Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Friday, 3 December 1965

Mr KILLEN (Moreton) .- I move -

In sub-clause (2.), paragraph (b), omit " and only if, the Tribunal is satisfied that ".

In clauses 35 and 36, concerning examinable agreements and examinable practices, there are objective criteria to enable the courts, if the Tribunals get off the rails, to exercise some control, but with regard to monopolisation in terms of clause 37 - even recognising some forms of monopolisation as examinable practices - we have subjective criteria. I put it to the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) that if the Tribunal were satisfied that the supplier of goods was in a dominant position and came to the conclusion, quite honestly although misguidedly, that he had one-third of the market, whereas in fact he had one-seventh of the market, there would be absolutely nothing that the court could do about it. The court could not replace its discretion for the discretion of the Tribunal. Why is it that in clauses 35 and 36 we are quite agreeable to accept objective criteria but with clause 37 we say: " We are prepared to leave it entirely subjectively to the Tribunal "? I do not understand this. I am concerned with the words " if the Tribunal is satisfied ". Why is it that we make this discretion available in clause 37, but not in clauses 35 and 36?

Suggest corrections