10'1 Other like services drafting history - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 15
About This Presentation
Title:

10'1 Other like services drafting history

Description:

... in Pensacola Telegraph Co v Western Union Telegraph Co (1878) 96 US 1 ... rests on implied incidental power ... A generous view of implied incidental power ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:20
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 16
Provided by: kevenb
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 10'1 Other like services drafting history


1

TOPIC 10 COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
  • 10.1 Other like services - drafting history
  • 10.2 Control of broadcasting
  • 10.3 Section 51(v) and incidental power
  • 10.4 Progressive interpretation

2
10.1 Other like services - drafting history
  • Section 51(v) Postal, telegraphic, telephonic
    and other like services
  • 1891 Convention - did some delegates know about
    recent discoveries in physics?
  • 1897-98 Convention other like services - an
    explicit invitation to progressive interpretation

3
10.2 Control of broadcasting
  • R v Brislan Ex parte Williams (1935) 54 CLR 262
    (Latham CJ, Rich, Starke, Dixon, Evatt, and
    McTiernan JJ)
  • decided the Commonwealth could control radio
    broadcasting (Dixon J dissented)

4
American history
  • power over post offices and post roads
  • interpreted to include telegraphic communication
    in Pensacola Telegraph Co v Western Union
    Telegraph Co (1878) 96 US 1
  • Congressional control of radio and television
    broadcasting now regarded as within the Commerce
    Clause

5
Privy Council on BNA Act
  • In Re Regulation and Control of Radio
    Communication in Canada 1932 AC 304
  • Privy Council decision holding that radio
    broadcasting came within power over telegraphs
    and undertakings connecting the Provinces

6
Brislan Rich and Evatt JJ
  • decided radio broadcasting is a telephonic
    service
  • referred to USA and Canada
  • noted that s 51(v) bears upon its face an
    attempt to cover unknown and unforeseen
    developments (54 CLR at 283)

7
Brislan Dixon J
  • identified the like element as meaning the
    communication must be interpersonal

8
Brislan key points
  • The constitutional issue was whether radio
    broadcasting was a s 51(v) service
  • It was not in contest that radio transmission
    could be used to conduct a s 51(v) service
  • the control of distant communication according
    to a systematic plan descriptive but not
    definitive?

9
Television broadcasting
  • Jones v Commonwealth (No 2) (1965) 112 CLR 206
  • Held, applying Brislan, television broadcasting
    is a like service

10
10.3 Section 51(v) and incidental power
  • Herald Weekly Times Ltd v Commonwealth (1966)
    115 CLR 418
  • Licence to conduct television broadcasting may be
    subject to conditions. The conditions need not
    relate to the subject matter of s 51(v) (ie non-
    purposive interpretation)
  • Ruling on prescribed interests rests on implied
    incidental power

11
HWT case and implied incidental power
  • a means . . . for effectuating a desired end
    which is within power (Kitto J 115 CLR at 437)
  • A generous view of implied incidental power
  • The purpose relates to the subject matter and
    there is no evidence of ulterior purpose
  • The States have never been involved in regulating
    this subject matter

12
Are legislative means purely a matter for
Parliament?
  • Kitto J in HWT says that the scope of the
    measures adopted to control prescribed interests
    is a question of degree for the Parliament to
    decide (115 CLR at 437)
  • Note the comments of Mason CJ in Nationwide News
    (1992) 177 CLR 1, 28

13
How far does s 51(v) extend?
  • Cable television, Internet etc are all means for
    conducting communication services
  • Newspapers and other print media?
  • Control of computer databases?
  • Could the Commonwealth enact a uniform defamation
    code?

14
10.4 Progressive interpretation
  • Grain Pool 2000 HCA 14 upheld Commonwealth
    power to legislate for plant breeders rights
    under Constitution s 51(xviii).
  • Endorses the distinction between central type and
    circumference made by Higgins J (dissenting) in
    Union Label (1908) 6 CLR 469.

15
Grain PoolCompares the interpretation of s
51(xviii) with s 51(v), citing Brislan and Jones
v Commonwealth (No 2)
  • Cites with approval the dictum in Nintendo (1994)
    181 CLR 134 that the Commonwealth may make laws
    which create, confer, and provide for the
    enforcement of, intellectual property rights in
    original compositions, inventions, designs, trade
    marks and other products of intellectual effort.
  • Decides that s 51(xviii) is non-purposive.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com