Some Reciprocal Effects of Our Anti-Trust Laws, with Special Reference to Australia

WE shall confine the treatment of this subject to a discussion of the influence of American anti-trust legislation upon legislation in Australia since the establishment of the Commonwealth (1901) and upon the recent methods adopted in some other countries for controlling monopoly. It will be necessary to distinguish between the attitude of public opinion in the early period of anti-trust legislation, ending about 1913, and in the later period. In the early history of the Australian Commonwealth the existence of combinations in certain industries, notably sugar, shipping and coal, attracted public attention and the democratic nature of the Parliament of the Commonwealth led to an early attempt at prohibitive legislation. This was embodied in the Australian Industries Preservation Act, 1906-1910. Under the Commonwealth Constitution, Parliament can pass legislation with respect to foreign and interstate trade, but not with respect to trade a state. In the original Act, sections five and eight prohibited foreign or trade or financial corporation from entering into any contract in restraint of trade or controlling to the detriment of the public the supply or price of any service, merchandise or commodity within the Commonwealth. These sections were held by the High Court to be invalid in Huddart Parker & Co. Pty. Ltd. v. Moorhead,' because they did not fall the provisions of the Constitution, which confine the legislative powers of the Commonwealth in this connection to foreign and intersta e trade. They were repealed in 1909. A review of the development of trusts in Australia in 1914 showed that the majority of trade combinations did not extend beyond the limits of a state; consequently, the anti-trust legislation was limited in its application.2

Commonwealth · Constitution · Economics · Legislation · Legislature · Parliament · Political science · Politics · Law · Legal principles and applications · Public Administration