"The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission welcomes yesterday's Federal Court ruling dismissing a claim that the ACCC's decision to allow Victorian chicken meat growers to collectively negotiate with their respective processors either breached the rules of natural justice, or was an improper exercising of its powers", ACCC Chairman, Professor Allan Fels, said today.
The Victorian Farmers Federation Chicken Meat group had argued that the ACCC's decision to authorise* the arrangements should be set aside as there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the ACCC in the making of its decision.
"The authorisation process is a fair, open and publicly transparent one, with all interested parties given a fair opportunity to put their views", Professor Fels said. "The Court found that the ACCC's decision was not affected by an apprehension that the ACCC did not bring a fair, open and impartial mind to its decision.
"The Federal Court further found that at no stage through the authorisation process did the VFF adequately raise any concerns regarding apprehended bias with the ACCC".
The VFF claimed that Marven was not legally able to apply for authorisation and that the ACCC had therefore not properly applied its powers in granting the authorisation.
The Court dismissed this claim and ruled that Marven was able to apply for authorisation for itself, and on behalf of the other processors, and have the benefits of the authorisation extended to current and future growers.
The Court further noted that the authorisation does not compel any party to engage in the authorised conduct.
As noted by the Court, no party is required to comply with the authorisation if they do not wish to do so.
"Although the VFF opposed the arrangements authorised by the ACCC it did not seek a merits-based review of the ACCC's decision in the Australian Competition Tribunal", Professor Fels said.
"The authorisation has in fact been in force since the ACCC issued its decision in June of last year. This decision provides growers, processors and the industry more generally with the certainty to continue to engage in the authorised conduct".
*Authorisation provides immunity from court action for potential breaches of the restrictive trade practices provisions of the Act, and is granted where the ACCC is satisfied that the conduct delivers offsetting public benefits when weighed against any anti-competitive effects. Applications are considered on a case by case basis. The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that there is public benefit arising from the conduct and that the public benefit outweighs any public detriment. Authorisation, once granted, does not compel parties to participate in the proposed arrangements