Laws, R.J.S. v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal

[1988] FCA 409

JUDGMENT No. &.%....g.8...-

CATCHWORDS

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION - r a d l o p r o g r a m s t a n d a r d s -

b r o a d c a s t of p r o g r a m s a l l e g e d t o be b r c a c h l n o f

s t a n d a r d s - c o m p l a i n t s A u t o t r a l i a n E r o a r i c a s t l n g

T r l h u n a l - i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f c o m p l a 1 n t . s - d e c l s l o n t o h o l d

l n q u l r y - w h e t h e r v a l l d l t y of c o m p l a l n t s p r e - l u d g e d -

r i g h t of h r o a d c a s t e r t o b e h e a r d n e f o r e d e c l s l o n made t o

h o l d l n q u l r y - w h e t h e r b r o a d c a s t e r e n t l t l e d t o n a t u r a l

~ u s t i c e b e f o r e i n q u i r y h e l d - w h e t h e r l ' r l b u n a l b l a s e d -

x h e t h e r d e c l s l o n t o h o l d l n q u l r y s h o u l d b e a_uac,hc-d

R I C I I A R D J O H N SINCLAIR LAWS v . AUSTRALIAN B R O A D C A S T I N G

.	.__ -	~-	. -.
TR 1 EUNAL
No. G 102 of 1 9 0 0

IN T!IC FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

- - -.

1

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G 102 of 1988

-. - __ -

)

GENERAL DIVISION - _. )

BETWEEN:  RICHARD JOHN SINCLAIR LAWS

Applicant

AND :  AUSTRALIAN DROADCASTIKG -

TRIBUNAL -

Respondent

___- MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE	MAKING	ORDER	: morllng J.
-

DATE Or ORDER : 5 August 1988

WHERE IlADE -- : Sydney

THE COURT ORDERS:

L .	lhat the Australian Droadcastlng ?‘rlbunal not
procccd with the ~nqulry referred to ~n lts

letter of 11 Dccernber 1987 to the applicant while the Chairman, or Vice-Chairman of the Trlbunal or Mr Balley are present in tl’lclr

capacities as members of the Trlbunal.
7 .	That the application be otherwlse dlsmlsscd.
?

3 .       That there be no o r d e r as to costs.

4 . That these orders De not entercd beforc 15

August 1988.

NOTE :	Settlement and entry of orders l<, dcalt ‘11th in
Order  3 6 of the Federal Court R u l c s .

IN THE FEDERAL COURT	OF AUSTRALIA	)
..
)

NEW SOUTH WALES _ _ DISTRICT -. RZGISTRY )

.-

)

GENERAL DIVISICN

AFD :	AUSTRALIAN EROADCASTING	-_	..
TRIBUNAL

3espondent

MORLING J . 5 August 1988

In these proceedings ivlr John l a v s ;-cks order; under

the Admlnlstracive __ D L ~ C L S ~ O ~ S (Judicial Revre.+:) :let 1977

.._ . - - - - ..

quashlng decisions of the Australian Sroadcascing 7 r ~ hunal

relating to several programs broadcast by hlm in March 1987 and

a declaration that the Tr~bunal he restrained from €ucther

investigating the matters whlch ate <he suh~ect of L ~ S

declslons. .

The applicant 1s a w e l l known radlo personality. In

March 1987 his radlo programs w e ~ e broadcast to a v e r y ialrge

audlence through Statlon 2 G B Sydney ~rld numprous o t ? e ~ radlo

stations ln N e w South Wsles ~ 7 d ~n other St3c-s E~c., een

- I

11 and 23 iGitch I S 0 7 sono ,:I i?o pro?.ip5 r t ? t z ~ ? ~ 3 c:~-~nt; h!

the appllcant 21.1 Federal gogercment expendltures. S3me o €

these comments were directed	at the	le-lel of expenditure on
Aboriginal welfare actlv1t-e~. These comments gave	r ~ s c	to
complaints by a	number of p e r s o ~ s , ~nclildl~g	the Iliniscer for

Aboriginal Affalls. The complaln:~ n'cre made to t h e Austral~an Rroadcastrqg 'Tribunal vhlch 1 5 , ?h? rged xlth the function, lnter alia, of de;ermlnlng the standards to be

observed by licensees a € coqmerclal rsdlu stalrlons L!I rcspect

of the broadcastlng of p r o g r a m s : see s.lrj(l)(d) of the

Broadcastlng Act 1942 ("the Act").

Pursuanc EO s.lrj(l)(d! the 'l'rlbunal has l a i d down a

number of standards, "RPS racllo Sroadcastln? standa~cls. One of these

3 " , 1s chat a llcensee may qot transmlt a

program whlch 1 s llkely TO lnclte o r perpetuate hatred aqalnst

or gratuitously vlllfy any person or ~ ~ O U D on the basis of,

inter alia, ethnlclty, naclonallcy ? r ~ a c c .

On 8 A ~ K I L 1 9 8 7 r h e T1-1Suniil wrote to the Manager of

2GB, requestlng tapes of the p r o g ~ a m s of whrch complalnE had

been made, and enclosing the Mlnlster's letter of complalnt.

In April and Flay corresponde~ce passed between the Trlhunal and

2GB In whlch reference TTas made by Ehe radlo s~atlon to ~ r l t t e n

and on-air apologies ,rhlch had been glven to Aborlglnes kho had

claimed to have been offended by	the programs. Surprlslnqly,
the Tribunal neither dlrected cny correspondence	;o Mr Laws nor
sought any explanatlon	f r c m ~1x1.

Or! t Se?tem!~=.r 1:; :?$ I:::-:zl -;:TE? t ? : G 6

requestlng a rneetlng as it had formed the VI?\; that breaches of

RPS 3 may have occurred. The meet1n3 vas held on

30 September. It vas ttended by the Chal~man and

Vice -Cha i rman	of	t h e T r l b u n a l a n d b y a n o t h e r	of	~	t	members ,	s	M r
B a i l e y .	?.GB	v a s r e p r e s e n t e d b y	I I r Duncan,	~	t	GEqrral	s	F a n a y e r ,

a n d b y xr C o x , ? C S P r o g r a m D l r e c t o r . T h e C h a l r m a n s t z t e d c h a t

t h e T r l b u n a l h a d f o r m e d t h e view t h a t ilr Laws' p r o g r a m s may

h a v e b r e a c h e d RPS 3 I n t h a t " t h e y w e r e l ~ k e l y :o l n c l t ? a n d

p e r p e t u a c e h a t r e r ! z g a l n s t a ? r o u p o n t h e b a s i s of r a c c " . S h e

s a i d t h a c i f t h e T r l b u n a l c o n c l u d e d c h a t t h e p r o g r a m s h a d b e c n

made i n b r e a c h o f RPS 3 I t c o u l d e x e r c l s e l t s D O W ~ ~ S u n d e r

5 . 1 1 9 of t h e A c t . T h a t s e c c l o n p r o v l d e s a s f o l l o w s :

" 1 1 9 . (1) Where a p e r s o n h a s -

( a ) p r e s e n c e d ~n a l l v e b r o a d c a s t t h e w h o l r

o r a p a r t q f a p r o g r a m ; o r

(L.) p a s s e d o r s t 7 l c c t e d f o r b r o a d c a s t l n g t h e

vnolc! z r a p a r t of a p r o g r a m ( D e l n g a

p r o g r a m t h a t wa S s u b s e q u e n t l y

b r o a d c a s t ) ,

i n r e s p e c t o f w h i c h , o r l n r e s p e c t o f t h e h r c a d -

c a s c i n g o f w h i c h , t h e p r o g r a m s t a n d a r d s w e r e n o t

c o m p l i e d :;?.th o r t h i s A c t was c o n t r a v e n e d , t h e

T r i b u n a l may, by direction h a v i n g e f f e c t e l t h e r

i n d e f l n l t e l y o r f o r a p e r l o d e t e r m l n e d h y t h e

T r i b u n a l -

( c ) p r o h i b i t t h e p r s o n f r o m p r e s e n t l n g

p r o g r a m s i n l l v e b r o a d c a s t s o r p a s s l n g

o r	s e l e c t i n g p r o g r a m s	f o r b r o a d c a s t l n g ;
o r

( d ) i m p o s e r e s t r l c t l o n s o n t h e p r e s e n t r n g

b y t h e p r s o n p r o g r a m s f L P 1r:re

b r o a d c a s t s o r on t h e p a s s l n g o r

selecting b y t h e ? e r s o n o f p r o g r a m s f a r

b r o a d c a s t i n g .

( 2 :  The T I - I ~ L I P ~ ~ s h a l l nc: 31i'e J d 1 r e c t : s r

C O a p e r s o n u n d e r 5 r b - s c c t . o r (1' 1.?l,r:5 ~t c ? s I - /

n o t l c e i n v r l t l n g	s-rv:!	or. CL?^ pe:s::-,	r a l l e 4
t h e p e r s o n t o s h o w	??use , w l c h l n	a	p e r l o d s p e c l r 1 ; i d

b y t h e T r i b u n a l , why t h e d l r e c t l o n s h o u l d n o t b e

g i v e n .

( 3 ) P. p e r s o n s h a l l n o t c o n t r a v e n e a d l r e c c l o n

of t h e T r i b u n a l u n d e r t h l s section."

.. . .

. .

4

M r Duncan polqted out that the relevant programs had

extended over * a p~tlod	of sonc days and iad Included csmments
on qranns to the Aboriqlna! community and were	part of a

lengthier debate about government grants generally. Although

N r Duncan did not say that hc was speaklnq on IIr Laws' !2ehalf,

the Tribunal miqhc vel1 have thought that he was. >71th the

benefit of hindsight, it would have been much better	1 f IIr Laws
himself had been asked to attend the meetlng. The nceting

concluded when the Chalrman	of the	Tribunal aqaln drew	Mr
Duncan's	attention to s . 1 1 9	and sald that	che record of the

meeting would be sent e o :GB fo? Its comrents.

In due course a copy of the record of the meetlng was

sent to M r Duncan. Shortly thereafter 2GB's sollcltsrs vrote

to the Trlbunal staclng, lnter alia, that the11 cllent had

considered very carefully the vlews ~xpressed	by che rrlhunal
and had dlscussed those llebs with Mr Laws.	However, I:r Laws

has no recollectlon of any such dlscusslon. Accordlnq to him,

he was not aware untll 5 0 September 1 9 8 7 that the Trl~unal had

taken any acclon in relatlon to che complalnts about the

.

programs he had broadcast in rrarch. Fe sald that he was

advised by Messrs Duncar and Cox on 30 September that earller

that day they had atnended a meetlnq vlth che Trlbunal. He

said that when he was advised that the meet::g had been held he

complained that he had pot been told abouc ~t znd s p ~ d	that he
should have been tnere.

M r Laws denied that on 1 0 September 1987 Plr Duncan

sent him a written memo drawing his attentlon to a letter whlch

he (Duncan) had recelved from thr '1r:hunal t-eferrlng the

complaints and staclng that tnc Trlbunal believed ~t . ~ o u l ~ l	be
useful to dlscuss them	"irlch the management of 7 G B ?t thls

stage of the 1nvest:gatlons".

According EO r.:i Laws, after bPlng advlsed of the

meetlng vith the Tribunal oq 30 September he became very angry

and asked Duncan and Cox vhether he should make arrangemeqts to

see the Tribunal himself. He was told by them that th? matter
was "more o r l e s s all o v e r " . He sald he xas angry bccause he
had not been given an onportunity to represenc hlmself. On a

prlor occaslo~ vhen a complarnt hsd been made about one 3f hls

programs he had approached the Tribunal	111 company	rltc	the
statlon managemenc.

I4r La'ws sald that the undcrstandlng h? gal1;ed from

Duncan and C ~ Y 011 30 S ~ u t e m b e ~ vas "chat they had been

chastised and that	~t v o u l d be polntless for me to pursue 1t by
approaching the Tribunal directly. The feeling was 'leave	it
to us'."	He sald that he vas not really content to taLe the

course suggested to h1m but that he had very llttle choice.

He agreed that after his dlscusslon vlth Duncan and Cox h? was

prepared to leave to them "the handlincj of t!?? situatloq that concerned not only myself but 2GB". Aos'ever he ?ua?:il?d t h l s

answer by sayl?g that a s i ? r ; S !l? -'?S ::n-ctqed :+J. -C? wzs

nothing to deal. vlth. ~5 ? P 5 ~ : t : ' I c v'cls ,?grle - ?:.-15hcd."

I s.m satlsfied that Mr Laws gave hls evldence to the

best of his recollect~on. However, I thlnh hls memory of some

. .

o f t h e d e t a l l s o f v h a t h2ppen.d a n d f r h s t . . a s s a i d 111 1987 1s

p r o b a b l y i m p e r f e c t . 'Ihl'; 1 s r c a d - l y u n d e ' - s t a n d a b l e a s h l s

c o n v e r s a t i o n s	with	I i e s s r s	D u n c J n	z n d	Cox a p p e a r	t o	%?ve	b e e n
r n f o ~ r n a l	a n d	no	~ r l t t e n cccorc !	was	x e p t	o f	t h e m .	I n

p a r t r c u l a r , I t q l n k t h a t mote extensive d 1 s c u ; s l o n m u s q a v e t

o c c u r r e d	b e t w e e n	Plr	Laws	and Messrs Duncan	and	C O /	a f t e ~	t h e
l a t t e r	met	v l t h	t h e	T 1 1 b u n a l	t h a n	Plr	Lav5	r e c o l l e c t s .
O t h e r w i s e ,	I	t h i n k	ZGB's	s n l l c l t o r s would	P o t	h a v e	, ; ; c l t t e n	t o

t h e T r i b u n a l L? t h e tprms t h a t c h e y d l d .

On 2 d Kovembe1 1S67 t h e T r l b u n a l c o n s t l t d t e d b y t h e

C h a l r m a n , V ~ c e - C h a l r m a n a n d Plr a a l l e y l s s u e d a lengthy documpnt

d e a l i n g	. k i t h	t h e l r	l n v e s t l g a c l o n	o f	t h e	r o m p l a l n t s	a b g u t	Xr
L a w s '	p r o g r a m s .	Th?	d o c u m e n t	d e a l t	wlt!?	t h e	progral!ls	I n

c o n s l d e r a b l e d e t z r i a n d l n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w l n q s t a t e m ~ r ~ s :

" I t IS t h e d c i s i o n a€ t h e r r l h u n a l t h a t ln

b r o a d c a s c l n g t h e J o h n L a w s ' p r o q r a m o n 11, 1 2 , 1.3,

15, l a , 1 9 , 2 0 and 2 3 March 1987, 7GB b r e a c h e d

R a d r o P r o g r a m S t a n d a r d 3 o n e a c h o f t h o s e d a y s . "

" H a u l n g d e t e r m l n e d t h a t t h e John Laws ' p rograms

b r o a d c a s r b y 2G3 o!? c h e e l g h t d a y s s p e c i f i e d

b r e a c h e d	F a d ~ o Progra?	S t a n d a r d	3 ,	t h c	'Irrnun21
Members who	made	t h e s e d e c l s l o n s	wl?!	recsmmend	t o

t h e Trrbuna!. t h a c I t h o l d 3 n l n q u r r y t o c o n s l d e L

w h e t h e r ~	t	s	u n d e r	5.119	at	5.101,	o r b o t h ,
p o ~ e r s

of t h e S r o a d c a s t r n g ancl __ T e l e v i s i o n A c t 1?47 s h o u l d

b e e x e i c - s e d . The T r l b u n a l c a n c c t c x e ~ c r s e ~ t s

p o w e r s u n d e r t h e s e s c c 1 0 P . s ~ l t h o u t h o l d l n c a

p u b l i c ~ n q u l c y . . . .

S e c c l o n 119 empo>isrs :he T r l k ~ ~ a l r: . : -3h~-71c I

p e r s o n	from	p r e s e n t i n g p r o g r a m s	2'7	l l v e b r o a d c a s t s ,
o r p a s s i n g o r s ~ l e c t ~ n g	p r o g r a m s	f o r	b r o a d c a s t ,	o r

t o i m p o s e r e s t r l c t l o n s OP a p e r s o n l n r e l a t l o r . t o

t h o s e a c t l v l t r e s .

S e c t l o n 1 0 1 e n p o v e r s t h e ' T r l b u n a l 1 5 s u c t o

r e p r l m a n d s a n d a d m o n l s h m e n t s t o a I l c e n s e e a n d t o

l .

d i r e c t t h e l i c e ? s e P t o p u b l l s h s u c h r e p l - l m a n d s o r

a d m o n l s h n e n t s .

Sumrnary .

The	John	Laws'	p r o g r a m s b r o a d c a s r b y	2 G B	on	11,	12,
1 3 ,	1 5 ,	1 8 ,	13,	2 0	and	7 3 ? lz rch 1 9 8 7 b r e a c h e d	R a d l n
P r o g c a m	S t a n d a r d	3 ,	and	1t	f o l l o w s	t h a t	a

c o n t r a v e n t i o n of s s . 9 9 ( 1 , 2 ) o f t h e ! ~ c t o c c u r r e d . ir

I S p r o p o s e d t o r e c o p m e n d t o t h e T r i b u n a l t h a c I t

h o l d	a n	l n q u l ~ y	t o	c o n s r d e r	twhecher	i t	s h o u l d
e x e r c l s e	i t s	power	under	s.119	o r	s.101,	o r b o t h . "
On	2 7 November	1 9 8 7 t n e	T r i b u n a l	d e c i d e d	t o	h o l d	a n

i n q u l r y i n t o x h e t h e r i t s h o u l d e x e r c l s e 1;s p o w e r s u n d e r a l l o r

a n y of s s . 8 5 , 101 and 1 1 9 o f t h e A c t . I t d e t e r m ~ n e d c h a t t h e

1ssues t o be d e t e r r n l n e d l n t h e l n q u l r y w e r e :

"1. V h e t n e l - c h e T r l b u n a l s h o u l d e x e r c i s e i t s

p o v e r u n d e r s e c t i o n 85 t o i m p o s e a c o n d l z i o n

o r c o n d r t l o n s L i c e n r e t h e f o r 'GB

t h e o f manaqemept

requiring a d o p t l o n

; : l th r e l a t i o n t o ' t a l L b a c h ' s h o w s

p r o c e d u r e s

a n d t h e provision o f p roqcams t o o t h e r

l l c e n s e e s i n o r d e r t o p r e v e n t fu l - rne ! r

b l e a c h e s 0 2 s e c t l a n 9 9 ( 1 A ) ;

2 . K h e x h e r t h e ' I ' r r b u n a l s h o u l d e r e c c l s e ll-S

p o w e r u n d e r s e c t i o n 101 t o i s s u e a w r l t t c n

r e p r l m a n d	o r	a d m o n l s h m e n t	t o	r h e	l l c e n s e e o f
2 G S ;

3 . I f a v r l t t e n r e p r l m a n d o r admoni shmen t 1s

.	i s s u e d w h e t h e r t h e T r i b u n a l s h o u l d d i r e c t r h e
l i c e n s e ? o f 2 G B t o p u b l i s h t h e ' . e p r l m a ~ d o r

a d m o n l s h m e n t ,	a n d	i f	s o ,	~n	v h a t	f o r n	?nd
manne K ;

4 . F l h e t h e r t h e T r l b u n a l shoulci e > e r c L s e 1 t s

p o w e r u n d e r s e r t i o n 1 1 9 tr, ~ s s u e d l r e c t l o n s :

( 1 ) p r 3 h l b l t l n q J n h - LSVS f K 0 . D

p r e s e n t l r q	p:?gr??s	1:	l l v e
hro?dces:a	2 :

( 1 1 ) l m p o s l n c ; r e s t r l c t 1 ; n s t h e o n

p r e s e n t l n g J o h b y Laws 3 f

p r o g r a m s 1.n l l v e h r o a d c a s t s ;

5 . I f t h e T r i b u n a l 1 s s u e s a d l r e c t l o n u n d e r

s e c t l o n 119 f o r w h a t p e r l o d s h o u l d I t 5e

d e i e r m i n e d t o h a v e e f f e c t . "

On 10 December &n art~cle appea~ed i n ABTEE, the

~ournal published by the rrlbunal, under the headlng

"Broadcastlng Tribunal flpds that broadcasc by Job? Laws

referring to Aborigines breached Progran Standard relatlng to

racial hatred". The article IS, l n substance, a summary of

the Trlbunal's declslon of 2 4 November.

On I1 December the TLlbunal wrote to rslr Laws advlslng

him that the 'rrlbunal had commenced the lnqully and furnlshlng

him with a notice of the inqulry ~n	w h ~ c h	the issues for
determlnatlon	$ere	set out. Thls appears to have been the

first and only communlcatlon sent by the Tribunal to ilr Laws.

On 2 Feoruary 1938 proceedings vcre commenced ln this

court. Thereafter, on 2 9 Aprll 1 9 8 8 an off:c~~ o? the

Tribunal, Miss Jane Parsmore, was intervie.ved on 2GB.	I n the
course of dlscussln9 the proceedings Miss Paramo~e	said:

"In the case of John Laws he did 10 days of -

1 0 consecutlve days of edltorlalised matetial about

Aboriginals, various schemes to assist Aborlglnals

and'took calls as a result of that edltoL~allsatlon

where he conslstently referred toAborlglna1 people

in derogatory cerms and consistently ~mplled things

that suggested that chey were getclng preferential

treatment and that they were no-hopers and that 1:

they got up off c!lelr backsldes they could fl

everything ua for themselves anyway.

The language used, his respznse C O peoDle .:?c!? a different ' ~ o i n t of Iile.,. that -2.117 to cry an?

explain that ;;hat he iT2.5 s:.y:rg ?3g1-; ssjmo of :.?':se

sc5enes .:?S nor: really ?cruca:? , ' : S ?~'11ylng :??

overbearlng and they dld not get a falr go, whereas people who rang to relpforce the sorts of things that he was putting ~n his editorial got open

slather and elicited further commcqts	from	hlm
whach We1e derogatory."

The applicant seeks an order quasning the Tri~ucal's decision of ' L Nqvember 1987 char brcaches of RPS 2 had

occurred. The substanrial g ~ o u n d upon whr,:h this decislnn vas

attacked :;as that rhe Tribunal das obliged to observe ~.?e rules

of natural usr rice !\.hen making the decislon and that ~t failed

to do so. The Tribunal contends that it v a s not obllged to

observe the r u l c s of natural lustlce in reaching that decision.

It contends, in the alternative, that i f it was so oblige?, it observed chose rules.

Before considering the contentions of the parties it

1 s necessary to examine the provisions of the Broadcasting Act

deallng with che Tribuqal's powers to make decisions vhich may

ultlmately lead to the glving of a Zirection undcr 5.119

Some of the more ~mportant provisions 3 f the A c t a r e referred

to in my ludgment in . Bond _. . & . - _. Ors . v Australian . . . . . . . .. B~oadcastllq . _. -

Tribunal (9 June 1988 - unreporced). For present purpcscs, it

is necessary to refer only to those provisions of the Act

relevant to the exercise by che Trlbunal of its power	to glve
dlrectlons under 5.119.

.

Division 3 o f Part I1 o f the Act contains provisions

dealing, inter alia,	illth the exerclse OY the I'rlbunal of what
are described as 111s "substantive powers".	'rhe pot;ers of the
Tribunal to determine przgram	st?ndz.rds c.n? to g i v e r'ireYtlrJ3s

under 5.119 are suhstarcl\e p 3 4 e - z : s . l i ? . ! : ) \ ? l znri ( : N I .

For the purpose of exercislnq its powers and functlons

under the Act, the Tribunal has power to make such orders, ylve

such directions and do all such things as l t thl!~kS fit

(s.17(1)). ?'he Tribunal '12s power to requlrc a llc+nsee to

supply L C ;rlth ~ n f o r m a t l o ~ relating to ~ t s functions

( s . 1 2 4 ( 3 ) ) .	If, as a result of	inquiries nade DY it, the
Tribunal proposes	C O exerclbe a n y of 1ts substantlve pove~5,	it

1s requlred to hold an Inquiry into the proposed eyerclse of

the power (17C(l)). It has a discretion to hold an ~nqulry

where it proposes to ex?rclse	one of its powers ather than a
substantive poxer (s.17Cl2)).	It may also, in 1ts dlsrretlon,
hold an inquiry lnco any matter relating to	the operatlon of

the Act cr any matter relatlng to broadcasting services

(s.l7C(3)). Such inquiries are normaliy held in publlc

(s.19(1)) but may, ln certain specified clrcumstances, be held

In private ( s . 1 9 ( 2 1 ) . The 'Trrhunal may take cvldence 211 oath or affirmation rnd may summon a person to appear before i t to glve evidence and produce documents ( s . 2 1 ( 1 ) and ( 7 ) ) . In

proceedlngs before tne T r l t u n a l at ar? inquiry, a pa:ty to

proceedings may be represented by a barrister, sollc~tor or

agent (~.22(l)).

Tjle 'Tribunal is required to mahe a thorough

investigation into all matters relevant to the Inquiry, 1 s not

bound by legal rules of eX:lde!?ce and, sub]ect to s.l?, 1 s

required to ensure that every pal-cy to proceedings ac an

inquiry 1s given n	renscnable opportcTlty to 2reselF 1 2 . ~ 1 Lase
( s . 2 5 ) .

The Australian -. Bioadcasting Tribunal (Inqulrles) --__

Regulations -. apply to an ~nqulry under s.17C(1). Nhere the

Tr lbuna l commences a n l n q u l r y l t 1 s r e q d l r e d t o p u b l l s h a

n o t i c e s p e c i f y i n g t h e l s s u e s to h e c o n s l d e r f d l n c h e ~ n q u l r y

( R e g .	9 ( 3 ) ( b ) ) .	I f	t h e	' P r l b u n a l	I S	s a t i s f i e d	t h a t	c h e	l s s u e s
t o	b e

c o ? s l c l e r ~ d o r l g ~ n a l l y l n a n l q q u l r y , a s s t a t e d ~n t h e r o t l c e

p c h l i s h c d , s h o u l d h e c h a n g e d , 1 t 1s r e q u l r c d ;o

._

d e t e r m i n e new i s s u e s t o b e c o n s l d e r e d l n t n e l q q u l r y . +.!here

t h o s e l s s u e s a r z s u b s t a n c l a l l y d l f f e r e n t from t h e I S S L I P S s t a t e d

i n t h e n o t i c e o r l g l n a l n o t l c e i t 1s r e q u l r e d t o p u b l l s h J f u r t h e r

s e t t i n g o u t t h e l s s u e s ( R e g . 1 2 ) .

The t e rms o f s.119 h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n r e f e r r e d t o . I t

1 s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t no d l l - e c t l c n c a n b e g l v e n t o a p e r s o n

u n d e r s . 1 1 9 ( 1 ) u n t l l t h e T r i b u n a l h a s g l v e n w r l t t e n n o t l c e t o

t h e p e r s o n c a l l l n ? on hlm t o s h o v c a u s e v h y t h e d~ r c c t i o n

s h o u l d n o t b c g l v e n .

In summary , t he A c t l a y s down c h e f o L l o , d i n g p r o r - e d u r e

f o r d e a l i n g ~ 7 1 t h c o m p l a l n t s o f t h e k i n d made a b o u t "11 Laws'

p r o g r a m s :

I f a c o r n p l a l n t 1s made t o t h e T r l b u n a l l t may l n v e s t l q -

a t e i t u n d e r l t s g e n e r a l p o w e r s . h a v i q g I f ,

considered t h e m a t c e r , t h e T r l b u l a l p r o p o s e s t o

e x e r e l s e	i t s powers	c:ndel-	s .119	l t n u s ? h c l d a	pul:l lc
~ n q u l r y	C n d e ~ s.17C(l).	At	s u c h	?!>?g:ry	t h r : ? t = ? 5 @ n

a g a l n s c :\,horn c h ? I romp:alnc ?PS c e n ~ n 3 d ~ 1.5 ;--vvo-

a d v a n c e n o t l c e of t h e l s s u e s CO b e determined arr t h e

lnqul r y . He may b e r e p r e s e n t e d a t t f l e i n q u i r y b y

s o l l c i c o r a n d c o u n s e l a n d t h e T r l b u n a l m u s t e n s u r e c h a t

h e is g l v e n a r e a s o ! ? a h l ~ ? o p p o t - t ~ ~ i l ~ y t o p l - e s e n r h i s

c a s e . I f t n e T r i b u n a l ultimately d e t e t n l p e s t c a t t h e

c o m p l a i n t 1 5 l u s t l f l e d a n d t h a t a r a d ~ o pr-,-jram

s t a n d a r d n a s n o t b e e n o h s e r v e d i n a l i v e b r o a d c a s t , ~t

c a n n o t q l v e a d i r e c ~ ~ o n u d e r s . 1 1 9 ( 1 1 t o t n c p e r s o n

who p r e s e n t e d t h e p r o g r a m u n t i l lt h a s f i r 5 t c a l l e d

upon hlm v ~ i t 1 n 5 t o show cause wny t h e d ~ r - c t l o n

s h o u l d n o t b e q l v e n .

h r : iughes Q.C., s e n ~ o r c o u n s e l f o r I<- L a w s , s u S n i t t e d

t h a t h e r r i b u n a l ' s examination o f c h e c o m p l a i n t s ' las made

u n d e r	s.l7C(2), h u t i:	40 n o t	h i n k	t h i s ..cas	t h e	c a s e .	T h e r e
is n o t h i n g i n t n e	r r l b u n a l ' s	r e c o r d s	t o	l n d l c a t e	t h a t	,?!Ten	t h e

m e e t i n g o f 3 0 September .,:as h e l d w i t h IlessLs Duncan and Cox c h e

T r l b u n a l	was	I n t e n d i n g	C O ,	o r	d l d ,	h o l d	a n	~ n q u l ~ y	1lnder
s.l7C(2).	At	t h a t	s t a q e ,	i t \ a d	n o t	a d o p t e d	z n y	p r o p ~ > s a l	t o

e x e r c i s e a n y of i t s p o w e t s a n d t h e r e was no o c c a s i o n f o r c n e

h o l d i n g of a n i n q u i r y u n d e r 5.17C(2). A t t h a t s t a g * o f its

c o n s l d c r a t l o n o f t h e m a t r e r c h e T r i b u n a l was m e r e l y e < e r c i 5 i n g

i t s g e n e r a l p o w e r s u n d e r ss . 17(1) a n d 1 2 4 ( 2 ) . T h a t t n i s was

s o a p p e a r s f r o m i t s d e c i s i o n , ~ h i c h was m e r e l y t o recgmmend

t h a t a n i n q u i r y b e h e l d .

s e n s e o f according p r o c e d L L c a l f a l r n e s s a x d , l f a p p r o p r l a t e , t o

a f f o r d h l m t h e o p p o r t u n ~ c y o f a h e a r l n g b e f o r e e x e r c r s l n g t h e

power :  see mist v r h e C o u n c l l o f the M u n l c l p a l l t y s f Randwlck

- . ~- - _.

( 1 9 7 6 ) 136 Z . 5 . R . 1 0 6 a t p p . 109 and 1 1 2 ; H e a t l e y v . .. .~ Tasmanian

Racing and Gamlng Commlss lon ---_ ' 1 3 7 7 ) 1 3 7 C . L . R . l 8 7 cit p. : 9 0 ;

-	Kioa	v	N e s n ( 1 9 8 5 ) 1 5 9	C . L . R .	550	a t p . 5 8 4 . B u t	l!? rnak lng	t h e
_-

d e c l s l o n r e f e r r e d t o I n i t s l e t c e r o f 2 4 Ncvemner L907 t h e

T r l b u n a l was n o t e x e r c l s i n g a n y p o w e r w h i c h a f f e c t e d I!r L a w s '

r i g h t s . T h a t .:as m e r e l y a d e c l s l o n t o p u t L:I t r a l n t h e s n e p s

n e c e s s a r y t o be t s k e n f o r t h e h o l d l n g o f a n l n q u l l - y u q d e r

s.l7C(l). The documen t l s sued by t he T r lbuna ! . on 2 4 b79vember

w a s	s t y l e d	" I n v e s c l g a t l o n	o f	Complaints	a b o u t	t h e	J o h n	Laws'
P r o g r a m s	o f	1 1 - 2 3	i!arch	1 9 8 7 "	a n d ,	a s a p p e a r s	f r o m	l c s terms

t h e members of t hc Tr lbuna ! . who made t h e l n v e s t l g a t ~ o n r l c r l d e d

n o m o r e t h a n t o r e c . > ? m e n d t o t h e T r l b u n a l t h a t 1 t iold a n

inquiry t o cons1cle.r Trhecher i t s h o u l d e x e r c l s c ~ t p o \ . t ' ~ s u n d e r s

s .119, o r s.101, o r b o t h . T h e r r l h u n a l v a s powc1-lcss t o

a f f e c t Mr Laws' r i g h t s u n t l l s u c h a n i n q u l r y h a d h e e n h e l d a n d

a n o t l c e s . 1 1 9 ( 2 ) . l n w r l t l n g h a d b e e n s e r v e d o n I1.m p u r s u a n t t o

.

A s i s p o i n t e d o u t i n D e S m l t h ' s J u d l c l a l R e v l e w o f

-

Administrative A c t l o n , _ _ 4 t h pd. a t p . 2 3 4 , t h e n c - g r e e o f

proximity b e t \ ; e e n a n l n v e s t l q a t l o n a n d a d e c l s l c n P l c 2 c t l y

a d v e r s e L O i h e l n t e r e s c s o f T J C I ~ - : ~ .;?o c l a l ? s a :-.:.?t ;c he

h e a r d I S l m p o l - t ? ? t . .A c c r s 3 1 -;h7 1 5 i.rn3c- ? C ? ? t o r G - r - U r ; a

p r e l l m l n a r y inquiry b e f o r e d e c l d l n g t o r e c o v n e n d , < h e t h e r a

f o r m a l h e a r l n g a f f e c t i n g r l g h t s ) s h o u l d t a k e p l a c e o r l n q u l r y ( w h l c h may l e a d t o a d e c l s l o n

I S n o t n o r m a l l y o t ? i l n P d t o

observe che r u l e s of natural ]ustire: see - Ilcdlcal - - . - 80~1-d - . ~ of

Queensland v Bvrne -.- ( 1 9 5 e ) 100 ( 3 . l . R . 5852 at p . 5 9 1 and Xlscman v

Borneman (1971) ?..C. 297 at p . 3 0 0 .

The Tribunal's duty C O hold a publ-c lnqulry before

giving a direction upder 5 . 1 1 9 ( 1 ) and its obligation under

s.119(2) to give a shou cause notlce are, in my opinlon, clear

indications ln the legislation that there i s no obligation on the Trlbunal tr: observe the rules of natural ~ u s ~ l c e at the

preliminary stage .+,hen a complaint is considered and a

recommendatlon made thac a full inqulry be held. In Twist ~

(supra!, it wa5 held tlat the exlstence of a complete rlght 3f

appeal vas indicative	of a leglslatlve intention that the
cit!zen's	only .-ight of redress against the Councll's failure

to give hlm an opportunity to be heard before 7 2 1 1 n 3 a

demolltlon order was	by hay of appeal: see	136 C.L.R. ac
pp.113-117. In	my opin~on	the present 1s a much strongil- case
than ~ Twlst.	In that case the order made	by the Council had,

of itself, the potential to radically affecc the rlghcs of the

person to whom it was !ssu?d. In Lhe present c a s e the

.

decision made on 24 November had no such potential.

F o r chese ?ezsons I do not think that the nrmhecs of

the Trlbunal who declded on 24 November to recommend 'hat an

inquiry be held were under any	obl:?at:on	t q afford !<L	L : , T ~ the
OppOrtUPlty Of putting h l s rCS2 :?	t?eT 22f::s	t hev	. ric.r7?cd to
make the recommendatlon.

Had I been of che op~nlon that the members of the

Trlbunal were obliged e o observe the rules of nacural 2ustlce when making the recommendacloq c: 3r, November, I \'ould have found that those rules were not observed. ~lthough they may have laboured under the impression that IIessrs Duncc11 a n d Cox

were speaklng f o r Mr Laws at the meetlng held on 3 Q S~pnember,

those gentlemen we'-e not in fact hls spokesmen. It is true

that afcer dlscusslng the macter vlth them upon thelr return

from the meetlng,	t.?r Lads decreed to leave the matter in thelr
hands. But at that stage	the Trlbunal had glvcn no lndlcatlon

that i t was intending to take actlon aqalnst hlm. It would
have been open to the Trlbunal to take actlon under s . 1 0 1 of
the Act only against ?GB. It may be conceded that thls b;ould

have been an unusual course f o r the Trlbunal to have adopted

but thele was PO obllqatlon on r'ir Laws to enaulre of the

Trlbunal whether it vas intendlng to take artlon aqa;q5r hlm.

A s events ~ransplred, lt was unfortunate that Plr Laws

was dlssuaded by the executives of ?GB from approaching the

Tribunal, slnce that led to the Trlbunal belng deprrved of Ivlr

.

Laws' answers to the complalnts made about hls programs. I

must confess to some surpl-ls? that In the llght of the

correspondence dlrected by the Trlbunal to 2GD before 30 September, Messrs Duncan an? Cox nelcher asked Plr Laws to accompany theT to the mcetl?g >,:th :!-!e Trlb>~n?l nor cbtalned

~.

hls authorlry to spea'.	'3" 5 : s !>?.:a-:	??C: o v t hls s ~ j -	JZ the
case to the	Tr~bunal.	Nevertheless,	ln the absence of

evidence from then d~nylng Y: Laws' account of what haprened, I

see no reason to relect >lr Laws' evldence and I am satlsfled

i . .

t h a t , p r o b a b l y t h r o u g h i n a d v e r t e r c e , t h e T r i b u n a l clid n o t

a f f o r d him a n y opportunity t o 2nswel' :he z r l t l c l s m s r , f Ills

p r o g r a m s . H o v e v e r , 'o r t.?? 1 - c ~ s o n s I have 21ve? , I am c € t h e

o p l n i o n t h a t t h e r e was no o b l l g a t l o n o n t h e T r l C u n a l , < t t h a t

s c a g e o f L L S c o n s l d e r a c l o c o f t h e m a t t e r , t o a f f o r d l i r Lavs t h e

o p p o r t u n l t y o f p u t t l n g s u b m - s s l o n s t o l t .

T h e s e c o n d d e c l s l o n t h a t t h e a p p l l c a c t see]..., t o h a v e

q u a s h e d 1s t h e d e c l s l o n t a k e n oy t h e T r l b u n a l o n 2 7 :lovember

1 9 8 7 t o h o i d a n I n q u i r y u n d e r s.l7C(l) o f t h e A c t c o n c e r n l n g

t h e e x e r c l s e	3 :	a n y of	l t s porders u n d e r	ss .	8 5 ,	101 and	119 o f
- L

t h e A c t . I n q u i r y lL >ras subm1;ted t h a t h e d e c l s l o n t o ' 1o ld t he

.ras s o u n r e a s o n a b l e t h a t no r e a s o n a b l e p e r s q n c o u l d

h a v e made I t a n d t h a c I t $,as, u r l d e r t h e c l r c u m s t a n c e s , ap z b u s e

o f t h e T r l b u n a l ' s poider under s.17C(1). I t was a l s o s u b m l t t e d

t h a t t h e T r l b u n a l h a d e x h l b l t e d b l a s a g a l n s t NIT La,,,s and c h a t

a n o rde r shoLl ld be made p e r m m e n t l y s t a y l n g t h e p r o p o s e d

i n q u i r y . The T r i b u n a l ' s b i a s was s a l d t o e m e r g e f r o m l t s

d e c l s l o n t o h o l d t h e l n q u l r y a f t e r h a v i n g p r e d e c e r m l n e d t h e

q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r ?PS 3 h a d b e e n b r e a c h e d , f r o m t h e p u L l l c a t l o n

of t h e T r l b u n a l ' s d e c i s l o p l n l t s m a g a z l n e , a n d i r o m t h e

r e m a r k s made by I~l lss ? a r a m o r e v h e n I n c e r v l e w e d o n 'GB.

rir s u g h e s @ . C . d l d n o t p r e s s a n a r 9 u r n p n r t b c : t h e

d e c l s l o n	t o	h o l d	t h e	l n q u i l - v	;?as	l n v i l l d	b e c z l l s f	cI1e	I l l k u c a l
d i d	noc	p r o p z s ?	t o	e ) e r c : s e	oi	~ t s	s ~ s s t ? n t : , o	p 3	' e r s .

T h i s w a s t h e p o i n t u p o n i r h i c h t h e d e c l s i o c i n ~ Bond ( s u p r a )

t u r n e d . On t h e c o n t r a r y , i t was a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e v i d e n c e

e s t a b l l s h e d t h a t t h e T r l b u n a l vas n o t n l y p r o p o s l n g t o

L7

e x e r c l s e ~ t pover s uncler s . ! 1 9 , h u t a l s o t h a t l t h a d f i r m l y

d e c l d e d l n a d v a n c e o f h o l c l l p g t h e l r q u l r y t o e..err:5e th? power

a d v e r s e l y t o 1;: Laws.

I n my o p i n l o n , t h e a t t a c h o q t h e d e c . s l o n t o h o l d t h e

i n q u l r y f a l t e r s when a c c o u n t 1s t a k e n o f t h e cerrns o f s . 1 7 C ( 1 )

a n d o f t h e f a c c t h a t l t wll1 n o t be i n c u m b e n t o n t h e t h r e e

members x n o h a v e a l r e a d y d e a l t wlth t h e m a t t e r t o s l t n n t h e

T r l b u n a l v h e n l t h o l d s c h e l n q u l r y . S e c t l o n 1 7 C ( 1 ) p l a c e s a

s t a t u t o r y o b l l g a t l o n o n c h e T r l b u n a l t o h o l d a n i n q u i r y i n a n y

c a s e	w h e r e	l t	p r o u o s e s	t o	e x e r c l s e	o n e	o f	~ t s	u h s t a n t l v e
p o w e r s .	Thp	p r e s e n t	1 s JUS^	s u c h a	c a s e ,	s l n c e	t h e	g i v i n g	o f

a d l r e c t l o n t o Ilr Laws u n d e r s . 1 1 9 w o u l d b e a n e x C r c 1 s e of t h e

s u b s c a n t l v e poi:er r e f e r r e d t o ~n s . L 7 A ( 2 ) ( ~ ) .

A?. A c t t h a t ~ e q u i r e s a t r l h u n a l t o h o l d a:) 1 l q u l r y

i n t o , a n d adjudicate upon a ?roposal of whlc!? l t 1s l t s r l f t h e

a u t h o r	1 s	l l k e i y t o g i v e	rise	t o	c h e	s o r t	~f	p r o b l e m s	r r h l c h
h a v e	a r l s e r !	~ r !	t h e	p r e s e n t	c a s e .	N e v e r t h e l e s s ,	t h l s	1s	how

t h e r e l e v a n t p r o v l s l o n s o f t h e B r o a d c a s t l n g A c t a r e f r a m e d .

A s Murphy Q u e e n s l a n d v J . p o i n t e d o u t i n ~ Builders' ._ . R e q l s t r a t l o n B o a r d o f -

-- R a u b e r ( 1 9 8 3 ) C ? A.L.P.. 5 5 a t 2 . 5 6 , t h e r n i x l n g o f

a d r n l n l s t r a t i v e , a d l u d i c a t l v r a n d o t h e r f u n c t l o n s i s ccmmon 1 n

t r a d e a n d s e c u r l t l e s c o r n m l s s l o n s ?nr l p r o f e s s l o n a l d l s c l p l l n a r y

b o d i e s . S e e a l s o _ 3 . v F e d e c ? l C 0 c : l - t _. l n ' ?n '> ruDtcv , . & _ ? 2 r t e

- - ~

7 . .

L o w e n s t e l n (ICJjC\ SS. <.L.. . _I I SI? 5.::t:.~.-han-.!::~e v

-. ~-

St L e o n a r d s __ M u ~ i c i ~ a l l c y (1969) L31 C . L . R . 509.

T h e r e is n o d o u b t t h a t t h e c o u r t s xlll r e s t r a i n a

t r i b u n a l ~ h i c h ,nay b e r c a ~ o n ? h ? y s u s p e c t e d 5 y € a i r - m l n d e d

p e o p l e o f l ~ a v i n g p c e ~ u d g e d t h e c a s e u n l e s s by reasor- o f t h e

t e r m s o f c o u r s e p r o p c s e c t o t h e r e l c v e n t l e g l s l a t 1 3 n o r o f n e c e s s i t y o r v a l v e r t h e

se	t a i e n	is	a u c h o r i z e d :	R
- v - Comrconwealth .-. _. __

C o n c l l l a t l o n - a n d A r b i t r a c i o n .- C o n m i s s i o n ; ~. Ex p a r t e A n g l l s s . .-

- G r o u p ( 1 9 5 9 ) 1 2 2 C . L . R . 5 i 6 a t p .553-f l ; R v C q ~ t s o n ; E \ p a r t e

A r m s t r o n g ( 1 9 7 6 ) 136 C.L.R. 1 4 8 a t p . 2 5 6 - 6 3 a n d 3 u l l d e r s ' ..

R e g i s t r a t i o n __ Board o f Q u e e n s l a n d _. v Rauber (1983) 47 A . L . R . 55

a t pp . 62 a n d 6 8 . I n t h e p r e s c n t c a s e , t h e s ta temects made I n

t h e d o c u m e n t of 1 4 November by t h e C h a i r m a n , V i c e - C h a r r m a n a n d

Mr B a i l e y v o u l a , i n my o p i n i o n , l e a d a f a l r - m l r d ~ d p e r s o n

r e a s o n a b l y t c s u s p p c t t h a t t h e y h a d p r e d e t e r m l n c d t h e q u c s t l ~ n

w h e t h e r Fir iclws had failed t o o b s e r v t RPS 3 i n t h e p ~ o q r a m s h e

b r o a d c a s c	i n	;.larch	1 9 8 7 .	i'l7ose	s t a t e m e n t s	w e n <	x u c h	f u r t h e r
t h a n	s u g g e s t i n g	t h a t	t h e r e	may	h a v e	b e e n	a	f a i l u r e t 7 o t ~ s ~ r v e

R P S 3 . T h e y W e ~ e t a n t a m o u n t t o a p o s l t i v e f i n d l n q c h a t s u c h a

f a i l u r e had h e e n c l e a r l y e s t a b l l s h e d .

H o w e v e r , t h e r e ,1111 be no n e e d f o r t h e t h r e e m e m b e r s

o f t h e T r i b u n a l x h o made the r ecommenda t ion on 2G November t o

s l c o n t h e Tribunal when i t r m b a r k s o n t b c i n q ~ i r y . T h c

T r i b u n a l c o n s i s t s of a C h a i r m a n , 2 Vice-Chairman and ~t l e a s t

o n e o t h e r member bun .lot more t h a n s i x o t h e r T e r n h e r s fs.X!l)).

T h e r e is .?c ev:dence a s tc. t ? = -uT':E: ? f nn?11:?t-s :f t h e

T r i b u n a l b u t i t w%s s c ~ t e l fr:,.-.. ?'-e Ca: t?,:le k y ?-.-!~%,-1 f 3 r

t h e T r i b u n a l t h a t t h e r e w e r e s u f f ~ c l e n t members of ~t t a p e r m i t

t h e p r o p o s e d I n q u i r y t o b e c o n d u c t e d by Tribunal % e m b e r s o t h e r

t h a n t h e t h r e e m e m b e r s who recommended t h a t i t b e h e l d . T h e

i I

19.

fact that those three ?"son-, e~pr*ssed partlcular '~levs o n

24 November by no means commits the other members o f the

Tribunal KO the same views. Counsel for the Tribunal

Indicated durlno the course of argument chat none of the

members r7hO considered the matter on 7 4 November would slt on

the lnyul ry.	Havlng heard	f rom I'lr Laws, the Tribunal may
reach a vle;~ different from that forned	by the three	members 0'1

24 November.	T f It does not, and li che Tribunal decldes to
give a direction to	?!r Laws under s.T19(1), i c will be open to

him to have the 'rribural's decision reviPved by r;he

Administratlve Appeals Tribunal: (s.llgA(l)(k)).

In these circumstances no ground 1 s made out for the

maklng of an order quashlng the declslon to h o l d the proposed inquiry. Ho::ever, an order should be nade under s.16(l!(d) of

the Administrative - - . Decisions . (Judicial Review) Act that the -

Tribunal not proceed with the lnqulry whllc chc= Chalrman,

Vice-Chalrman or M r B a ~ l e y	clre present in thelr capacltles as
members 3f the Tribunal. Counsel	for the rrlbunal proffered
an undertaklng to the Court that these three persons would not	.

sit as members of the Tribunal wher i t held the inqul~y, but I

think the applicant	IS entitled to have the urotectlon of an
order of the Court.

I do not chlnk thct che al-clcLe III the ?as>zlqe or

what was scid by 1'1155 Parzmore 9~ 2G3-5 am2u-:ed	to !nor:	khan a
repetition of	the	vle::s expressed in :he document of

24 November . Moreover, there 1s no lust1ficatlon f o r

attrlbutlnq M L S S Paramore's views to those members of the

I

.

2 0

Tribunal who will constitute	it for the purposes of conductlng
the 1.nyulry under s.l7C(l).

It was also submitted that Mr Laws would be

preludlced at the proposed lnqulry because a long tlme had

elapsed since the programs were broadcast and because he was

not notlfled of the proposal to hold the inquiry until December

1987. By thls time, s o lt was submitted, evidence which

would otherwlse have been avallable to him	had been lost. In
particular, it was sald that tapes	of other programs bloadcast

at about the same tlme as the lmpugned programs have been

erased. it was sald that	If these tapes vere avallable they
would afford support	for M r Laws' contention that, looked at In
thelr true	perspectivc, thc impugned programs did not bleach
RPS 3.

This 1s not a matter that lnvalldatrs the proposed

lnyuiry or ]ustlfies an order staying it.	It is not suggested
that I'lr Laws 1s unable to glve an account,	1n general cerms, of
the programs which are no longer avallable on tape. it wlll	be
open to h i m to give his own account of thosc programs and of

the context	In whlch the impugned programs	were hroadcast.
The tapes	of the elght programs	of whlch complalnt is made are,
of	~ o u r s e ,	still available.

I order that the Australian Eroadcastlrg Trlhunal not

p~oceed with the lnqulry referred to ln lcs l e . r r e r of

11 December 1907 to the appllcant while the Chal~man, or

Vlcc-Chalrman of the Tribunal or M r Bailey are present in thelr

capacltlcs a s members of the Tribunal. Otherwise, the applicatlon 1s dlsmrssed. In all the cllcumstances thcre wlll

he no order as to costs. The orders are not to be entered

before 1 5 August 1988.

I certify that this and the twenty (20)

preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons

for Judgment of hls Honour Mr Justlce Morllng.

Associate:

Counsel for appllcant:  T.E.r. Hughes V.C. with
D.L. Davles and
C.F.T. 'rleigall

~nstructed by: Hunt b Hunt

Counsel f o r respondent:	J.S. Hllton and
G.  S . Charny

instructed by:  Australian Governmpnl
Sollcltor

Date of Hearing:  21 and 2 7 July 1988

-. .-.- . . - - . . .

5 August 1988

-. Dacc - --. of . Judgment: