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
Friday, 3 December 1965

Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce) (AttorneyGeneral) . - I do not want to detain the House, but several matters have been mentioned on which I think I should make some statement. Earlier this week I had an opportunity, which I enjoyed, of speaking with a senior executive of the organisation of Automobile Chambers of Commerce. He was a man whom I had met at an earlier point of time in relation to this Bill. He had put certain matters up to me. I had an opportunity to discuss this matter with him and to learn that he was a man of some responsibility. He asked to see me last

Monday on this matter because he had seen a newspaper report in relation to this amendment, which he said somewhat surprised him, although he had not had an opportunity at that point of time of seeing the actual wording of it.

I had an opportunity to discuss this matter with him, and what I told him was that the purpose of this amendment is to enable the owner of the freehold to require the licensee or the lesee to sell from that freehold the goods which the owner of the freehold produces.

Mr Clyde Cameron - Produces - not distributes.

Mr SNEDDEN - Or distributes. What has been put here is in relation to T.B.A. arrangements, those letters standing for tyres, batteries and accessories. I want to emphasise, as I have earlier today, that I do not want to prejudge anything. I do not want there to be any thought that there is a prejudging because this must be in the hands of the Tribunal or the court of review. But as I read and interpret the legislation, a T.B.A. arrangement would not fall within the exempted provisions.

Mr Connor - What would the Minister call a related corporation?

Mr SNEDDEN - If the honorable member looks at the interpretive provisions of clause 92 he will find that a related corporation is given the same meaning as in the Companies Act. A related corporation is one in which there is a 50 per cent, shareholding. If there is a 50 per cent, shareholding then it is a related corporation. But I do not think this is a situation which would ever be the reality in relation to the area that we are talking about. The Committee will notice that in the amendment the words used are - unless the term or condition is imposed . . . in pursuance of an agreement . . .

I do not want to go any further because this is a matter for interpretation. However, I think it makes it pretty clear that the purpose of this amendment is that those things which the owner of the freehold distributes, he can require to be distributed through his freehold when he leases it. But the other things in relation to a third person's product are covered by the provision regarding practices. In paragraph 36 (1.) (b) the reference is to forcing another person's product. I think those remarks clear up the situation.

Suggest corrections