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 SNEDDEN (Bruce) (AttorneyGeneral) . - There is only one matter on which I feel I should say something in concluding the discussion on this clause, and that is one raised by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen). He raised this specific question: Why could not the Australian Industries Preservation Act have been amended for the purpose of controlling practices and agreements which contain restrictions against competition? Of course, the answer is that that Act could have been used in that way. There is no doubt about that. The reason why it was not used in that way was that it proceeds on a criminal base and the Government decided that it was not desirable to have a criminal form of control in relation to trade practices. In the opinion of the Government, in the first instance, it is not desirable to have a criminal form of control; and secondly, when you have a criminal form of control you do not have certainty. The Government decided that it is much better to have certainty, so that when a person does an act in the course of trade or commerce he knows that his act certainly is lawful or it certainly is unlawful. That is what the Bill achieves. That could not have been achieved by proceeding with the Australian Industries Preservation Act. That was the reason.

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




Question resolved in the negative.

Question put -

That the clause proposed to be inserted (Mr. Snedden's amendment) be so inserted.

Suggest corrections