 2005 is a draft only and has no particular status, contributors to the drafting process cannot be ascertained with certainty.

(2) (b) The product safety policy function now resides in the Product Safety Branch of the ACCC. Within the Branch, many staff contribute to product safety policy development. A Regulatory Policy Section has also been established in the Branch. That section currently has four staff.

(2) (c) Given that the letter of 13 December 2005 was a draft only (which did not progress to final) and the content had not been settled, comparing expressions used in that draft with the content of the letter of 29 November 2005 does not appear material.

(2) (c) (i) Whether or not available relevant information had changed between 29 November 2005 and 13 December 2005 cannot be ascertained from available records.

(2) (c) (ii) Whether or not further professional assessment of the issues was undertaken between 29 November 2005 and 13 December 2005 cannot be ascertained from available records.

(3) As at 13 December 2005, the ACCC did not hold documentary evidence which established the precise reason for the component failure on Mr Groombridge's six year old bicycle.

(4) The ACCC was advised that the persons who examined Mr Groombridge's bicycle were specialist bicycle retailers with some years of experience in the bicycle industry.

(5) Bicycle retailers are often authorised resellers of a range of bicycle brands. The ACCC had no reason to question the merits of the examiners' opinions.

(6) (a) No.

(6) (b) The staff concerned no longer work for the ACCC. Their familiarity or otherwise with the preface of AS/NZS 1927 (1998) is not known.

(6) (c) Yes. While the timing of that consultation cannot be accurately ascertained from available records, it most likely first occurred around the time the HRL Reports were first received in November 2005.

(7) In his letter to the ACCC dated 4 August 2009, Mr Groombridge quoted approximately 30 extracts from ACCC correspondence and materials spanning a number of years. All such selective quotes have the potential to be misleading to persons unfamiliar with the full context.