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
Tuesday, 7 December 1965


Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce) (AttorneyGeneral) . - This clause occasioned the Cabinet a great deal of consideration. I hold the view very strongly that it is a very well formed clause. The amendment moved by my honorable and learned friend from Moreton (Mr. Killen) is that the words " are to " be omitted and the word " may " inserted. If his amendment were accepted, the clause would read -

The matters that may be taken into account in accordance with the last preceding sub-section are -

I have had the opportunity to consider this amendment in quite some detail, because the honorable gentleman was good enough to talk to me about it. I think this is an instance in which I understand what he has in mind and I think he now understands what I have in mind. The words that are proposed to be omitted must stay, because we could not leave the Tribunal at large to decide whether it would take these matters into account. The words of the provision must be mandatory and therefore they must remain as " The matters that are to be taken into account ". The honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth) asked what is meant by the words " tendency to restrict ".


Mr Haworth - In a consideration of clause 35. Clause 35 is a guide, I understand.


Mr SNEDDEN - Yes. We could, for instance, have a situation in which an agreement has the effect of a boycott. Until the boycott comes into operation, it does not effect a restriction of competition, but has a tendency to restrict competition, because on the happening of specific events it will come into operation. Therefore, it has a tendency to restrict competition and that is the reason why the provision must be put in this form.







Suggest corrections