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) .- I move-

In sub-clause (1.), paragraph (a), after " restriction " insert " or any restriction to the like effect ".

It is necessary to insert these words in this sub-clause of clause 52. The words necessarily had to be added to make for completeness. I am sure the Committee will not have any difficulty in accepting this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SNEDDEN(Bruce - AttorneyGeneral [9.19]. -I move -

Omit sub-clause (2.), and insert the following sub-clause: - " (2.) Where the Tribunal determines that a practice is contrary to the public interest, it may make such orders as it thinks proper for restraining the person concerned, or the combination concerned or any of its members -

(a)   from engaging or further engaging in the practice;

(b)   from engaging in practices of a like kind; or

(c)   from doing acts or things that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, would, unless there were a change in circumstances, amount to, or contribute to, a continuance or repetition of the practice or engagement in a practice of a like kind.".

The new sub-clause is the same as the old sub-clause with one significant difference and that relates to the dominant position with respect to monopolies. It is provided that this should not be left for determination by a Tribunal different to the Tribunal that made the first determination. I would not think that the Committee would have any difficulty in accepting this amendment, although my honorable friend from Moreton (Mr. Killen) has a consequential amendment.

The CHAIRMAN - The question is, "That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause ".

Question resolved in the negative.

Suggest corrections