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 MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral) - The answer is that the proposed sub-section deals with other goods or services. The case mentioned by Senator Georges in regard to the insurance arrangement concerns other goods or services. The first case he raised did not involve other goods or services; it was the same kind of service.

Let me return to what Senator Greenwood asked about. As I understand it, the reason why he has proposed his amendment is that those who suggested it said: 'If a company is dealing with its subsidiary, surely they ought to be treated as one'. I think that is probably so, as between them, and in fact they do not need to require anything. Sub-clause (3) or sub-clause (4) just would not apply. A company does not require that its subsidiary do things. They are, for this purpose, virtually one. But it is a different proposition when third parties are involved. Senator Georges raised the instance of 2 companies which are related but one of which requires that, as a condition of supplying goods or services, the consumer acquire something else from the subsidiary or related company. I think Senator Greenwood could see the vice in that. If we do not take that kind of conduct out of the scope of what Senator Greenwood is seeking to do, we will find people driving a horse and cart through the provisions of this clause.

Suggest corrections