July 1999 by wuyunyi


									        FAIR’S FAIR
 ISSUE NO.61                                                                                                      March 2000

 From the Chair: an invitation and
        early impressions
                                                                                                           IN THIS ISSUE
I welcome opportunities to discuss with     the Commission must make in
business and consumer interests how         administering these statutes. This is very
the Commerce Commission will be             much in line with world-wide trends—
                                                                                            Commission publications .............. 2
prioritising our work for the future. We    antitrust statutes tend to evolve on the
value our relationships with you—           basis of court precedents and adjudication
                                                                                            Product recalls register ................. 2
relationships I want to continue to         decisions made by regulators.
                                                                                            From the courts ............................. 3
                                            Increasingly, decisions are based on
Contact between the Commission,             economic as well as legal principles. This,
                                                                                            Commission settlements ............... 6
business and consumers is an important      coupled with the fact that the business
part of compliance with the three Acts      acquisition clearances and authorisations
                                                                                            Commission warnings ................. 10
that we enforce. Business and               that come to the Commission tend to be
consumers need to be aware of our           more complex, impresses on new
                                                                                            Business acquisitions ................. 11
roles and procedures. We need to be         Commissioners the need to take into
aware of how our economy is changing        account not only what is written in the
                                                                                            Electrcity Industry Reform Act ... 14
so that we can develop our procedures       statutes, but also court and Commission
to keep pace.                               precedents, the often considerable
                                                                                            Problems in Gisborne .................. 15
                                            economic or consumer welfare dimensions,
For my first months in the Commission,      and the need at all times to ensure that
                                                                                            Commission website ................... 15
towards the latter part of 1999, I had to   decisions will stand up to court appeal or
rely very much on other Commissioners       similar review.
and staff. Indeed, their ongoing advice
and counsel continue to be very much        Related to this, certainly, is a strong
part of our day to day relationships.       appreciation of the way in which the
The commitment of staff and the active      Commission goes out of its way to see
involvement of Commissioners is a           that the processes governing its work
great strength of the Commission.           ensure that all interested parties to an
                                            issue are able to be heard.                    Published by:
Overall, it is the complexity of the                                                       Commerce Commission, PO Box 2351,
                                                                                           Wellington, New Zealand
Commission’s quasi-judicial and             When it comes to enforcement activities,       Telephone               (04) 471 0180
enforcement roles that has been to the      the same underlying principles are evident.    Facsimile               (04) 471 0771
forefront in my initial responses to the    Commission enforcement action must be          ISSN 0114 8354
organisation. The very nature of the        based on a rigorous legal and economic
                                                                                           The Commission welcomes reprinting of
Commerce and Fair Trading Acts, in          analysis that will stand up in court to the    material in this newsletter. However, it should
that neither is prescriptive, brings into   rules of evidence. This principle applies to   not be relied on as legal advice.
sharp focus the types of judgments that
                                                                (continued on page 2)

 March 2000                                                     1                                                        FAIR'S FAIR
all enforcement decisions, regardless of     It is not possible, obviously, to predict      behaviours of firms or individuals and
the magnitude of the issue involved.         the outcome of the Government’s                can also influence the degree to which
                                             enquiries into electricity and                 firms remain dominant in markets.
Coming out of all this is my firm belief     telecommunications, but they are likely        Likewise, under the Fair Trading Act, no
that administering the Commerce, Fair        to have implications for regulatory            sooner has the Commission succeeded
Trading Act and Electricity Industry         policy, with possible flow-on                  in changing one set of behaviours, than
Reform Acts efficiently and effectively,     implications for the Commission.               another set of circumstances, which can
requires a considerable level of                                                            work against the interests of
informed judgment both on the part of        At the same time, the new Government           consumers, arises.
Commissioners and Commission staff.          understandably is looking to ensure
                                             that it is getting value for money from        Perhaps only one thing about the future
The immediate future will pose exciting      all Crown agencies. The Commission             remains certain, that is the Commission
challenges for the Commission. The           continuously re-evaluates its Commerce         cannot be expected to be resourced to
new Government has made it clear that        Act and Fair Trading Act priorities to         address all the issues that come in front
it is looking to amend the Commerce          target our resources on areas where            of it. The Commission will continue to
Act, particularly in the areas of            there are significant economic impacts         re-evaluate priorities to make sure its
definitions of dominance, penalties and      and where consumers benefit most from          resources are targeted to those areas
the application of section 36. By the        our enforcement initiatives.                   that need maximum input for consumer
same token, amendments are also likely                                                      welfare and to promote economic
to be proposed to the Fair Trading Act.      The pace of technological change on its        benefits throughout the economy.
                                             own can make marked differences to

                                     From the Chair: recent speeches

March 13, Wellington Rotary Club, The        March 20, Public Sector Accountants            March 22, New Zealand Petroleum
Commission - its Role Within the             Special Inteerst Group, Wellington,            Conference, Christchurch, Impact of the
Comerce Act, the Fair Trading Act and        Purpose and Role of the Commerce               Commerce Act on the Petroleum
the Electricity Industry Reform Act.         Commission.                                    Exploration and Downstream Energy

    publications                                    Consumers’ Institue product
Draft leniency policy, March 2000
The Commerce Commission is seeking
                                                     recalls register on the web
public comment on its draft policy for
when it should take a lower level of           Product recalls can be posted on the Internet, thanks to a service provided on the
enforcement action, or none at all, in         Consumers' Institute website. Consumer Online (www.consumer.org.nz) includes
exchange for assistance with an                Product Recalls, a service funded by the Emily Carpenter Charitable Trust. This is
investigation.                                 the country's only national product recall register. To take advantage of this free
                                               service, contact Consumers' Institue (04) 384 7963, fax (04) 385 8752 or email to
Product recalls, February 2000                 chiefexec@consumer.org.nz
The Commission has published
guidelines to help businesses carry out
effective product recalls

                   Queries? Questions? Comments and speech notes
  If you have any questions or comments about Fair’s Fair, or would like copies of speech notes, then please contact the
  Commission’s Senior Advisor Communications, Vincent Cholewa, phone work (04) 498 0920, home (04) 479 1432, fax (04) 471 0771,
  e-mail vince.cholewa@comcom.govt.nz, PO Box 2351, Wellington.

  March 2000                                                         2                                                 FAIR'S FAIR
           Commerce Commission enforcement action
 Pages 6 to 10 list enforcement action      The Commission has developed its           Settlements
 recently taken by the Commerce             Investigation and Enforcement Criteria
 Commission. The Commission has             to help it make consistent, objective      A settlement is used when it is the
 jurisdiction under the Commerce, Fair      decisions as to when to investigate and    best way to achieve compliance
 Trading and Electricity Industry           what level of action to take after an      having regard to the circumstances of
 Reform Acts.                               investigation.                             the case, the enforcement criteria and
                                                                                       the Commission's resources. The level
 After an investigation the Commerce        Warnings or settlements will not always    of evidence required is the same as
 Commission has four options as to          precede court action. If a matter          that for court action. If a satisfactory
 what, if any, action it can take.          warrants it, then the Commission will go   settlement cannot be achieved, then
                                            straight to court action after its         the Commission can take court action.
 These are to:                              investigation.
 · take no further action;                                                             Warnings
 · issue a warning;                         Court action
 · enter into a settlement in which it                                                 These are expressions of the
    receives signed undertakings            Court action is taken when there has       Commission's opinions that behaviour
    detailing how behaviour will            been a significant, widespread or          risks breaching the Commerce, EIRA
    change; and                             repeated breach, or when the law needs     or Fair Trading Acts. The evidence
 · take court action.                       to be developed through legal              required is that of sufficient cause to
                                            precedents.                                believe that behaviour is at risk.


           Caltex, Mobil and Shell were price fixing:
          High Court imposes $1.175 million penalties
The Auckland High Court on 15               withdraw a discount from the price of      rejected both challenges.
February 2000 ordered Caltex New            petrol at more than 50 Auckland petrol     The trial was held in August and
Zealand Limited, Mobil Oil New Zealand      stations. The discount was in the form     September last year, and Justice Salmon
Limited and Shell New Zealand Limited       of a free car wash offered to customers    gave his decision in October.
to pay penalties totalling $1.175 million   who spent $20 or more on fuel.             The sentencing hearing was held on 2
for breaching the Commerce Act by                                                      February 2000, and Justice Salmon
price fixing.                               In his Judgment, Justice Salmon stated     issued his decision on penalties on
                                            that the discount “… did operate as an     February 15. He has ordered Caltex to
The Commerce Commission                     integral part of petrol pricing or was a   pay $450,000, Mobil to pay $350,000 and
understands that this is the first time     discount in relation to petrol.”           Shell to pay $375,000.
anywhere in the world that it has been
proved that a group of major oil            He also stated “… that representatives     The Court’s decision sends strong
companies acted anti-competitively          from each of the oil companies made        warnings to all businesses.
over the price of petrol. There have        relevant untruthful statements to the
been successful cases against               Commission.”                               First, price fixing is a major breach of the
individual oil companies, but not                                                      Commerce Act. It is fundamentally anti-
against a group of major companies.         The Commission filed its statement of      competitive and anti-consumer. It
In October last year the Court found        claim in September 1997.                   limits—or even eliminates—consumers’
that the Commission had proved its                                                     ability to shop around for the best
case.                                       Caltex and Mobil took unsuccessful         prices. The oil companies profited,
                                            strike out actions against the             consumers paid more.
The Commission had alleged that the         Commission’s case to the High Court
three companies colluded to jointly         and the Court of Appeal. The Courts                          (Continued on page 4)

 March 2000                                                     3                                                  FAIR'S FAIR

“Secondly, businesses must realise that       •   Nine North Island meat companies,      •   Seven Auckland Toyota dealers,
price fixing covers all parts of a price,         total penalties $5.51 million,             total penalties $350,000; action is
not just the final retail price. Formal and       including $1.5 million against each        continuing against an eighth
informal agreements among competitors             of Affco New Zealand Limited,              dealer
about discounts, commissions, mark-               Richmond Limited and Lowe              •   Country Fare Bakeries Limited and
ups and all other parts of prices are             Walker NZ Limited                          Quality Bakers New Zealand
strictly prohibited.                          •   Eli Lilly & Co (NZ) Limited’s animal       Limited, total penalty $300,000
                                                  health remedies division, Elanco,      •   Toyota New Zealand Limited,
The Commission will continue to take              and Chemstock Animal Health                $250,000 penalty DB Breweries
action against price fixing.                      Limited, total penalties of $700,000       Limited, $110,000 penalty
                                              •   Christchurch Transport Limited and     •   Acer Computer New Zealand
Other Commission court action against             its Chief Executive, total penalties       Limited, $83,000 penalty
anti-competitive pricing includes:                $400,000

Spotlight fined $7,500 for misleading sale promotion
The Auckland District Court on 9              A Commission investigation showed          Zealand.
February 2000 fined Spotlight Stores          that during the promotions in question,    Where sales are advertised, the savings
New Zealand Limited $7,500 for                Spotlight had advertised one of its        being offered to customers must be
misleading customers about savings            biggest selling items, DMC Stranded        genuine. Where traders try to get
available during promotions in its            Cotton, used for embroidery, as being      customers into their stores by offering
Christchurch store in October,                reduced in price by 35% - from $1.30 per   fake bargains, the courts will deal firmly
November and December 1998.                   skein down to 80 cents per skein. The      with them.
                                              average customer buys 10 to 15 skeins
The Commerce Commission had                   at a time. In fact, 80 cents was the       Misleading sales claims are not just
prosecuted Spotlight for breaching the        regular selling price of this item.        unfair on consumers, they are also
Fair Trading Act. Spotlight pleaded           Spotlight Stores New Zealand Limited       unfair on other retailers who are honest
guilty to the offences.                       operates six stores throughout New         in their advertising.

         Importer fined $6,000 after not honouring
       settlement, and importing 3,600 unsafe babies’
The Otahuhu District Court on 3               honouring a Commission settlement.         This is a safety standard not a labelling
December 1999 fined importer Geeta            The settlement related to animal toys      standard. It applies to toys for young
Trading Company Limited $6,000 plus           that the Commission had alleged did not    children, irrespective of how the toys
$390 costs for importing 3,600 babies         meet the standard.                         are labelled.
rattles that broke easily and were a
choking and inhalation hazard.                The Commission follows-up all              The Commission had the rattles
                                              settlements. If one is not honoured,       checked by a child psychologist and an
The Commerce Commission prosecuted            then it will consider court action.        accredited testing laboratory. They
Geeta for breaching the Fair Trading          In this case, Geeta imported multi-        concluded that the rattles were intended
Act, which makes the product safety           coloured babies’ rattles shaped like       for children under three, and that they
standard for toys mandatory. Geeta            bells, lemon trees and birds, and          broke easily, releasing pieces too small
pleaded guilty.                               labelled them as unsuitable for children   to meet the standard.
Geeta supplies the 13 “King Kong”             under three years.
stores in the North Island.                   Importers and retailers must understand    The standard prohibits toys, and parts
                                              that simply labelling toys as not for      of toys that can be removed or break
Commission staff making a follow-up           children under three does not make toys
check found that Geeta was not                comply with the standard.                                    (continued on page 5)

  March 2000                                                        4                                               FAIR'S FAIR

off, that fit completely into a measuring      The standard applies to toys for                  reflex when they choke. If they swallow
cylinder about the size of a 35mm film         children aged up to three years old               or inhale an object that sticks in their
canister.                                      because up to that age children do not            throat, they must be helped or they can
                                               have a properly developed coughing                choke to death.

                   Folio Model and Talent Management:
                          sentencing of partners
Criminal convictions of Dianne                 responsibility for how their business is          Judge Rushton states.
Stephanie Burton and Brian Charles             run.                                              Ms Burton interviewed women who
Carson as the partners who ran Folio                                                             responded to Folio’s advertisements for
Model and Talent Management have               Partners cannot pick a scapegoat or               a modelling course. At the interviews
set important precedents for all               hide behind the partnership and say               Ms Burton outlined the course and said
partnerships—a partner can be                  ‘nothing to do with me’. Partnerships             that Folio would take nine photos of
criminally liable under the Fair Trading       bring legitimate business benefits to the         each woman and select the best three
Act for the actions of other partners.         individual partners, they also bring              out of each nine to go on a composite
                                               responsibilities to ensure that their             card. The composite cards would be
The Commerce Commission prosecuted             business complies with the law.                   shown to clients wanting models.
Ms Burton and Mr Carson in the
Auckland District Court for breaching          Judge Rushton also reinforced other               Ms Burton said that the course would
the Fair Trading Act by making                 court decisions that silence—that is,             cost $450. She did not disclose that
misleading claims about the cost of            not providing information—can be a                there were additional costs of $210 for
modelling training by not disclosing           representation and can be misleading.             the nine photos and the composite card.
additional costs. On 19 January 2000
Judge Cecilie Rushton imposed fines            She stated in her decision that silence is        In summary, Judge Rushton found in
and costs totalling $6,000.                    a representation when there is a duty to          this case that:
                                               disclose information or where silence             • when Ms Burton was acting in the
“The acts of one partner, provided they        makes another representation untrue.                   ordinary course of Folio’s business,
are performed in the ordinary course of                                                               she had not disclosed additional
the firm’s business, are binding on co-        “I am satisfied that, given the                        costs
partners and accordingly are their joint       circumstances of this case, Folio had a           • Ms Burton’s silence was a
acts,” Judge Cecilie Rushton states in         positive duty to disclose the full cost to             misrepresentation and breached the
her reserved decision.                         these women of reaching the stage                      Fair Trading Act, and
                                               where they could obtain the work they             • the partnership was liable for that
Judge Rushton’s decision means that            were seeking. This they did not do,”                   breach.
partners must take personal

                     Commission speakers available
Commission members and staff are available for speeches and briefings on all aspects of the Commerce, Fair Trading and
Electricity Industry Reform Acts.

A Commission speaker could prove invaluable to your organisation. Knowledge of the legislation can help you avoid
breaches by your business or staff and identify anti-competitive or unfair trade practices by your competitors.

Contact: Communications officer Vincent Cholewa phone (04) 498 0920, fax (04) 471 0771, e-mail

 March 2000                                                        5                                                       FAIR'S FAIR

 Extreme Motorsports: businesses CAN be liable for
   damages and injuries despite contract clauses
A Commerce Commission settlement            The Consumer Guarantees Act gives            Commission can take legal action.
with Auckland go-kart operator,             consumers mandatory guarantees about
Extreme Motorsports, highlights that        the quality of goods and services, and       The Commission’s role—through the
businesses can be responsible for           mandatory rights to remedies if a            Fair Trading Act—is to ensure that
damage to property and injury to            guarantee is not met.                        consumers are not given false or
people, even if a contract, terms of                                                     misleading information about their
trade or any other representation           Under civil law, businesses can be liable    rights and businesses’ obligations.
claims, incorrectly, that they are not.     for damages for gross negligence.            Courts can impose fines of up to
                                                                                         $100,000 under this Act.
Customers at Extreme Motorsports            The Crimes Act makes businesses
were required to sign a document            criminally responsible for taking            Where a business describes
stating that the company would not be       reasonable precautions to avoid injury       consumers’ rights and businesses’
responsible for any injury, death, loss     or death.                                    obligations accurately, even if later on it
or damage even if caused by the                                                          does not met them, the Commission has
company’s action or negligence.             The Commission can become involved           no jurisdiction under the Fair Trading
                                            through the Fair Trading Act, which          Act. Instead, consumers have rights
In the Commission’s opinion, Extreme        prohibits false or misleading claims         under other laws and may have redress
Motorsports risked breaching the Fair       about “any condition, warranty,              through other agencies.
Trading Act by making a false or            guarantee, right or remedy.”
misleading claim about customers’                                                        In the case of Extreme Motorsports, the
rights and the company’s obligations.       Various laws create rights and               company has given signed
                                            obligations that must be met. If they are    undertakings, including that it will
In general terms, a business can be         not, then consumers can take legal           delete the paragraph that the
responsible for damage and injury           action under those laws and, in some         Commission was concerned about and
caused during its normal business.          circumstances, can involve the Police or     will not, in future, use any indemnity
                                            other appropriate agencies.                  notice that breaches the Fair Trading
This is an issue where several                                                           Act.
different laws can apply, giving            If a business attempts to contract out of
customers rights and placing                these rights and obligations, then it has    The Commission follows up all
obligations on businesses. Any              made a false or misleading claim, may        settlements and has the right to take
business unsure of its own position         have breached the Fair Trading Act and       further action if they are not honoured.
should get legal advice.                    consumers, competitors and the

  Misleading advertising of rental car rates concerns
              Commerce Commission
The Commerce Commission is                  The Fair Trading Act prohibits false or      Rental car firms should ask themselves,
concerned about what appears to be a        misleading claims about prices. In           before they publish any advertisement,
nationwide practice, misleading             cases involving other industries, courts     “Can a customer hire a car for one day
advertising of rates in the yellow pages    have ruled that advertising prices that      at the advertised price, at any time of
by rental car companies.                    are not readily available can breach the     the year?” If the answer is, “No”, then
                                            Act. In the rental car industry, many of     the advertisement may be misleading
In the Commission’s opinion , many          the prices advertised have only been         without further appropriate explanation.
claims that rental cars are available for   available for long term hires—
“from $X per day” are false or              customers cannot hire a car for a day at     A further problem found with a few
misleading, because these prices are        the advertised per day rate—and/or the       rental car dealers is that the quoted
only available in exceptional               advertised price is an off-peak rate only.                     (continued on page 7)

  March 2000                                                        6                                                FAIR'S FAIR
prices have also excluded fees per         To date the Commission has concluded        telephone directories are reprinted. It
kilometre travelled, or insurance.         settlements with seven traders:             will also consider prosecution of the
                                           Affordable Rental Cars, Ascot Rental        worst offenders , or where traders
A number of the companies spoken to        Cars, Cut Rate Rentals, Fair-Go Rent a      refuse to settle with the Commission .
by Commission staff have argued that       Car, Kiwi Action Rentals, Shoestring
because they have used words, such         Rentals and Wellington Car Rental           The Commission has also advised
as, “from $X” or “special conditions       Centre. In addition, warnings have          Telecom Directories of its concerns and
apply”, their advertising is not           been issued to a further nine traders,      is pleased with the way the company
misleading. However, in the                and more are being investigated.            has responded. Telecom Directories
Commission’s opinion, statements such                                                  sales staff will ask rental car firms to
as this do not save an advertisement       The Commission will continue to             confirm that cars can genuinely be hired
from being misleading, where the           monitor rental car advertising as           at the advertised rate.
quoted prices are not readily available.

   Car dealers: three prosecutions, seven settlements,
                   more action likely
Commerce Commission action against         A customer could not buy one of those           Court. Autoworld admitted that it
car dealers that have made false or        vehicles without paying that extra cost.        breached the Act when it advertised
misleading claims is continuing, with      Where an extra cost is compulsory, as           a three-year guarantee with every
two cases currently before the courts,     “on road costs” were here, it should be         second hand car. Car buyers did not
seven investigations concluded with        included in the advertised price or             get a guarantee. Instead, they got a
settlements and more enforcement           clearly and accurately disclosed.               mechanical breakdown insurance
action likely.                                                                             policy with claim limits and
                                           Moncks Bay Motors staff would                   exclusions and they had to pay a
Commission Chair John Belgrave said        strongly encourage customers to take            $100 excess on every claim.
that the Commission had become very        out a two-year mechanical warranty for
concerned that car dealers were            an extra $350. A customer was told that     •   Two other dealerships are being
continuing to breach the Fair Trading      if they did not buy the warranty, then          prosecuted by the Commission. The
Act, and the Commission would focus        the sales agreement would state that            Commission’s legal advice is to not
its attention on the industry.             they had declined the warranty and              name them until they have had their
                                           took full responsibility if anything went       first appearance in court.
Mr Belgrave said that he is particularly   wrong with the car. This was a
disappointed with dealers’ poor            misleading statement about the              Settlements
compliance because of considerable         customer’s rights.
efforts made by the Commission and the                                                 •   BMW offered three models for
Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute to         Consumers have legal rights to                  payments of $209, $259 and $299 a
educate them.                              guarantees and remedies, and sellers            week. Not disclosed in the
                                           cannot contract out of providing these.         promotions were final payments of
Moncks Bay Motors                          The Fair Trading Act prohibits false or         $41,700, $48,150 and $58,750
                                           misleading claims about warranties,             respectively. BMW has
In the most recent settlement, Moncks      guarantees, rights and remedies.                acknowledged that its
Bay Motors has acknowledged that it                                                        advertisements were likely to
risked breaching the Act by not            Other enforcement action taken by the           mislead consumers about the total
disclosing extra costs and by stating      Commission in the last few months               prices payable for the cars
that it would take no responsibility for   includes:                                       advertised. It also acknowledged
the car if the customer did not buy a                                                      that it inadequately disclosed the
two-year mechanical warranty.              Prosecutions                                    deposits required and that the
                                                                                           pictures in the advertisements may
Extra “on road costs” of $247.50 had to    •   Autoworld Richmond Limited was              not have been of the standard
be paid on some of the advertised cars.        fined $8,000 by the Nelson District         vehicles available.

                                                                                                        (Continued on page 8)

 March 2000                                                    7                                                 FAIR'S FAIR
•    Mitsubishi offered a Galant for            was too small and was in a place             it had reduced the price. The car
     payments of $99 a week. It did not         where it would not be noticed and            was advertised as “Was $19,990,
     adequately disclose that, in               understood by consumers.                     reduced to $16,930,” but the car had
     addition, there were a final payment   •   Nissan’s advertised “finance offer”          been available from the same
     of $10,500 and a deposit of $6,250.        did not state any amounts for                company for $14,990. Avery Motors
     Mitsubishi has acknowledged that           deposits and final payments. These           acknowledged that the claimed
     the small print including these            payments varied depending on the             reduction was incorrect and
     details was too small and not on the       model and all were substantial               misleading.
     screen for long enough to be read          percentages. Nissan has
     and understood by consumers.               acknowledged that the small print        •   Millenium Motors advertised
                                                including these details was too              second hand cars that were not
•    Holden’s promotion offering a              small and was in a place where it            available at the advertised prices,
     Barina for $79 a week was                  would not be noticed and                     and one that was not available at all.
     misleading because it did not              understood by consumers.                     Compulsory “on road costs” were
     adequately disclose a $6,656 final                                                      not included in the advertised
     payment and a $2,750 deposit.          •   Avery Motors increased the price of          prices. Millennium Motors has
     Holden has acknowledged that the           a Suzuki Vitara for what it called a         given signed undertakings setting
     small print including these details        “clearance sale” but claimed that            out how it will change its

    Bic, Primary Distributors and two retailers: is that
             cigarette lighter child resistant?
Commerce Commission enforcement of          it is considerably more difficult to trace   in its newsletter advising shop owners
the product safety standard for             any problems that might arise with the       about the introduction of the safety
cigarette lighters has continued with       lighters back to their source.               standard, not to sell non-complying
settlements with two distributors and                                                    lighters after 15 May 1999 and to return
two retailers.                              The Commission’s concerns were with          them for a refund.
                                            the certificates, not with the lighters
The Minister of Consumer Affairs            themselves.                                  The dairy’s proprietor said that she had
introduced the mandatory product                                                         not noticed any of Foodstuff’s
safety standard in 1998 after a spate of    Both companies have changed their            warnings.
house fires caused by young children        certificates to ensure that they
playing with cigarette lighters. The        accurately provide all the required          T&F Kent owns a business that trades
standard requires that cigarette lighters   information.                                 as Kent Bags, which sells a wide range
be child resistant.                                                                      of cigarette lighters.
                                            The Beachcomber Dairy was selling
The distributors who have who have          Tokai disposable cigarette lighters that     T&F Kent failed to produce certificates
entered into settlements with the           were not child resistant and did not         of compliance for any of the lighters it
Commission are Bic (NZ) Limited and         have certificates of compliance as           was selling. The safety standard
Primary Distributors Limited. The two       required by the safety standard.             requires businesses to show
retailers are Auckland company T&F                                                       Commission and New Zealand Customs
Kent (NZ) Limited and Christchurch          The business has given signed                staff certificates, which the businesses
shop Beachcomber Dairy.                     undertakings to ensure that all cigarette    would get from their suppliers.
                                            lighters it sells in future are child        Businesses have 10 days within which
The Commission’s concern with Bic           resistant and have correct certificates.     to provide the certificates.
and Primary Distributors was that they
were providing incorrect certificates       Beachcomber Dairy had bought the             T&F Kent has given signed
with their lighters. The certificates did   Tokai lighters from Foodstuffs (South        undertakings that in future it will not sell
not state the address of the                Island) Limited before the safety            any cigarette lighters covered by the
manufacturer nor the date of                standard was introduced. Foodstuffs          safety standard unless it can provide
manufacture. Without this information,      had signs in its warehouse and notices       the correct certificates of compliance.

    March 2000                                                      8                                                 FAIR'S FAIR

 Commission supports Auckland City Downtown
Accord, gives warning to help those involved comply
              with the Commerce Act
On 18 January 2000, the Auckland City      not allowed to compete on price or to          compliance with liquor laws—and
Downtown Accord was amended after a        offer cheaper drinks or “happy hours”.         wanted to make sure that any
Commerce Commission warning that the                                                      misunderstandings about the Commerce
original proposal could have put the       The Commerce Act strictly prohibits            Act did not stop it going ahead.
hotels, cafes, and restaurants that had    agreements between competitors that
joined the Accord at risk of breaching     will fix, control or maintain the prices for   The Commission finds it unfortunate
the Commerce Act.                          goods or services. Businesses must             that a community effort to encourage
                                           make their own decisions about their           compliance with one law put those
The Auckland City Council, the Police,     own prices. Any agreement that                 involved at risk of breaking another.
and others involved in the hospitality     interferes with that process is likely to      The warning will help ensure that the
industry developed the Accord. The         breach the Act. Courts can impose              Accord goes ahead in a way that, in the
purpose of the Accord was for              penalties of up to $5 million on               Commission’s opinion, does not put
businesses to jointly “adopt               companies, and up to $500,000 on               businesses at risk under the Commerce
responsible and quality business           individuals for breaches.                      Act.”
practices, particularly where the sale
and consumption of liquor is involved,     The Commission has contacted all of            It is important to note that the
in order to create a pleasant and safe     the Accord members to ensure they are          Commission’s warning letter is not an
community for residents, city workers,     aware of their obligations under the           authorisation. It does not prevent
customers and visitors alike.”             Act.                                           competitors, consumers or others who
                                                                                          might believe that businesses are
In its original form the Accord included   The Commission believed that the               breaching the Commerce Act from
terminology that could have been           Accord had an excellent objective—a            taking their own legal action.
interpreted to mean that members were      safer community through better

   Computer investigations: misleading claims about
        components, warranties and prices
Commerce Commission investigations         its advertising of computer systems.           In the Commission’s opinion, The PC
of three computer retailers, Macrocom,     Its advertisements for $2,999 computer         Company made misleading claims on its
The PC Company and Advantage               systems stated that the systems                website about customers legal rights to
Computers, have ended with                 contained Intel chipsets, when they did        mandatory warranties. The Act does
settlements, in which the companies        not. Other advertisements featured a           not give customers rights to warranties,
have changed their promotions.             photograph of the system, including a          but prohibits false claims made about
                                           sub-woofer. The sub-woofer was not             the rights created by other laws.
In the Commission’s opinion, all three     part of the advertised package.
companies were at risk of breaching the                                                   In this case, The PC Company tried to
Fair Trading Act. The Act prohibits        Macrom had not physically checked the          limit its liability to pay freight costs if a
misleading conduct in relation to goods,   computers to ensure that they                  computer had to be repaired. However,
false or misleading claims about           contained Intel chipsets. Sub-woofers          the Consumer Guarantees Act does not
warranties and guarantees, and false or    were available as an optional upgrade of       require the customer to pay any freight
misleading claims about prices.            the system but not at the advertised           costs when goods are of unacceptable
Macrocom has acknowledged that             price.                                         quality.
consumers could have been misled by
                                                                                                            (continued on page 10)

 March 2000                                                     9                                                      FAIR'S FAIR
Advantage Computers advertised on its          In the Commission’s view, it is                that future promotions are not
website Microsoft Office 2000                  misleading to advertise a price without        misleading or deceptive.
Professional software (Academic                clearly and accurately stating all
version) for $357.30. It did not state         significant conditions.                        The Commission follows up all
that the advertised price was available                                                       settlements and can take court action if
only to customers who could prove that         All three companies have given signed          they are not honoured.
they were students or an employee of           undertakings, including that they will
an educational facility.                       correct these promotions and ensure


        9 furniture retailers warned: “solid rimu” was
                custom wood, pine and Melteca
Commerce Commission surveillance of            made from customwood and pine.                 give any kind of legal protection for
claims made by furniture retailers has         The “Rhodes” slat bed was described            these businesses. Other parties—be
continued with warnings to nine                as “beautiful solid rimu”. It was made         they customers or competitors—can
retailers that had described furniture         of pine with rimu stain.                       take their own action if they wish.
made from customwood, pine and
Melteca.                                       The “Melody” television and video              The retailers warned were:
                                               cabinet was described as “solid rimu”.         • Forhomes Furnishers and Flooring,
The Fair Trading Act prohibits                 It was made of Melteca.                            Auckland
misleading conduct in relation to goods,                                                      • Focus on Furniture, Warkworth
and false claims about the composition         The Commission’s warning letter states         • Dixon Home Furnishers, Te Puke
of goods.                                      that the Commission does not intend to         • Lorenville Discount Centre, trading
                                               take further action against the nine               as “Big Scotty’s”, Invercaragill
The claims were made in a furniture            retailers at this stage. However, any          • Idea & Beds R’Us, Manurewa
catalogue distributed in various cities        future breaches of the Act will be             • Furniture Court, Wanganui
and towns.                                     viewed seriously.                              • The Furniture Company, Dunedin
The “Georgia” five-piece bedroom suite                                                        • Taihape Furnishings, Taihape
was described as “solid rimu”. It was          The Commission’s decision does not             • Maurice Clegg Furnishers, New

                           Subscribe to the Public Register
    If you want to know which businesses are applying to the Commission for clearance or authorisation of their acquisitions, or for
    authorisation of restrictive trade practices, then subscribe to the Public Register.
    The register is published weekly and shows:
    • the names of the parties involved;
    • for what clearance or authorisation is sought;
    • deadlines for Commission decisions.
    Applications which have been granted confidentiality are not detailed on the register.
    The subscription cost is $90 per year.

 March 2000                                                          10                                                  FAIR'S FAIR
   The Commerce Act prohibits business acquisitions that result in dominance being acquired or strengthened in any markets.
   Parties can apply to the Commerce Commission for clearance which will be granted if the Commission is satisfied that
   dominance is not acquired or strengthened. The Act allows an otherwise prohibited acquisition to be authorised if the
   Commission is satisfied that, although the acquisition may result in dominance, its public benefits outweigh its detriments to
   competition. If granted, clearance and authorisation give legal protection against anyone taking court action against the
   acquisition under the Act.

 TeamTalk/Telecom: Decision 377 and draft determination
On 3 December 1999, the Commission             The Commission was not satisfied that,         TeamTalk applied for an authorisation.
declined to clear TeamTalk Limited’s           should the acquisition go ahead,
proposed acquisition of the assets             TeamTalk would not acquire a dominant          The Commission will grant
which comprise the paging services,            position in the national trunked mobile        authorisation, despite dominance being
private mobile radio, trunked mobile           radio network services market.                 acquired, if it is satisfied that benefits
radio and related equipment leasing                                                           arising from the proposal outweigh
businesses of Telecom New Zealand              Some trunked mobile radio users are            detriments to competition.
Limited.                                       captive customers of this technology
                                               for functional and economic reasons.           The Commission published its draft
The Commission concluded that the              They would not be able to switch to            determination on March 24, having
appropriate market for analysing the           other forms of mobile communications,          reached the preliminary view that, based
proposed acquisition was the national          such as cellular.                              on the information then available, public
market for trunked mobile radio network                                                       benefits outweighed detriments by
services. TeamTalk and Telecom, which          In addition, the Commission concluded          between $3.6 million and $10.7 million
operates in the market under the brand         that the effective entry of new                over five years.
name “Fleetlink”, are the only two             competitors into the national trunked
nationwide suppliers currently                 mobile radio network services market is        Interested parties are invited to
providing trunked mobile radio network         unlikely to occur.                             comment, and submissions are due by
services.                                                                                     April 14. The Commission expects to
                                               Subsequent to the Commission                   publish its final decision on May 17.
                                               declining to grant the clearance,

    Fletcher Challenge Steel/Steel and Tube Holdings
                      Decision 378
On 4 November 1999, in Decision 376,           On 23 November 1999, Fletcher                  extensive inquiries.
the Commission declined to clear               Challenge Steel Products Limited
Fletcher Challenge Steel Products              lodged a second application seeking            The Commission adopted the same
Limited to acquire up to 100 percent of        clearance to acquire Steel & Tube              market definitions as for Decision 376.
the shares in Steel and Tube Holdings          Limited. This application was                  On 10 December 1999, the majority of
Limited. The companies are the two             supported by additional information on         the Division of the Commission found
largest distributors of steel in New           market shares, by a market research            that the new information had removed
Zealand. The Commission was not                report on the awareness of steel               its concerns on dominance, and the
satisfied that, should the acquisition go      purchasers of other steel distributors         proposed acquisition was cleared. One
ahead, Fletcher Steel would not become         and by two reports from economic               member of the Division had a dissenting
dominant in any New Zealand steel              consultants. In addition, the                  opinion.
market.                                        Commission conducted its own further

 March 2000                                                       11                                                     FAIR'S FAIR

              L’AirLiquide S.A. and Air Products/BOC
                            Decision 379
On 23 December 1999, the Commission       in the production and supply of            concluded, BOC would be replaced as a
cleared L’Air Liquide S.A. and Air        industrial gases in New Zealand, while     gas producer and supplier by Air
Products and Chemicals Inc to acquire     Air Products was not currently             Products, with no market aggregation
The BOC Group plc.                        involved. BOC also supplies welding        resulting.
                                          equipment, safety products and
The proposal was part of an               wholesale refrigerants.                    The operation of Air Liquide and BOC,
international acquisition by which Air                                               for the period from acquisition until
Liquide and Air Products were to form a   At the conclusion of the international     actual divestment, was subject to
joint venture company to acquire the      acquisition, the joint venture company     confidential undertakings given to the
shares in BOC. Air Liquide is based in    in New Zealand would divest the assets     Commission. The purpose of the
France, Air Products in the United        of BOC to Air Products.                    undertakings was to ensure that the two
States and BOC in Britain.                                                           companies will continue to trade
                                          The effect in New Zealand would be         independently of each other.
BOC and Air Liquide are both involved     that, when the transactions are

                    UnitedNetworks/Orion: Decision 380
On 24 December 1999, the Commerce         Valley/Bay of Plenty area, including       wholesale market would be to replace
Commission cleared UnitedNetworks         Tauranga, Rotorua and Taupo.               Orion as a gas supplier with United,
Limited (United) to acquire the gas                                                  with no market aggregation resulting.
assets of Orion New Zealand Limited.      The Commission was satisfied that,         The Commission did not find any
                                          should the acquisition go ahead,           dominance concerns in the network
The proposal involved United acquiring    United’s dominant position in the          contracting services market.
Orion’s gas distribution networks,        electricity distribution markets would
industrial gas trading business, the      not be strengthened.                       The Commission noted that the
North Island activities of Orion’s                                                   purchase of a 5 percent interest in the
contracting business, and a 5 percent     The Commission was also satisfied that     Southdown co-generation power
interest in the Southdown co-             the acquisition would not result in        station joint venture was not sufficient
generation power station joint venture.   Orion’s current dominant position in the   for United to be considered “involved”
United, formerly Power New Zealand        gas distribution markets being             in an electricity supply business under
Ltd, is principally an energy networks    strengthened as a result of United         the Electricity Industry Reform Act
business, with electricity networks in    acquiring the gas networks.                1998.
Auckland, Wellington and the Thames       The effect of the acquisition in the gas

    Medical Waste/San-I-Pak: Decisions 381 and 386
On 24 January 2000, the Commission        collection and treatment of medical and    waste material, they are currently either
declined to clear Medical Waste Group     quarantine waste.                          incinerated or sterilised in an autoclave.
Limited to acquire the business of San-                                              After processing, solid waste residues
I-Pak (NZ) Limited.                       Both companies are involved in the         are disposed of in landfills and liquid
                                          collection and treatment of two sorts of   residues are disposed of into waste
The Commission was not satisfied that     waste: medical wastes from hospitals       water systems.
the proposal would not result in          and other medical facilities, and
Medical Waste Group acquiring or          quarantine wastes arriving by ship or      In the South Island, the two companies
strengthening a dominant position in      aircraft from other countries. As these    have a very high combined market
the South Island market for the           wastes are classified as hazardous         share, and the Commission was not

 March 2000                                                     12                                              FAIR'S FAIR

satisfied that the merged entity would         The Commission was satisfied that the        clearance to acquire San-I-Pak.
face constraint from existing or potential     merged entity would not acquire or
competitors, or from most buyers of its        strengthen a dominant position in the        In considering the second application,
services, within a reasonable timeframe.       North Island market for the collection       the Commission revisited its earlier
                                               and treatment of medical and quarantine      investigation, and analysed new
For these reasons, the Commission was          waste.                                       information provided by Medical Waste
not satisfied that this proposal would                                                      Group. However, the Commission's
not result in a strengthening of a             On 8 February 2000, Medical Waste            reasons for declining the application did
dominant position in a market.                 Group made a second application for          not change.

                                             Pacific Dunlop/LWR
                                                 Decision 383
On 29 February 2000, the Commission            R&WH Symington is based in                   increase prices or reduce services,
cleared Pacific Dunlop Holdings (NZ)           Palmerston North and produces thermal        customers could switch to other
Limited to acquire certain assets and          underwear.                                   suppliers and imports.
businesses of LWR Hosiery and
Underwear Limited (LWR) and R&WH               The Commission was satisfied that,           The other markets in which the
Symington Limited.                             should the acquisition go ahead, Pacific     combined entity would operate, but
                                               Dunlop would not acquire or strengthen       would be inside the safe harbours, or in
Pacific Dunlop is a large international        a dominant position in any of the seven      which there would be no aggregation of
manufacturing and marketing enterprise         relevant apparel markets.                    market power, were the national markets
which is based in Australia. Pacific                                                        for the manufacture and supply of:
Dunlop supplies a number of brands of          In three of these markets, the national      • women’s underwear,
underwear and socks in New Zealand.            markets for the manufacture and supply       • children’s socks,
These include ‘Holeproof’,                     of men’s underwear, thermal underwear        • bras, and
‘Underdaks’, ‘Bonds’ and ‘Rio’.                and adult’s socks, the combined entity       • pantyhose.
LWR Hosiery, a subsidiary of LWR               would have market shares outside the
Industries Limited, a private company,         Commission’s “safe harbours”, but            The Commission’s safe harbours are:
manufactures apparel in its                    would be constrained by the ability of       • 40 percent market share if there is
Christchurch factory. Of relevance to          existing competitors to expand, the              no significant competitor, and
this proposal is its production of             availability of imported products, and       • 60 percent market share if at least
hosiery, socks and thermal underwear           the buying power of customers,                   one competitor has 15 percent or
under brands which include ‘Jockey’,           particularly nation-wide retail chains. If       more of the market.
‘Gold Top’, ‘Silks’ and ‘Thermotech’.          the combined entity attempted to

                  Public copies of Commission decisions
 Public copies of recent Commerce              loaded from the Commission's website,        (04) 471 0771; PO Box 2351,
 Commission Commerce Act clearance             www.comcom.govt.nz.                          Wellington. If requesting hard copies,
 and authorisation decisions and                                                            you may be charged for photocopying
 Electricity Industry Reform Act               Hard copies can be obtained from the         and time as set out in the Official
 exemption decisions can be down-              Support Officer phone (04) 498 0953; fax     Information Act.

 March 2000                                                        13                                                 FAIR'S FAIR

  The Electricity Industry Reform (EIR) Act requires companies involved in electricity markets to put in place corporate separation of
  their electricity generation and trading businesses from their lines businesses or to have obtained an exemption from the

  In considering an exemption, the Commission must answer three questions:

  1.   Would the exemption result in inhibiting competition in the electricity industry?
  2.   Would the exemption allow cross-subsidisation of electricity generation from electricity lines businesses?
  3.   Would the exemption permit a relationship between electricity lines and supply businesses which is not at arms length?

  If the answer to any of these questions is “yes” the Commission will not grant an exemption.

                                           AmTrust Pacific Limited
                                               Decision 382
The Commission granted an exemption            exemptions given under the EIR Act to             deals from other electricity suppliers.
under section 81 of the Electricity            property companies.
Industry Reform Act (the EIR Act) to                                                             The EIR Act was passed in 1998 and
AmTrust Pacific Limited (AmTrust) and          The Commission’s decision follows                 came into effect on April 1 last year.
certain other subsidiaries of AmTrust          exemptions given to Trans Tasman
which are involved with property               Properties Limited, Collwall Property             One of the EIR Act’s requirements is
investment activities in New Zealand.          Investment Limited, AMP Limited and               that organisations must separate their
                                               Colonial First State Property (NZ)                electricity lines businesses from their
The exemption is from the application of       Limited, which also involved the                  electricity supply businesses where
certain sections of the EIR Act for            application of the EIR Act to property            more than 2.5 GWh of electricity per
specified property investment and              investment and management activities.             annum is supplied.
management activities which relate to
AmTrust.                                       The decision enhances tenants’ ability            The Commission considers that the
                                               to choose electricity suppliers. It also          definitions in the EIR Act include
The Commission granted the exemption           allows tenants of properties which are            embedded electrical wiring in buildings
subject to a number of terms and               the subject of the exemption to choose            as an electricity lines business and
conditions, consistent with previous           to buy electricity from either their              selling electricity to tenants as an
                                               landlord or to shop around for better             electricity supply business.

                             EIR Act applications on hand
Currently the Commission has two EIR           17 of the EIR Act. This arises from her           The second application has been
Act applications on hand. One is from          directorships of Meridian (an electricity         lodged by Tranz Rail Holdings Limited,
Joan Withers – Meridian. Ms Joan               supply business) and Auckland                     which has applied for an exemption from
Withers has applied under section81(1)         International Airport (an electricity lines       the EIR Act in relation to cross-
for an exemption from sections 7, 11 and       business).                                        involvement in an electricity supply
                                                                                                 business and an electricity lines

 March 2000                                                           14                                                    FAIR'S FAIR
           Competitors trading practices hurt business
                          in Gisborne
While visiting Gisborne in early March         legislation, to businesses that are not          information and discussing issues
the Commerce Commission and the                normally in contact with the                     relating to Fair Trading and Consumer
Ministry of Consumer Affairs found             Commission.                                      legislation. The group also talked to
some businesses were disadvantaged                                                              business groups in the region, and
because of competitors practices.              The practices followed by some                   conducted an educational seminar to
                                               businesses in Gisborne highlighted the           businesses on the final evening.
Issues such as giving quotes and prices        importance of these visits; to ensure
exclusive of GST, and having permanent         businesses have a level playing field,           The seminar was successful with
“sale” prices were found. These                and that consumers are informed, and             approximately thirty five people
practices mislead customers and give           not misled.                                      attending from a wide variety of
the businesses that use them, an unfair                                                         business sectors across Gisborne.
advantage.                                     A visit like this to Gisborne last took          Many stayed afterwards for finger food
                                               place 4 years ago.                               and further discussion with Commission
Other issues that arose from the visit                                                          and Ministry staff.
were offers of interest free deals where       The Commission and the Ministry focus
the administration costs that were             their education on fair trading and              While in Gisborne, the Commission and
required to be paid were not disclosed,        consumer laws on businesses in sectors           the Ministry also took the opportunity
and selling cars by tender. Although           that have raised compliance concerns             to warn against scams and pyramid
tender is a legal selling method, the          nationally. The visit focused on the             selling, which are common in the region.
Ministry is concerned that some traders        following businesses:                            These schemes cheat people out of
may be calling their sales “tenders”,                                                           their money and give little return.
when they are not, to attempt to avoid         •   motor vehicle dealers                        Scams seem to be common in the
obligations under the Consumer                 •   real estate agents                           Gisborne /East Coast region, and maori
Guarantees Act. The Act does not               •   second hand dealers                          and pacific island people are often
cover any goods or services sold by            •   rental car agencies                          targeted.
“competitive tender”.                          •   furniture and home furnishings
                                               •   sellers of products covered by               A similar visit to North Shore City is
The visit to Gisborne was part of the              product safety standards, such as            planned for May 8–10. If you require
Commission’s regional visit programme.             toys and children’s night clothes            details of this visit please contact
The aim of the programme is to raise           •   health food shops                            Janine Manhart at the Commission,
awareness and compliance with the Fair                                                          phone (04) 498 0981, fax (04) 471 0771,
Trading Act, the Consumer Guarantees           The staff visited over 60 businesses in          PO Box 2351, Wellington.
Act and other consumer protection              the two-day town visit giving out

                             Commerce Commission website
                              On-line: media releases, public register, list of publications (can be ordered on-line), introduction to
                              the Commerce Act, introduction to the Fair Trading Act and the Commission's roles and
                              responsibilities under the Electricity Industry Reform Act.

                              Download: speeches, numbered decisions, Fair's Fair, Compliance, submissions made by the
                              Commission, clearance and authorisation application forms.

 March 2000                                                        15                                                      FAIR'S FAIR

Available free of charge from Commissions offices and                     • The Fair Trading Act - A Guide for Advertisers and
by e-mail from leo.vanschyndel@comcom.govt.nz:                              Traders (NB: this is a 40-page A4 book) (October 1997)
                                                                          • The Fair Trading Act: Guidelines for the Real Estate
Commerce Act guidelines                                                     Industry (February 1994)
                                                                          • Fibre Labelling and the Fair Trading Act (July 1996)
 •   The Commerce Act 1986 - A General Guide (February 1999)
                                                                          • Food Labelling, Promotion and Marketing (March 1998)
 •   The Commerce Act and the Health Sector (January 1998)
                                                                          • Free Offers - Avoiding Conflict with the Fair Trading Act
 •   Business Acquisition Guidelines (1999)
                                                                            (September 1997)
 •   Conference Procedures (September 1998)
                                                                          • Place of Origin and the Fair Trading Act (March 1999)
 •   Guidelines to the Analysis of Public Benefits and Detriments
                                                                          • Pyramid Selling and the Fair Trading Act (June 1997)
     (December 1997)
                                                                          • Safety of Children’s Night Clothes (December 1994)
Fair Trading Act guidelines                                               • Safety Standards for Bicycles (August 1995)
                                                                          • Safety Standards for Cigarette Lighters (May 1999)
 •   Car Sales and the Fair Trading Act (April 1999)                      • Safety Standards for Toys (January 1995)
 •   Care Labelling and the Fair Trading Act (July 1996)
 •   Comparative Pricing and the Fair Trading Act (November 1998)      One-page fact sheets about safety standards
 •   Compliance Programmes and the Fair Trading Act (April 1999)
                                                                          •   Bicycles (1999)
 •   Debt Collecting and the Fair Trading Act (November 1997)
                                                                          •   Children's Night Clothes (1999)
 •   Deceptive Packaging and the Fair Trading Act (December 1994)
                                                                          •   Cigarette Lighters (1999)
 •   Environmental Claims and the Fair Trading Act (May 1995)
                                                                          •   Toys for Children up to Three Years Old (1999)

                                                 Commission Offices
       WELLINGTON Phone: Commerce Act (04) 498 0911; Fair Trading Act (04) 498 0911; Reception (04) 471 0180; Fax (04) 471 0771;
                                       PO Box 2351; Landcorp House, 101 Lambton Quay

                      AUCKLAND Phone: Fair Trading Act (09) 377 7316; Reception (09) 377 3094; Fax (09) 377 3561;
                                  PO Box 105-222; Gosling Chapman Building, 63 Albert Street

                    CHRISTCHURCH Phone: Fair Trading Act (03) 371 0298; Reception (03) 379 3284; Fax (03) 366 1311;
                                       PO Box 25193; Riverlands House, 31 Victoria Street

                 Fair’s Fair and Compliance mailing lists
     The Commission publishes two free newsletters. Each issue of Compliance focuses on one or two Commerce, Fair Trading or
     Electricity Industry Reform Act topics in depth. Fair’s Fair contains topical information about work the Commission is doing
     or has recently completed. To receive Fair’s Fair and Compliance please copy and return this form to :

     Records Officer, Commerce Commission, PO Box 2351 Wellington or Fax (04) 471 0771

     Please add my name to the mailing list for: Fair’s Fair                                      Compliance




 March 2000                                                          16                                                   FAIR'S FAIR

To top