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
Thursday, 2 June 1960

Mr CALWELL (Melbourne) (Leader of the Opposition) . - Although the argument advanced by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) is convincing and the amendment should be accepted for the reasons he has given, is it not also possible that under this provision big interests could demand that some small operator should give them a programme and by the use of their money and the various pressures that they could exert on that person, make it very difficult for him to refuse even though there is this protection? Conversely, is it not possible that even if these big companies themselves have the ownership of a large selection of films which they do not want to let out - and this is the thing I fear most - the small man would have very little chance of fighting them successfully and getting the programmes that he might want?

The board could issue an order and if the board does not satisfy him or the company concerned, there can be an appeal to the Commonwealth Industrial Court. That would mean additional legal expense and the small person could be put to a great deal of trouble by the big, powerful group. 1 cannot see why the decision of the board should not be final in these matters. If an appeal to the Industrial Court is allowed, the Government might have to allow an appeal to the High Court of Australia. I do not know whether an appeal to the High

Court is ruled out by this particular provision.

Sir Garfield Barwick - It would fall under the ordinary appellate provisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Mr CALWELL - I do not like a provision which allows such an appeal to the Industrial Court or brings the Industrial Court into determinations of fact. In matters of this sort, the court should be involved only in questions of law. But questions of fact will be determined by the court in this case. Decisions of that kind might very well be made by the Minister or by anybody else if the Minister does not want to make a decision.

Senate's amendment agreed to.

Senate's amendment No. 8 -

At the end of proposed section 105a add the following sub-section: - " ' (16.) For the purposes of this section, the area served by a television station is the area or areas within which consistently reliable reception of the programmes televised by that station can be obtained.'.".

Suggest corrections