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
Wednesday, 14 August 1974
Page: 935


Senator GREENWOOD (Victoria) -Why are sub-clauses (3) and (4) different from sub-clause (2)? It seems to me that either the proposition has a validity for the whole of clause 47 or it has no validity. I understood that, at least initially, the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) felt it had validity for the whole of clause 47. But, if it has no validity for sub-clauses (3) and (4) because one of the conditions which may be imposed is that one will deal exclusively with another person, why is it that that does not cover also sub-clause (2), which apparently applies an exclusiveness not with regard to the subsidiary corporation but with regard to some other person so that the party with whom one is dealing is not to buy from somebody else or is only partly to buy from somebody else? It seems to me that it is difficult to appreciate why there is a difference between the impact of sub-clause (2) and that of subclauses (3) and (4).







Suggest corrections