Telegrams Beyond the Commonwealth Regulations (Amendment)

Overview

Statutory Rules 1913 No. 135, issued under the Post and Telegraph Act 1901-1910, addresses the regulation of telegrams sent beyond the Commonwealth of Australia. Enacted by the Governor-General in Council, these regulations were designed to ensure the proper transmission of international telegrams by standardising the language used in telegrams to make them intelligible across borders. The primary objective is to facilitate clear and effective international communication by stipulating that telegrams must be written in one of the authorised languages and may include certain abbreviations and code expressions, provided their meaning is clear. This legislative instrument also empowers the Postmaster-General to request evidence to confirm compliance with these language regulations.

Scope and Application

The amended Regulation under the Post and Telegraph Act 1901-1910 pertains to the transmission of telegrams to and from places beyond the Commonwealth of Australia. The Regulation specifies the manner in which telegrams must be written to ensure they are intelligible and compliant with international standards. Telegrams must be in plain language, meaning the text must be entirely written in one or more authorized languages for international correspondence, including English, French, German, Spanish, Dutch, Italian, Portuguese, Latin, or any other language notified by an administration party to the International Telegraph Union as authorized for international correspondence in plain language, when such language is that of the country of destination. This also includes the use of code addresses, commercial marks, exchange quotations, letters representing signals of the international code of signals employed in maritime telegrams, and abbreviated expressions currently used in ordinary or commercial correspondence such as fob, cif, caf, and svp. The Postmaster-General has the authority to request evidence from the sender to confirm the meaning and admissibility of any word and the ordinary usage of any language, as well as any other particulars necessary to ensure compliance with the Regulations regarding plain language. This regulation applies to all individuals and entities sending telegrams beyond the Commonwealth, ensuring that the content adheres to the specified standards for international correspondence.

Key Provisions

The primary sections of this legislation address the manner in which telegrams can be written and accepted, particularly those sent beyond the Commonwealth. Specifically, Regulation 13 under Section II (Statutory Rules 1909, No. 124) is repealed and replaced with new provisions. These provisions specify that telegrams should be written in plain language, which is defined as text that is intelligible in one or more authorised international languages such as English, French, German, Spanish, Dutch, Italian, Portuguese, or Latin. The regulation also includes code addresses, commercial marks, exchange quotations, and abbreviated expressions that are commonly used in commercial correspondence (Section II, Regulation 13). Under these regulations, the Postmaster-General has the authority to request evidence from the sender to ensure that the telegram complies with the plain language requirements. This includes verifying the meaning and admissibility of any word used, as well as confirming the ordinary usage of any language employed in the telegram (Section II, Regulation 13). This oversight ensures that telegrams maintain clarity and are in accordance with international standards for telegraphic correspondence. The obligations imposed by this legislation primarily rest on the senders of telegrams. They must ensure that their telegrams are written in plain language and comply with the authorised languages and abbreviations. If there are any doubts about the meaning or admissibility of specific words or language use, the Postmaster-General can demand evidence from the sender to validate compliance. Failure to provide such evidence or non-compliance with the regulations could result in the rejection or non-acceptance of the telegram. The legislation does not explicitly outline offences, penalties, or specific civil or criminal consequences for breach of the regulations. However, the requirement for the sender to provide evidence and the authority of the Postmaster-General to reject non-compliant telegrams imply that non-compliance could lead to the non-delivery or refusal of the telegram. The absence of explicit penalties in the text suggests that the primary enforcement mechanism is the rejection of non-compliant telegrams rather than financial or criminal penalties.