Talk:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Supermarket profiteering

The reason why all the supermarkets are profiteering/price gouging (price gouging meaning: unreasonably high increases in product prices) in these hard times is because most customers don't have enough money to pay the extremely high asking prices for every product (not just fruit and veg from farmers) and a lot of people have lost there jobs too. If the excuse used is that farmers are asking for more (which supermarkets normally don't pay enough to the farmers anyway, so not sure if they are paying any more now), so the supermarkets (Billion dollar companies) should be paying more, but not asking and charging the public more. The supermarkets have the money to afford to pay more not the customers. So despicable during such a hard time.

Consumer & Competition Act 2010

The TPA is now gone... someone needs to ammend to refer to the new CCA than the TPA

Qantas price fixing case

Mention the Qantas price fixing case from some months ago? it was pretty big....

http://business.smh.com.au/qantas-to-face-cartel-charges-20080309-1y8h.html

http://business.smh.com.au/jail-for-former-qantas-boss-in-cargo-pricefixing-cartel-20080509-2cp7.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.143.87 (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What does AC/DC have to do with it?

Somebody managed to slip a clever advertisement for the rock band AC/DC into this article. Somehow I doubt that there is much confusion between the ACCC and AC/DC. Although, now that I think about it, the ACCC's music may be slightly more melodious. I think we can do without the mention of AC/DC, so I'm removing it. If there is anyone who thinks there's a genuine danger that ACCC and AC/DC could be confused with each other, please discuss. Mike (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Consumer confidence

This is completely inaccurate: "while Australian consumers generally hold the ACCC in high regard" Garydh (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not hold the ACCC in high regard either. I know of once case of an old age pensioner and funeral celebrant who was falsely charged by the ACCC and it cost him $60,000 to pay their unjust fine and escape. His friends and other celebrants recognised the accusation was false and had a fund raising effort but it nearly destroyed him.Gladiator-Citizen (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change from ampersand to "and" in article name

On 18 February 2022 I moved the article to "Australian Competition and Consumer Commission", i.e. replaced the ampersand with "and". In the summary I wrote "The ampersand does not appear in the establishing Act (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021C00528)". The next day, Acewavy reverted the move, commenting only "undiscussed move". I hadn't believed there was any point in discussing such a change when the reason was so obvious, but I am nominating this for discussion so that the change can be made.

The establishing Act (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 -- https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021C00528) specifies "and" (s.6A, Establishment of Commission). The ACCC website states: "The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is an independent Commonwealth statutory authority. Its role is to enforce the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 ...". The word "and" is invariably used in referencing cases such as the two about which Wikipedia has articles. An ampersand occurs only in the ACCC logo.

The article originated with "and" in the name, the vestige of which is the infobox heading. SCHolar44 (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, ACCC brands itself with an ampersand, thus the article’s name should reflect this. Angus & Robertson, Best & Less, Fisher & Paykel, Johnson & Johnson, Legal & General and Liquor & Gaming NSW are examples of articles that use this naming convention. The relevant policy section is MOS:AMP that states: In normal text and headings, use and instead of the ampersand (&): January 1 and 2, not January 1 & 2. But retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, such as in Up & Down or AT&T. Thus Australian Competition & Consumer Commission is the correct article name. Neintreus (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Neintreus, "ACCC brands itself with an ampersand" is taking things too far. I don't disagree with any of the examples you cite, but the ACCC is a government agency, not a commercial entity -- and it doesn't rely on branding as a commercial entity would. If like AT&T the "branded" abbreviation was "AC&CC", the argument would perhaps be less strong, but even so it is drawing a long bow to speak of branding in the private sector as the principle behind your preference. SCHolar44 (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Revisited proposal to change from ampersand to "and" in article name

A year ago, I initiated this change via a page move, thinking it was self-evidently appropriate -- essentially on the grounds that the ampersand only appears in the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's logo. One person (Neintreus) reverted the edit and responded, with a vigorous "oppose". Since nobody else has commented, I would like to initiate some wider discussion.

Facts supporting a change to "and" include these:

• The ampersand does not appear in the establishing Act (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021C00528).
• The ACCC when referring to itself invariably uses "and" (https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/australian-competition-and-consumer-commission).
• Legal cases involving the ACCC do not cite the ampersand (http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2007/38.html).
• Retaining an ampersand "when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun" (MOS:AMP) doesn't pass the test of "legitimate" because the ACCC only uses it in the corporate logo.
• Use of the ampersand in the commercial sector is not relevant to the ACCC and the way we might refer to the commission. As a government agency, it doesn't rely on branding as a commercial entity would, and the usage is very different. The brand "AT&T" is what "everybody" speaks of but the "branded" term for the commission (ACCC and in speech "Ay-triple-C"), doesn't have an ampersand.
• The Australian Government Style Manual (https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/names-and-terms/organisation-names) states, "Write the name of the organisation the same way the organisation writes it" and "Check the correct name of an organisation ... For Australian Government entities, use the government online directory" -- which shows, guess what.
• The ACCC's website, "About us" uses the "and" exclusvely.
• The annual report refers to "Australian Competition and Consumer Commission" exclusively in the text. The ampersanded logo occurs, as a graphic, on the cover, the inside title page and the forwarding letter.

Let's end the logo wagging the corporate dog... Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 05:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support renaming to "and". Including the ampersand in the logo is not "ACCC branding itself", if they don't do it anywhere else, it is merely a common abbreviation used for brevity in the logo. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support renaming to "and" for the reasons outlined above.Jimmyjrg (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support for the detailed reasons above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support - the legal name of the entity has the word "and". Deus et lex (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - we should probably do the same to the ASIC page if consensus is to change this one. Deus et lex (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the article. Thanks to all who supported the move. I'll also initiate the same change to ASIC (thanks to Deus et lex). Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 00:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)