See here
Calwell
I wish to say a few words about the Australian Broadcasting Commission, or, as I have described it on several occasions, the anti-Australian broadcasting commission. I think it could also be described as the anti-Labour broadcasting commission...
I was a member of the original Gibson committee which inquired into broadcasting in Australia, and I remember with much pleasure the association I had with that very distinguished senator who was once Postmaster-General when he was a member of the House of Representatives, and who in later years chaired the Broadcasting Committee. I also remember the association I had then with Sir Charles Marr and Dr. Grenfell Price on that committee. We thought that the commission system could be made to work. But the fact is that the commission system has never worked. It did not work even when we had several Labour people on the commission. I think that at one time we had a majority on the commission. There were other times when the Liberal party or the Liberal party and the Australian Country party together had a majority of members. But the commission system has never worked in Australia over all the years it has been tried. It did not work in New Zealand. The New Zealand Labour Government led by Mr. Peter Fraser abolished the commission in that country, and established a separate department to control broadcasting. A Minister was specially appointed to deal with broadcasting and he was advised by a permanent head. No alteration of that system followed the change of government in New Zealand. The present non-Labour government of New Zealand has maintained the system that the Labour party established.
In the few minutes that I have left I want particularly to make some protest at the things which are happening in connexion with the conduct of the commission’s affairs, largely at the instigation of Mr. Charles Moses, the General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I have a great respect for the many abilities and qualities which Mr. Moses has, and has displayed. He has a distinguished war record, and I know a number of other things which can be said in his favor. But I want to deal with his position as general manager of the A.B.C. I want to protest as vigorously as I can against his policy of refusing to appoint Australians to important positions in the commission, and his preference for Englishmen in high positions in the A.B.C. service. For instance, there is a David Porter who has been appointed director of light entertainment. I know a dozen Australians who could do the job better than Porter can do it. I object to the appointment of David Lloyd James to the drama service and of George Kerr to the drama service, and to the appointment of Royston Morley as chief television producer. I object to the appointment of Neil Hutchison, late of the British Broadcasting Corporation, as director of drama. All these things are happening without Australians on the staff having the slightest opportunity of lodging a successful appeal.
I think that there is a scandal attached to the administration of the A.B.C. I know that Mr. Moses does not like the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) or me. I know that he dislikes our protest against the attitude of the A.B.C., and the decision of the A.B.C. in abandoning “ Advance Australia Fair “ as the theme song used to introduce the national news.
Davidson made a response
Mr DAVIDSON (Dawson) (Postmaster-General and Minister for the Navy) . - It is known that I have very limited time in which to reply to the various points made this morning, so I will confine my remarks to two of the main matters raised, and if I am unable to reply now to all those who have spoken in this debate, I shall do so later by letter. The concluding remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) surprised me very much, indeed. The honorable member directed an unwarranted attack on the manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and I was surprised and disappointed to hear him refer to that gentleman in terms such as " sickening " and " slimy ". They are improper terms. The honorable member may believe that he has some justification for criticizing some of Mr. Moses's actions, but a man such as Charles Moses cannot be, in the wildest flight of imagination, referred to in such terms as were used by the honorable member. Charles Moses is an honorable and decent man, a man who not only has the respect of the A.B.C. staff itself, but who also enjoys the confidence of this Government.
The charge has been made that the A.B.C, through Mr. Moses, is acting in an unAustralian way and is appointing men who are not Australians. That is a remarkable charge to make against a commission. The A.B.C. decides these things, not Mr. Moses. He may make recommendations, but the commission decides the appointments, and all members of the commission are Australians, and jolly good Australians too. So how on earth can any charge stand that this man is doing things which are unAustralian and undesirable?
The honorable gentleman mentioned some appointments. I will deal with just a few of them. He mentioned Mr. David Porter, who was appointed Director of the Light Entertainment Division. Mr. David Porter is not on the staff of the A.B.C. He has certainly been given a temporary contract for a couple of years under a system that has been in operation by the A.B.C. over a number of years. The practice is to draw from time to time from overseas sources, particularly highly cultured overseas sources, people who have some contribution to make to the development of our own culture, people who can be brought to Australia, particularly in fields such as light entertainment and light music, to enter into a contract for a year or two. These people are able to convey to Australians the wider information which they have, and so benefit not only the programmes of the A.B.C, but also our own musicians and the people who are looking to the A.B.C. for the provision of good programmes of wide coverage.
Mr HAROLD HOLT (HIGGINS, VICTORIA) - The Opposition wants a censorship of individuals.
Mr DAVIDSON - Yes, it does. There was one charge made by the honorable gentleman in which the person named is not on the staff. I refer to Mr. George Kerr. He is a free lance writer. Mr. Royston Morley is under a two-year contract for the purpose of training television staff in order to further the development of television. The appointment of Mr. Homfrey was referred to. That appointment was made after the position of Director of Radio Australia had been advertised among all members of the staff. Members of the staff had a right of appeal. Some exercised that right, and they were heard by an independent appeal tribunal, and their appeals were rejected. The independent appeal tribunal dealt with those appeals; not Mr. Moses. As a consequence of that procedure Mr. Homfrey was appointed.
The Director of Drama was appointed nine years ago. Again, David Lloyd James is not on the staff of the A.B.C., but he is given contracts as script writer.
Those are the facts about some of the people mentioned by the honorable gentleman.
I regret that the very short time at my disposal does not enable me to reply in detail to the comments made by the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) regarding this vexed question of the Australian content of television programmes. I appreciate his method of putting up the proposal this morning, and in reply I satisfy myself by repeating the viewpoint which I expressed a few days ago. That is, that the worst aspect of the present situation is not so much the quality of the programmes or the percentage of Australian content or anything like that; it is the complete lack of proper co-operation between the various bodies that are interested in this matter. I say to the honorable member for Parkes that if he can get these people, whom he professes to represent, to cooperate more effectively with the licensees, then we shall get places. In addition to the information that I gave a few days ago, I should like to quote some further advice that I have received from the executive chairman of Amalgamated Television Services Proprietary Limited. That gentleman’s telegram to me reads -
Further reference my telegram yesterday regarding the use of local talent in television programmes, we are willing to present a half hour dramatic or musical programme supplied by Actors Equity and pay them a fee of £300 a performance for two hours, which we believe is the maximum price obtainable from any advertiser. If at the end of a month this programme is able to command an audience of not less than 50 per cent, of viewers, as measured by any independent rating survey, we will undertake to give a contract to the participant in this programme for twelve months at this figure and will repeat the arrangement with every programme Actors Equity can produce to the extent of three hours weekly.
That shows the desire of the licensees to co-operate. The honorable member for Parkes should bring the people whom he represents to a discussion like this, and if he has any difficulty with the television licensees I undertake to see that that difficulty is overcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment