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, 1 December 1965

Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar) . - May I put the practical point in regard to this matter? We are not concerned only with existing industries. We are concerned with the States in which new and expanding industries would settle. It is probably out of the question for long established industries to pull up their roots and move from one State to another. There have been examples of this. I think the Philips organisation left New South Wales a few years ago and went to South Australia. This is not unprecedented. But I agree with the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) that it is not something which would be of very great practical consequence.

What is of practical consequence is the establishment of new industries. Australia is a growing community. Our economic development is going on apace. I think it will continue to do so. If you have this haven, to adopt the Attorney-General's word, the new industries, the expanding fringe, in some ways the most important industries, will tend to go towards that haven. When it is a case, not of agreements but of monopolies - most of these big and important new industries will, by their very nature, come under the definition of a monopoly in this Bill - they may well find themselves impelled to go towards this haven. Perhaps I do not blame the businessman. This is the kind of thing which attracts him. Growth would be diverted and concentrated in the haven. I point out that this haven would enable interstate operations to be conducted effectively as well as intrastate operations, because it is quite open for the new company going into the haven to put up inside that haven a holding company also, with which it has its transactions inside the haven. The holding company would not be amenable to any of the objections set out in this Bill because the holding company's practices would conform to the Bill. The profits would be made by the intrastate company in its transaction with the holding company and not by the holding company. These are the practical implications of business.

It seems to me sometimes that the advisers to the Government are not always entirely au fait with the way in which business conducts itself and of the practical considerations which influence a businessman to erect his factory here in preference to there or in that State in preference to another State. I do say that if this haven should exist it would tend to attract particularly the growing industries from the parts of Australia in which the haven did not exist. So if one important State - Victoria has been instanced - refused to pass complementary legislation, I think it would be unwise for other industrial States to pass complementary legislation. I make those practical points. I am glad that the Attorney-General seems to consider that this matter of date of proclamation is not one that I need to fear.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 4.

The following Acts are repealed: -

Australian Industries Preservation Act1 906.

Australian Industries Preservation Act 1907.

Australian Industries Preservation Act 1909.

Australian Industries Preservation Act 1910.

Australian Industries Preservation Act 1930.

Suggest corrections