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: 935

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral) - The answer is that, if a supplier is dealing with a distributor and they are related, we cannot see much problem arising under sub-clause (2). Under sub-clauses (3) and (4) third parties are injected into the situation and they become the meat in the sandwich, between the company and the related company. I think what Senator Greenwood is coming around to is what the Government came around to, namely, that really we should not have such a situation. I repeat what I said: At first blush the amendment did not seem to do much harm, but if it is applied to sub-clauses (3) and (4) positive harm can be done. We cannot see that there would be really much damage if it were not applied to sub-clauses (3) and (4), but it is quite clear that if it were applied to the whole clause it would be damaging. Senator Greenwood may think it preferable to abandon the proposal rather than to proceed with it. His amendment certainly would be a damaging provision to insert in relation to sub-clauses (3) and (4). I think that is unanswerable. I have heard no endeavour to answer it.

Another suggestion has been made that may clarify the position still further. Since the principles are reasonably clear- I do not think we want to have a reference to related companies such that a corporation could use it in the way referred to in sub-clauses (3) and (4)- may I suggest that consideration of clause 47 be deferred and brought up a little later? Perhaps a motion could be moved that consideration ofthe clause be postponed until a later hour this evening.

Suggest corrections