Harvey Norman has commented publicly about the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission today in relation to its investigation concerning possible bait advertising by Harvey Norman.
"According to Harvey Norman it has refused to 'roll over' in regard to ACCC 'demands' ", ACCC Chairman, Professor Allan Fels, said today. "The ACCC has made no demands of Harvey Norman other than that it supply information in regard to consumer complaints and other information obtained by the ACCC about possible bait advertising.
"The ACCC rejects any suggestion of victimisation of Harvey Norman when it is merely carrying out its duty under an Act of Parliament. No company, including Harvey Norman, stands above the law. Moreover when the ACCC exercises its powers there is a right of appeal which Harvey Norman has been exercising and the ACCC is content to await the outcome".
"The ACCC, after receiving complaints and checking for itself that there could well be a basis for them, sought answers to questions that would enable it to decide whether any breach of the bait advertising provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 might have occurred. Harvey Norman declined to answer inquiries made by the ACCC of it. The company also declined to allow ACCC staff to speak to its franchisees. The ACCC accordingly used the powers conferred on it by Parliament under the Act to require the provision of information from the company and its franchisees.
"Harvey Norman launched a challenge in the Federal Court of Australia about this exercise of investigatory power to examine company staff. The company has now stated in court that it is seeking to discontinue that challenge. The parties are awaiting a decision by the court on issues associated with this matter. The ACCC is loath to get caught up in a public discussion before the court decision but will comment after the decision. In the meantime the examinations have now been able to take place.
"The ACCC's job is to apply the law without fear or favour for everyone no matter how powerful and no matter what pressures they may apply by public comment and political lobbying or commercial and legal resistance. In so doing the ACCC acts for the benefit of consumers and business customers, including small business customers. As well the ACCC's actions protects competitors who may suffer detriment from unlawful conduct by their competitors. The ACCC wishes to make it clear that at this stage it has not reached any conclusion that Harvey Norman has breached the law. It has reached the conclusion that it should investigate the matter. When a company resists an investigation the Act provides that the ACCC may use its statutory powers to require the provision of information providing that in the words of the Act it has 'reason to believe that there may have been a contravention of the Act'. As noted above the exercise of these powers were challenged by Harvey Norman and the legal issues are not fully resolved at this stage.
"It should be noted that Harvey Norman has made this matter public, not the ACCC. Normally when we are investigating a matter we do not make it public unless there are public policy reasons.