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: 934

Senator GREENWOOD (Victoria) - It is very difficult to appreciate the full impact of the suggestion made by the Attorney-General. Maybe if I indicate the initial feeling I have he might respond and out of that there could be some consideration as to whether what he suggests is reasonable and therefore acceptable. It does appear that if we have a practice of exclusive dealing, if one company has goods or services which it is proposing to offer and it requires that those goods or services should be available, it can generally impose, subject to this clause, whatever terms or conditions it desires. It is dealing with a purchaser and ordinarily freedom of contract ought to govern the relationships. It seems that if the supplying company has a subsidiary which is a wholly-owned subsidiary or a related corporation it ought to stand in precisely the same position as the company which is the parent company, and that applies to all the provisions of clause 47. Why is it- this is the question I pose to which I hope I will get some response- in regard to some provisions of clause 47 and not in regard to others that the AttorneyGeneral wants the relationship to be valid and in other cases not to be valid. That seems to me to be the problem. I would be grateful if the Attorney-General would indicate the answer because our purpose in moving the amendment and- this was put to us by various interested bodies- was that it seemed reasonable for the 2 companies to be equated and regarded as one.

Suggest corrections