Bills Digest No. 58 1999-2000
Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced
and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have
any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine
the subsequent official status of the Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999
Date Introduced: 28 June 1999
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Communications,
Information Technology and the Arts
Commencement: On Assent,
except for Schedules 2 and 3 which commence three months after the Royal
Assent
To amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the
BSA) and other legislation to provide for the introduction of:
- an 'anti-hoarding' regime that will prevent free-to-air (FTA) television
broadcasters from obtaining, but not using, the rights to show certain
sporting events
- measures to restrict pay television (pay TV) operators in regional
areas from showing prime time metropolitan commercial programming
- a new regime for the re-transmission of FTA broadcasting services
- an increase in the time allowed for sponsorship announcements by community
broadcasters.
The first three of the above measures were introduced
in the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill 1998 that lapsed when the
38th Parliament was prorogued.(1) That Bill was the subject
of a report by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology
and the Arts Legislation Committee (SECITALC) which canvassed a number
of issues while ultimately recommending that the Bill be passed without
amendment.(2) The current Bill replicates the anti-hoarding provisions
of the earlier Bill, but makes a number of changes to the provisions for
regional pay TV programming and re-transmission.
Anti-Hoarding
Since the introduction of pay TV it has been a policy
objective of all major parties that major sporting and cultural events
remain available to the Australian public on free-to-air television. Section
115 of the BSA enables the Minister to list events that are in this category
(the 'anti-siphoning list'). As a condition of their licences, pay TV
operators are prohibited from acquiring broadcasting rights to these events
unless the national or commercial FTA broadcasters have also acquired
the rights. However, there are no provisions in the Act to ensure that
the FTA broadcasters actually show the events for which they have acquired
the rights. The anti-hoarding provisions in the Bill are an attempt to
deal with this situation by establishing a 'must offer' regime for FTA
broadcasters who have acquired the rights to certain events but are unwilling
or unable to show them 'live' to the general public.
The provisions will enable the Minister for Communications,
Information Technology and the Arts to make a disallowable instrument
listing events to which the regime will apply (the 'anti-hoarding list').
If the 'live' broadcasting rights to a listed event have been acquired
by a commercial television broadcaster or their program suppliers, then
they must either broadcast the event 'live' or offer the event to the
national broadcasters (the ABC and SBS) for the amount of $1. Similarly,
the national broadcasters must offer the listed events to each other if
they do not intend to use the rights.
Compliance with the anti-hoarding rules is a condition
of a commercial television licence, while program suppliers who intentionally
or recklessly breach the rules will be subject to a civil penalty of 2000
penalty units, currently $220,000.
The commercial television broadcasters have questioned
the need for the rules, arguing that hoarding does not take place and
that failure to broadcast an event 'live' and in full has been erroneously
equated with hoarding. Pay TV operators have criticised the proposed rules
as ineffective, as there will be no requirement for the national broadcasters
to show those events that have been passed on to them for a nominal fee.
The ABC has argued that the 'offer time' should be at least 30 days before
the event is to be shown or there may be difficulties with programming
changes and informing viewers. Under the amendments, the offer time for
each event is determined by the Minister when the event is designated
as part of the anti-hoarding list.
Regional Pay TV Programming
Section 212 of the BSA permits the re-transmission of
programs within a licence area by non-licensees. This provision was intended
to facilitate 'self-help' groups to improve their reception of FTA programs
in areas where the signals were poor or non-existent. The provision has
also enabled pay TV operators to re-transmit the programs of commercial
and national FTA channels for the convenience of their subscribers. In
places where metropolitan and regional licence areas overlap, pay TV operators
can re-transmit the metropolitan programming. While regional and metropolitan
licensees may broadcast the same network programming, the regional licensees
also televise local news, sport and advertising. The replacement of the
regional broadcast by the metropolitan broadcast could thus have detrimental
effects on the advertising revenue for the regional broadcaster (by reducing
their potential audience) and could threaten the integrity of the licence
area concept.
The amendments will prevent a regional pay TV operator
from providing a television service if three or more consecutive program
items are identical to any three or more program items broadcast by a
metropolitan FTA broadcaster in prime viewing hours unless they have the
permission of the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA). This approach
is somewhat more specific than that adopted by the 1998 Bill, which prohibited
re-transmission when the majority of programs broadcast were the same
as those provided by a metropolitan licensee. In their submission to the
SECITALC, pay TV operators stated that they thought the provisions were
flawed in that they would unintentionally catch certain services.
Re-transmission of Programs
In 1996 the Full Federal Court held that simultaneous
and unaltered cable re-transmissions of FTA television services are permitted
under the current provisions of the BSA and the Copyright Act 1968.(3)
In that case, Networks Seven, Nine and Ten unsuccessfully sought to restrain
Foxtel from re-transmitting their programs as part of Foxtel's 20-channel
cable television service. The commercial networks argued that section
212 of the BSA must be given a strict interpretation and therefore did
not apply to Foxtel's re-transmission of their signals. The Federal Court
rejected this argument. It followed from the Court's interpretation of
the section that the Networks also failed in their copyright and trademark
claims. In relation to copyright, the Court held that section 199(4) of
the Copyright Act, which allows a cable subscription service to transmit
a broadcast signal, applied to Foxtel. It also held that there was no
infringement of trademark because the broadcast signal as re-transmitted
by Foxtel would continue to denote a connection with the commercial networks
and their programs.
The effect of the judgement is that almost any person
can re-transmit the programs of a FTA broadcaster. As a result, pay TV
licensees continue to re-transmit FTA television without compensating
copyright owners or seeking the permission of FTA broadcasters.
The Copyright Convergence Group (CCG) in its 1994 report(4)
recommended that pay TV licensees should pay for using intellectual property
that belongs to others. In this regard it should be noted that re-transmission
involves two distinct copyright issues:
- that relating to the broadcast signal copyright, and
- that relating to the underlying copyright holders whose material is
transmitted and re-transmitted.
The re-transmission provisions of this Bill will:
- enable 'self-help' arrangements to continue without the need to gain
permission from free-to-air broadcasters to re-transmit their signals
- require pay TV licensees to compensate underlying copyright holders
for the use of their intellectual property, and
- require pay TV licensees to seek permission from free-to-air broadcasters
to
re-transmit their signals.
In their submissions to the SECITALC, the commercial
and national FTA broadcasters supported the legislation. They argued that
their property rights should be respected and remunerated and that they
should have control over their signals to ensure quality control in transmissions.
The pay TV industry opposed the legislation, arguing that
re-transmission benefits FTA broadcasters and their advertisers by increasing
their reach and ensures a better service for consumers. The committee
also received many submissions from pay TV consumers who complained that,
if the legislation was passed, they might lose access to FTA service via
cable, resulting in a deterioration of signal quality. The commercial
FTA broadcasters emphasised that it was not their intention to prevent
re-transmission, but to control the conditions under which it occurred.
Schedule 1--Anti-hoarding amendments
Proposed new section 146C enables the Minister
to declare a certain event or series of events to be 'designated'. In
making a declaration the Minister must also determine the 'offer time'
(proposed subsection 146C(4)). That is, the time in which a FTA
broadcaster must make unused material available to the national broadcasters.
Proposed subsection 146C(6) provides that declarations made
under section 146C are disallowable instruments.
The anti-hoarding rule applies to program suppliers (proposed
section 146F). Proposed new section 146D sets out the criteria
for determining whether a person is a program supplier of a commercial
broadcasting licensee. A person will be a program supplier for the purposes
of the Act if the person:
- has an agreement to supply a licensee with programs and the person
supplies or may be expected to supply the licensee with at least two-thirds
of televised sporting programs that are or will be televised by the
licensee or all other prescribed programs during the period of agreement
(proposed subsection 146D(2)).
- is a related body corporate of the licensee and supplies or proposes
to supply sporting programs or other prescribed programs to the licensee
(proposed subclause 146D(3)).
- is declared by the ABA to be a program supplier. Item 2
amends section 204 to enable a person to seek review by the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of an ABA declaration under this section.
Proposed new section 146E sets out the anti-hoarding
rule as it applies to commercial television broadcasters. A licensee will
breach the rule if:
- the licensee has, in the licence area, the right to televise live
a designated event or a designated series of events, and
- the licensee acquired the broadcast rights after the event
was designated, and
- the licensee failed to televise live the event at all or in part,
and
- neither the licensee nor the licensee's program supplier offered to
transfer the rights to the event to the ABC and SBS within the offer
time specified by the Minister under section 146C.
Proposed subsection 146E(2) provides that a licensee
will be taken to have televised live the whole of an event if all but
an insubstantial proportion is covered. The subsection is designed to
allow the broadcast of commercial breaks and news breaks for example.
Contravention of the anti-hoarding rule will constitute
a breach of the broadcaster's licence condition. Item 3 amends
the licence conditions in Schedule 2 of the BSA. Sanctions for breach
of these conditions include suspension or cancellation of the commercial
broadcaster's licence.
Proposed new section 146F provides that a program
supplier must not intentionally or recklessly contravene the anti-hoarding
rule. This provision is similar to that which applies to commercial broadcasters.
Program suppliers will however be subject to a fine of
2000 penalty units (currently $220,000) for intentionally or recklessly
contravening the rule.
Proposed section 146H provides that offers must
be in writing to the Managing Directors of the ABC and SBS at 'about the
same time'. The offer must be open until the start of the event or series.
Proposed subsection 146H(6) provides that the offer must require
the ABC or SBS to promise to pay $1 for the transfer of broadcast rights.
Proposed section 146J precludes licensees and
their program suppliers from entering into contracts which allow them
to acquire or entitle them to acquire the rights to televise a designated
event or series unless the contract allows them to offer the rights to
the national broadcasters. Contracts entered into in breach of the section
will be void.
Proposed section 146K is designed to protect broadcasters
and their suppliers from breaching the anti-hoarding provision in relation
to simultaneous events in a designated series. The Explanatory Memorandum
gives the example of Wimbledon Tennis Championships.(5) If two or more
events in the same series overlap in time and the licensee televises one
of those events live, the licensee is taken to have televised live the
remainder of those simultaneous events.
The anti-hoarding rule also applies to the ABC and SBS
(proposed section 146L). Both are captured by the general provisions
of the anti-hoarding rule but are only compelled to offer live rights
to each other.
It is important to note that the effect of proposed
subsection 146L(6) is that the national broadcasters are not compelled
to show a program transferred under the anti-hoarding provisions from
a commercial broadcaster. Proposed sections 146M, 146N,
146P and 146Q apply to the national broadcasters and mirror
the proposed framework applying to commercial broadcasting licensees and
their program suppliers in relation to 'offer' requirements, contracts
authorising a transfer of rights and the coverage of simultaneous events
in a series.
Schedule 2--Pay TV programming in regional areas
Item 1 of Schedule 2 inserts a new Part 8A,
which restricts the content of subscription television services (pay TV)
in regional areas. These provisions have been substantially amended since
the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill 1998 (the 1998 Bill) lapsed.
Proposed section 121E is the key operative provision
of the new part. The permission of the ABA is required if a pay TV operator,
or related body corporate, transmits 3 or more consecutive program items
that are identical to any 3 or more programs transmitted by a metropolitan
commercial television broadcasting licensee during prime viewing hours.
The Explanatory Memorandum notes that the consecutive
requirement only applies to the pay TV broadcaster or its related body
corporate. It is not possible for a broadcaster to avoid the requirements
of the section by changing the order of programs transmitted by the metropolitan
licensee.(6)
As noted above, the new Part 8A is more specific than
the 1998 Bill. In that Bill, pay TV broadcasters required the permission
of the ABA to broadcast in a regional area if the majority of the
material broadcast was the same as televised by a metropolitan commercial
television licensee. In addition, the role of the Minister
in designating programs, which may not be transmitted by Pay TV in regional
areas, has been removed from the Bill.
Item 2 adds two items to the table in section
204 of the BSA. Section 204 lists particular situations where a listed
person may apply to the AAT for review of an ABA decision. The two new
items relate to permission either refused or granted under proposed section
121E (above). Persons who may apply for review are:
- pay TV broadcasting licensees or a related body corporate, and
- commercial broadcasting licensees (if any part of their licence area
overlaps with the regional area).
Item 3 provides that contravention, by pay TV
licensees, of the programming restrictions in regional areas will constitute
a breach of a licence condition.
Item 4 brings persons providing an open narrowcasting
television service(7) or a pay TV narrowcasting service(8) within the
above provisions.
Schedule 3--Re-transmission of programs
Schedule 3 has been substantially amended since the 1998
Bill.
Item 1 inserts a definition of re-transmission
into section 6 of the Act. A re-transmission of programs occurs where
the content of programs is unaltered (even if the technique of re-transmission
is different from the method of original transmission) and the re-transmission
is simultaneous with the original transmission or if the re-transmission
is into a different time zone - the retransimission is delayed until no
later than the equivalent local time. The Explanatory Memorandum
states that the definition is consistent with the meaning given to the
term by the Full Federal Court in the FOXTEL case.(9) The insertion of
the definition will make it clear that if a program is altered in any
way it will not amount to a re-transmission.
Items 3 and 4 amend the definitions of 'subscription
narrowcasting services' and 'open narrowcasting services' to exclude re-transmissions
of national, commercial and community broadcasting services. This is to
ensure that such re-transmissions are dealt with by the proposed new regime
inserted by Item 6.
Item 6 inserts a new Part 14B into the
BSA to replace the re-transmission regime in section 212 of the Act. The
Part specifies certain re-transmissions of radio and television programs
that are exempt from the Act and includes re-transmissions of commercial
and community broadcasting services:
- by a self-help provider for the sole or principal purpose of obtaining
or improving reception. Self-help providers are immune from proceedings
under the Copyright Act (proposed subsection 205N(3).
- by a person other than a self-help provider with the agreement of
the commercial/community licensee
- by any person if the re-transmission is within a declared remote area.
The ABA is empowered by proposed section 205H to make determinations
concerning remote areas. These determinations are disallowable instruments.
In contrast to the 1998 Bill, re-transmissions within
and outside the licence area are now subject to exemptions. The list of
'in-licence-area' exemptions is contained in proposed section 205N
and the 'out-of-licence-area' exemptions are listed in proposed section
205P.
A parallel list of exemptions from the Act applies to
the re-transmission of programs transmitted by the ABC or SBS (proposed
section 205V).
Proposed section 205J defines self-help providers
to include amongst others:
- a non-profit body or a local government body which provides the re-transmissions
for the sole or principal purpose of obtaining or improving reception
in a community
- companies operating a mine or oil or gas installation in an isolated
location which provide re-transmissions for the sole or principal purpose
of obtaining or improving reception in a community
- a person who provides the re-transmission within a building or structure
for the sole or principal purpose of obtaining or improving reception
for persons in the building or structure.
The Minister is empowered under proposed section 205K
to deal with anomalies by declaring certain persons to be self-help providers
and thus exempt from proposed Part 14B and other persons to be excluded
providers. The Explanatory Memorandum gives the example of the
exclusion power being applied to a local government body which undertook
to provide the service on behalf of a pay TV operator so that that operator
could avoid the operation of the rules.(10) Determinations made under
the section are disallowable instruments.
Where a re-transmission does not fall within one of the
exemptions outlined above(11), the Bill provides for remedies. These provisions
are intended to capture pay TV services which currently re-transmit FTA
broadcasts as part of their service. Proposed section 205PA sets
out the 'in-licence-area-rule'. The rule is contravened if a person does
no more than re-transmit, within the licence area of a commercial or community
licensee, all the programs that are transmitted by that licensee.
Proposed subsection 205PA(2) entitles commercial
and community broadcasters to seek relief in the Federal Court if a person
is breaching or proposing to breach the in-licence area-rule. Relief available
includes an injunction, damages or an account of profits (proposed
subsection 205PA(3)).
Proposed subsection 205PA(4) provides that licensees
are not entitled to relief under the BSA if they or their assignees or
successors have an action under the Copyright Act. On September 2, the
Attorney-General introduced the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill
1999. Among other things, the Bill will remedy the anomaly in the FOXTEL
case referred to above and give broadcasters a technology neutral right
to communicate with the public which will include the right to control
re-transmissions. This Bill is designed to give licensees some protection
prior to the commencement of the Digital Agenda Bill.
Proposed section 205PB establishes the 'out-of-licence-area-rule'
and is substantially in the same terms as the 'in-licence-area-rule' in
section 205PA. Equivalent relief for national broadcasters is available
under proposed section 205VA where there is a contravention of
the 'national broadcasting rule'.
The Bill also imposes requirements on pay TV licensees
or related bodies corporate which re-transmit a metropolitan commercial
television service in a metropolitan/regional overlap area. Under proposed
subsection 205W(1), if a regional commercial television licensee is
related to the metropolitan licensee and the regional licensee consents
to
re-transmission, the Pay TV service must retransmit the programs of the
regional licensee in the overlap area.
Where a Pay TV service re-transmits a metropolitan commercial
television service into an overlap area where there is no regional licensee
related to the metropolitan broadcaster, proposed subsection
205W(2) requires Pay TV licensees to re-transmit all programs transmitted
by regional licensees in the overlap area. As with subsection 205W(1),
the consent of the regional licensees is required for re-transmission.
Proposed section 205X provides that the Minister
must appoint an arbitrator if a Pay TV service cannot agree on terms with
a regional broadcaster to re-transmit programs as required under proposed
section 205W.
Proposed Section 205ZB is another section that
was not present in the 1998 Bill. It provides that the re-transmission
regime inserted by the Bill must be reviewed within 2 years of commencement.
In order to implement the new re-transmission regime,
Item 7 repeals existing section 212 of the BSA which deals with the
re-transmission of programs.
Item 9 amends existing subclause 7(2) of Schedule
2 extending the list of circumstances where a commercial television licensee
may broadcast outside its licence area. Currently, services may be broadcast
outside the licence area if the broadcast occurs by accident or as a necessary
result of the provision of commercial television services within the licence
area.
Item 9 extends the list of permissible outside licence
area broadcasts to include:
- broadcasts made in exceptional circumstances(12) with the written
approval of the ABA and
- broadcasts made to persons not receiving adequate reception of commercial
television (that is, persons in 'black-spots') with the written approval
of the ABA.
Item 11 applies to commercial radio broadcasters
and mirrors the provisions of Item 9 above.
Item 13 applies to community radio and television
broadcasters and mirrors the provisions of Items 9 and 11 above.
Items 18 and 19 amend the Copyright Act. Item
19 inserts proposed section 199B which provides that, in certain
circumstances, copyright in a broadcast is not infringed by
re-transmissions in declared remote areas. To obtain the protection of
the section, the re-transmission:
- must be made in accordance with an agreement between the re-transmitter
and the owner of the copyright in the broadcast or
- the re-transmitter must have given an undertaking to pay an equitable
amount of remuneration determined by the Copyright Tribunal or
- the re-transmission must be covered by contingent tribunal order.
That is an order of the Copyright Tribunal made prior to re-transmission
or taking effect on the commencement of re-transmission (see proposed
subsection 199B(4)).
Item 18 inserts proposed section 152AB which empowers
the Copyright Tribunal to determine the amount that it considers to be
equitable remuneration to the owner of copyright in a broadcast for re-transmission
in declared remote areas.
These amendments to the Copyright Act have no application
to re-transmissions by
self-help providers. They are specifically exempted by proposed subsections
205N(3), 205P(5) and 205V(3) of the BSA.
Schedule 4-- Sponsorship announcements by community
broadcasting licensees.
Item 1 will amend the BSA to allow community broadcasting
licensees to broadcast sponsorship announcements that run for no more
than 5 minutes per hour of broadcasting. The current limit is 4 minutes
per hour.
The Anti-Hoarding Provisions
The proposed anti-hoarding regime in the Bill imposes
a 'must offer' requirement on FTA broadcasters. The proposed anti-hoarding
provisions will complement the anti-siphoning regime which prevents a
pay TV licensee acquiring the rights to an event or events listed on the
anti-siphoning list unless an FTA licensee has also acquired the rights
to broadcast the event. As the controversy surrounding the broadcast of
the Ashes Series in 1997 demonstrated, the anti-siphoning rules do not
necessarily result in a designated event being broadcast on FTA television.
The effectiveness of the proposed 'use or lose' regime
as far as the public is concerned will depend upon which events are placed
on the anti-hoarding list. In his Second Reading Speech, the Minister
for Arts and the Centenary of Federation, Peter McGauran stated that:
'it is envisaged that the Ministerial designation power
will be used only in limited circumstances - for example where there
is a widespread public expectation, based on past practice, of the full
live televising of an event'.(13)
The prospects of the Bill having any impact on hoarding
of major sporting events in the immediate term seem to be limited. The
Bill will not have any retrospective operation. Proposed section 146E
provides that the anti-hoarding rule will only apply if the licensee acquired
the right to broadcast when the event was a designated event. The rights
to some prominent sporting events have already been secured for some time.
For example, the Nine Network holds the rights to FTA Rugby League broadcasts
until 2006 and the Seven Network has already acquired the rights to the
Ashes cricket in England in 2001. Consequently, the Bill will not impact
on the broadcast of these events until after this time.
It is also important to note that neither the ABC nor
SBS are compelled by the legislation to show live an event or series transferred
under the anti-hoarding amendments.
Re-transmission
The proposed re-transmission regime will require pay
TV operators to obtain the consent of FTA broadcasters in order to re-transmit
their service and will thus supersede the Federal Court's ruling in the
Foxtel case. In the SECITALC report, Government, Opposition and Democrat
Senators agreed that FTA broadcasters were entitled to compensation for
the use of their broadcast signal by pay TV operators.
Opposition and Democrat Senators however expressed concern
that the pay TV industry and in particular, their subscribers would be
adversely affected if FTA broadcasters and the pay TV industry were unable
to come to an agreement to permit re-transmission.
While the Bill does provide for an arbitration procedure
in relation to the mandatory
re-transmission of regional commercial television (see proposed sections
205W and 205X), this Bill, like its 1998 predecessor, makes no provision
for arbitration if a Pay TV provider and FTA broadcaster cannot agree
to terms and conditions for re-transmission outside a metropolitan/regional
overlap area.
The Opposition and the Democrat Senators argued that
the Copyright Tribunal should be appointed as the arbitrator.
In rejecting the need for an arbitration provision, the
Government members of the Committee noted that the Government was allowing
a minimum six month period between enactment of the legislation and proclamation
by the Governor-General to enable negotiations to occur. It indicated
that proclamation of the relevant Schedule could be delayed if FTA broadcasters
and Pay TV operators had not reached an agreement. However, the commencement
provisions have been changed in the current Bill. Proposed section 2 provides
that Schedule 3 will commence three months after Assent. The mechanism
identified by the Government Senators in the previous Bill to promote
agreement has been removed.
Although the Bill does provide that the re-transmission
regime will be reviewed in two years, negotiations between the Pay TV
and FTA broadcasters over the price and conditions of re-transmission
may be facilitated by the insertion of an arbitration provision prior
to the commencement of the new regime.
- For an analysis of that Bill, readers are directed to Kilmurray, Ross.,
Bills Digest No. 6 1998-99, Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill,
Law and Bills Digest Group, Department of the Parliamentary Library,
6 August 1998.
- Senators and Members can obtain the SECITALC report (together with
Minority Reports from the ALP and Democrat Senators) at the website
for the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and
the Arts Committee.
- Amalgamated Television Service Pty Ltd and others v FOXTEL Digital
Cable Television Pty Ltd and Another (1996) 136 ALR 319 (the FOXTEL
case).
- Copyright Convergence Group, Highways to Change: Copyright in the
New Communications Environment, 1994 p. 24.
- Explanatory Memorandum, p. 30.
- ibid, p. 35.
- As defined in section 18 of the BSA.
- As defined in section 17 of the BSA.
- Explanatory Memorandum, p. 38.
- Explanatory Memorandum, p. 44.
- That is, the person is not a self-help provider, the re-transmission
is not within a declared remote area and does not occur with the agreement
of the commercial or community broadcasting licensee.
- The ABA has the discretion to determine what situations constitute
'exceptional circumstances'. The Explanatory Memorandum suggests
that the term may include a situation where a natural disaster has rendered
another broadcaster transmission infrastructure inoperative, p. 58.
- Second Reading Speech, Hansard, 28 June 1999, p. 7615.
Kim Jackson and Mark Tapley
1 September 1999
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and
Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure
that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information
publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are
those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and
Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues
contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and
for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal
opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary
or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators
and Members
and their staff but not with members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 1999
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act
1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, including information storage and retrieval
systems, without the prior written consent of the Parliamentary Library,
other than by Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their
official duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 1999.
|
