...that the present judicial interpre- tation of “take advantage” was too narrow. The legislation adopts the Senate committee’s proposal to clari- fy the meaning of “take advantage.” Mr Bowen commented that the legis- lation “incorporates four non-exclu- sive factors into section 46 which may be considered by the court in deter- mining whether a corporation has taken advantage of its substantial market power”.
The legislation also clarifies the Australian Competition and Con- sumer Commissions’ (ACCC) infor- mation gathering powers, to facilitate effective enforcement by the ACCC. The then Shadow Minister for
Finance, Competition Policy and Dereg- ulation, Hon. Peter Dutton, MP, recog- nized that “small business is the lifeblood of many small communities, both in city areas and in the bush”. During second reading consideration of the Bill, Mr Dutton moved amend- ments focusing on the need for the Fed- eral Court to hear cases under section
46 rather than the Federal Magistrates Court.
PROTECTION OF THE SEA LEGISLATION AMENDMENT 2008
The Protection of the Sea Legislation “will implement in Australia the protocol of 2003 to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, generally known as the supple- mentary fund protocol”. Australia is currently party to a two- tier liability and compensation scheme applying to pollution damage resulting from oil spills from oil tankers. Mr Albanese noted that “in recent years, sig- nificant spills from oil tankers overseas have proven that the maximum amount of compensation afforded under the two-tier scheme is insufficient to provide full compensation for all claimants”. He also pointed out that “for Australia, a sig- nificant spill of oil from an oil tanker would be devastating if it were to pollute our many fragile marine ecosystems
such as the Great Barrier Reef or the Ningaloo Reef”.The supplementary fund protocol creates a third tier of compen- sation for damage resulting from spills of oil from an oil tanker, so that the maxi- mum amount payable increases up to $750 million special drawing rights per incident, approximately A$1.3 billion—as at 22 May 2008. Mr Albanese stated that the legisla-
tion “will ensure that compensation to Australian victims following an oil spill from a tanker incident is maximized and that adequate financial resources are provided for clean-up costs, eco- nomic loss, property damage and to help with the natural recovery of Aus- tralia’s affected marine environment”. Mr Truss said that “Australia is in a position to lead by example,and by Aus- tralia becoming a signatory to this proto- col we are showing the world the importance Australia places on ensuring the financial capacity to compensate those involved in a clean-up exercise and,worse still,those who may have lost income as a result of an oil spill”.
Third Reading ~ India
CENTRAL UNIVERSITIES LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL 2008
There are various provisions in the Acts of the Central Universities for presenting the annual reports and audited accounts before both Houses of Parliament to inform the working and finances of the central universities. However such provisions are absent in the five statutes governing central uni- versities viz Banaras Hindu University Act; 1915, the Delhi University Act 1922; the Jawaharlal University Act, 1966; the North Eastern Hill Universi- ty Act, 1973; and the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974. In view of this, the government felt it necessary to incorporate provisions in the Acts for the purpose of making it obligatory to present the annual reports and audited accounts before both Houses of Parlia- ment.
As a result the government enacted
the Central Universities Laws (Amend- ment) Bill, 2008 (herein after referred to as Amending Act) to include provi- sions for the five universities. For the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915, the Amending Act inserted the following sub section of Section 13 of the Principal Act: “(3) A copy of the accounts, together with the auditor’s report, shall also be submitted to the central govern- ment.which shall, as soon as may be cause the same to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.” The Amending Act also inserted a
new section 13A in the Principal Act, which requires that the annual report of the University be prepared under the direction of the Executive Council and submitted to the court (of the University) on or before such date as may be prescribed by the statutes.The court in turn may communicate its comments to the Executive Council
(of the University).Thereafter a copy is required to be submitted to the cen- tral government, which in turn would be presented before both Houses of Parliament.
The same subsections were inserted into the respective sections with regards to the four other universities. Members welcomed the measure which they hoped would restore fiscal discipline and bring about transparency in the accounts of the central universi- ties. Members’ suggestions included - (i) functioning of the universities to be taken into consideration; and a need for monitoring of utilization of funds by the universities.The Minister in charge stated that the measure would obli- gate the presentation of the universi- ties’ annual reports and audited accounts.