Les Haylen - see here
Mr HAYLEN
(Parkes)
.- I refer to the vote for the Postmaster-General's Department, with
particular reference to broadcasting and television for which the sum of
£7,376,000 is provided. As would naturally be expected, the Australian
Broadcasting Commission and other ancillaries absorb a good deal of this
money, but a sum of money is set aside for television and for the
Australian Broadcasting Control Board.
Mr Anderson
- I cannot hear you.
Mr HAYLEN
- I am sorry. I would not deny the honorable member the pleasure of
listening to me. I have only a few minutes in which to speak, but I
shall try to make him hear, listen and agree.
We should try to persuade the Government that its advice on
television is not completely sincere. We have incurred considerable
expense in providing television in this country and we want to be sure,
no matter what Government is on the treasury bench, that we have an
Australian content in our radio and television. If we have not, the
service becomes a complete futility. It is not a question of one side
against the other or propaganda vis-a-vis other propaganda; it is a
question of using a great mass medium to give the country some content
of Australian thought and philosophy. How do we do that? The pattern in
the British democracies has been to use in plays and presentations
through this medium, not blatant propaganda but good writing and good
performance to give the people the feeling that they are living in a
British country and that the entertainment reflects some of their
beliefs, thoughts and aspirations. Though figures may support some other
view, this country is in danger of being flooded with cheap commercial
junk. People become viewers of television willy-nilly, but I am sure
from the correspondence I have received - it has the least content of
politics in it - that they want to see in broadcasting and television
the Australian way of life. I use that term for want of a better one,
though it is rather hackneyed. The Australian way of life has been
included in broadcasting, and we say that that has been done by the
combined efforts of both sides of the Parliament. The present Government
has played its part and, when we were in government, we played our
part. We even introduced an impartial news service. I recall the
impassioned speeches about our daring to have a government news service,
but it has turned out to be the most impartial, the finest and most
complete news service in the Commonwealth.
I remind the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) that
our complaints about television do not touch upon the work of the
national stations. We know that, because of the closer grip that can be
kept upon them, they are doing their utmost and are making a reasonable
effort to increase the Australian content in television. In the other
cases, we are deluded by statistics. It reminds me of the people who
always want to quote percentages rather than quantities. We hear the
commercial stations saying, " Oh, 37 per cent, of our programmes are
Australian ". There was an Australian content of 37 per cent, because
the programmes included quizzes, panel television broadcasts, trotting,
sporting, racing and all the little flibberty bits of the daily
programme. The stations include such matter for one good reason - most
of it is free, and the rest of it is cheap. But when they are lined up
to do something about the Australian drama, it is a different matter.
There could well be an Australian script written as a survey that would
interest
Australia, such as a scientific build-up
of the presence in the sky of " Sputnik ", and our scientific answer to
it. That could be done in a series of talks, or in the form of a short
one-act play. That would be useful and educational, and it would
represent Australian content.
But when we get to what is called " sheer " entertainment -
and I have never known why it is " sheer ", except that it shears off
the Australian side of entertainment - we get this lie, this
misrepresentation that we are doing very well, and that 37 per cent, of
this stuff is Australian. Well, it always will be that way, but what we
demand - and we are going to win this fight because public opinion is
behind us - is a quota, even if it is only a spiritual quota or a
decision of the authorities to include an Australian content in all
categories. We should not be ashamed of that! We hear people say, " I am
not going to have bad Australian plays foisted on me ". But apparently
they do not mind having bad overseas plays foisted on them, because
those plays carry the imprimatur of an overseas producer of distinction,
although they are rubbish and are old. Recently, 1 saw an actor on
television who has been dead for twenty years making love to a girl who
is very much alive. That was an extraordinary experience, and I wondered
whether we could not do much better than that in regard to Australian
television and keep both of the constituents in the drama alive.
The Postmaster-General, who is a personal friend of mine,
is doing an excellent job, but he has a bad organization, called the
Australian Broadcasting Control Board, behind him. The control it
exercises in this matter is to control itself against being Australian.
It is taking a broad, generous look at everything, but its purview is so
wide that it forgets the little Australian playwrights, dramatists,
screen writers and actors on the ground floor. The board takes a broad
national sweep, but does not take in the national problem. That is what
we want to drive home whenever we get the opportunity. I want the
Minister to examine the figures, such as this 37 per cent., or 25 per
cent., which are given to him. The statistics that have been supplied to
us in regard to the Australian Broadcasting Commission stations are not
in question. Our fight is against the commercial stations which,
because of the very fact that they are commercial, that they have
television licences and are not making money from television -
television sets are too dear - are running around looking for cheap
material. They must not be allowed to get away with it, merely because
they have been given these licences. If the matter is supervised it will
be found that they are producing television programmes which do not
reflect the intention of the act. This Parliament is the place, by no
means to censor, or to bear down on anything, but to ask that this quota
be observed. The Minister said, and I agree with him to a certain
extent - " Well, of course you cannot impose quotas unless you are going
to be tough and insist on their being observed ".
Recently, it was decided by the Government that five per
cent, of Australian music should be included in broadcasting programmes -
not in television programmes - but what was the result? In a reply
given to the Minister by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, it
was stated that 68 stations had not included a percentage even as high
as that. In the miserable letter from the board - always debunking the
Australian, always looking for a way out, always taking a myopic view in
regard to Australia - it is said that many of the stations conformed
with the order by broadcasting extensive hill-billy music. The "
Shearer's Song " and the folk songs of Australian music are not
hill-billy music. They are a part of our literature and our poetry set
to music, such as the songs of Lawson, Paterson and others. It is true
that some of the songs derive from the hillbilly music of America, but
there are plenty of good Australian songs. That is a side issue and
indicates the type of mind with which the Minister is dealing. I say to
him, " You can be tough, and you should be lough and see that this thing
is straightened out. Do not accept the percentages. They are basically
untrue ". The position is like somebody saying, " This year we had 100
per cent, more production than last year ". The danger lies in the
percentages. The fact is that probably they made two matchboxes this
year, instead of one, as they made last year, and they think they are up
100 per cent.
This 37 per cent, .so-called Australian content is cheap
stuff. The stations have to use it, because they have to give a news
coverage and a photographic survey of the incidents of the day. That is
all to the good, but the 55 per cent, quota must come from :&J1
categories. At night, when people sit in front of the television set to
get an hour's ^entertainment, they see a propaganda play -for the
American way of life, or some other way of life. We are fighting for the
Australian drama. We need not be afraid of it. It is resurgent at the
moment. Two magnificent Australian plays are smash hits in other parts
of the world. I refer to " Summer of the Seventeenth Doll " and the play
about immigration, "The Shifting Heart ". We need not have an
inferiority complex about those plays. What a lovely thing it would be
if our television screens to-night reflected an hour or half an hour of
those plays!
Consistently, we have a cataract of overseas performances.
Some of the films are old, and some of them outmoded, but they continue
to go on because the commercial television stations think that people
have paid £250 for a set of home movies. Television is more vital and
dramatic than that. It has to be developed on the concept that Australia
has something to contribute to television. The Government has spent a
lot of money on it, and the Australian people, in the final analysis,
demand that the programmes have a sufficient Australian content.
I ask the Minister to be very careful that he does not make
this a political issue by denouncing Actors Equity because it is
fighting the cause of Australian drama. It is a very good escape hatch
for the commercial stations to be able to say, " They won't co-operate.
They won't do these things". If the people concerned are treated
properly, they will co-operate. The Minister has enough co-operative
spirit himself to invite them along and get them into panels, because
all that they are looking for is fair treatment. The scriptwriters,
television artists and those who perform in any way at all are getting a
slow, agonizing squeeze in this country. That has happened, in every
other country. If we say: " We are not going to have quotas. We are not
that type of people. We are not prepared to protect ourselves ", let us
look at the quota that controls immigration into this country, and at
the tariff wall. The British, who are the greatest dramatists and
writers of the world - they have a record from Shakespeare downwards -
have imposed a quota of 80 per cent. They thought that art has had an
unhappy marriage with commerce and that the tycoon, of course, thinks
more of his dollars and ducats than about giving a decent performance
over television. I suppose that the best writers, actors and scripters
in the world are in Britain. I do not think that has been challenged.
The British did not feel that they were not being good friends with
anybody in this matter. They were prepared, and they have had enough
intestinal fortitude, to fight for their artists and writers; and so
they gave them a quota of 80 per cent. So it is with Scandinavia. All
countries must make this protection, just as there is a quota in
relation to immigration. We are not asking for censorship.
People say, " What a horrible thing it would be if it was
an all-Australian programme ". That will never be so! A Minister said
that in this House recently, thereby displaying his ignorance and
letting us see that he knew much more about wheat than about television.
The struggle is for some of our own programmes. We know definitely that
we shall not get more than our quota. We know, and we concede, that
there are certain things to be done in connexion with television. News
and items of interest have to be covered, but they should not be
referred to as a part of the Australian content. If there were no
Australian plays, those things would still be used. What we are trying
to drive home to the Minister is the need to keep up the Australian
content. If he replies to the debate, I would like him to say that he is
going to keep to the future of Australian drama, because if he does so
it will be a very good thing for this Parliament. The material that
comes to us will sell for about thirty " bob " a " tin ". It is old and
outmoded. It is flickery. It is not modern, technically; yet we gobble
it up as if we were being given the greatest treat in entertainment from
overseas.
The Minister talks about co-operation regarding studios and
production techniques. That is part of the job of television which we
require the Government to do. If we have not got studios and technical
knowhow, let the Government close up and give the opportunity to these
people because it is their chosen profession and they, in turn, can do a
great job for Australia and give television programmes that are
balanced. We- hear honorable members saying that they do not like
interference in these matters; but there has been interference. If there
had not been interference and it was easy for Australian players to get
on television, I would not be talking here this morning about
prohibition moves against Australian players and the opportunities now
being given to flood our television programmes with imported material.
Arthur Calwwell
Mr CALWELL (Melbourne) .- 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.
Mr Turnbull - This ought to be good!
Mr CALWELL - Of course, it will be good. I thank the honorable member for his encouragement. 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.
Mr George Lawson - He does not like our politics, either.
Mr CALWELL - He certainly does not like our politics, and he has his way with the chairman of the commission, Sir Richard Boyer, who has little or no say. There is one Labour person only on the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Mr. Edgar Dawes, of Adelaide. One out of about eight! So it is not a balanced commission. We might just as well not have Dawes there at all. Government members might as well say straight out, if they want to put it that way, " This is our show. We are going to run it. It belongs to us ". If they want it that way, all right; but it can be played the other way at another time.
Mrs. Kent,of Western Australia, was removed from the commission without just cause. Charles Anderson, of New South Wales, was removed without just cause. They were both members of the Labour party, and their places were filled by people who are supporters of the present Government. But the worst feature of all the skulduggery which is operating in the Australian Broadcasting Commission was the appointment of a man named Homfrey - I think that is the way it is spelt - to take charge of Radio Australia over the heads of many members of the staff of the A.B.C. who had had years and years of experience, and who are sickened and disheartened by the treatment they have received. Now, this man Homfrey was a Liberal party candidate in Tasmania. He came on to the staff of the A.B.C. about twelve months ago. He was made supervisor of talks in Melbourne over a man with much greater experience. He claimed to be an expert on Asian affairs, but I know that the Department of External Affairs laughs at him and his pretensions. I know that protests were made against the appointment, and I know that the commission waited until this Parliament closed its sittings, a few months ago, before it confirmed his appointment. The commission knew that if he were finally appointed before the Parliament went into recess objections would be raised here to the appointment. But Moses, with that sickening, slimy way he has - and to the honorable member for Phillip (Mr. Aston), who is interjecting, I say that I stand by every word and every syllable of that expression - waited until the Parliament closed down before he confirmed the appointment of Homfrey. The honorable member for Phillip can talk as much as he likes, but he knows nothing about the matter.
Mr Aston - That is a slur on the man.
Mr CALWELL - Of course it is, and it is intended to be a slur on him. I know Moses has great qualities, but I protest against the way he has treated this Parliament, and I am entitled to sneer at him for what he has done.
Mr Davidson - You could not have chosen more improper terms.
Mr CALWELL - The Minister says that the terms I have used are improper. I suggest that if strong language is used it must be justified by the course of events, and I think that any public servant who waits until the Parliament closes to secure an appointment which he knows will be objected to in Parliament is doing a wrong thing. When I know that this man Homfrey was a Liberal party candidate in Tasmania within the last two years, and was appointed over the heads of men who had served with the commission for years and years, 1 think there is a real cause for protest by the Parliament. I do not often make protests as strong as this, but I am making them now because I think that Moses, who is an Englishman, and whose place is really with the British Broadcasting Corporation, is attempting to prevent Australians from securing high positions in the A.B.C. service. I make the charge, and I have given the evidence. I have given the names of people who are not Australianborn who have been appointed over the heads of Australians. I know that when Dr. Bean was chairman of the appeal committee in Sydney there was an opportunity for those who felt aggrieved to make their protest. But to-day there is another chairman and nobody secures a favorable decision in an appeal against any appointment that Moses makes.
Mr HAROLD HOLT (HIGGINS, VICTORIA) - He is regarded by the Government as a very able executive. We have no reason to believe that your charges are correct.
Mr CALWELL - I know that he opens his meetings with sneers at the Leader of the Opposition and me. That may be so, but I know that he makes jokes at our expense. I know, too, that he sneers at “ Advance Australia Fair “. If I had my way I would facilitate his departure to the B.B.C., where he properly belongs. I want an Australian in charge of this show, as I want Australians in every position of importance in this country - in the GovernorGeneralship, in the State Governorships and everywhere else. I do not mind a man occupying a high position, provided he plays fair by the Australians under his control. Moses is certainly not doing that. Boyer is a weakling and is just the front of the house man. I know what Boyer and Moses did to the broadcasting services as soon as we ceased to be the Government. They abolished “ Advance Australia Fair “ as the theme song for the national news because they just did not like it. They were not Australian enough to like it. In addition to that, Radio Australia was made part of the A.B.C. set-up. Radio Australia had been doing a magnificent job for Australia with propaganda to Eastern countries. Instead of the Australian message going out against communism, going out in support of all that could be properly advertised in connexion with Australia, relays of Jack Davey and Bob Dyer were broadcast. Frank Sinatra and others of his kind were also broadcast to the natives of Indonesia and China. Nostalgic Englishmen in Vancouver and Malaya were asking for such old-time songs as “ Two Little Girls in Blue “, which were relayed and are still being relayed at the expense of the Australian taxpayer when Radio Australia could have been and should be better used to propagate our views.
Until I took some action about two years ago to secure the establishment of a broadcast in Chinese, the B.B.C. and the Voice of America were the only two broadcasting services telling the people of Asia the things the Western democracies should tell them. Australia is much nearer to all these places, and our messages can go out on a better wave length and with greater clarity and force than those of America or Britain.
But what do Moses or Boyer care about that? The fact that the A.B.C. is running with record deficits is disgraceful.
The sooner the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Broadcasting is restored, with the Government, of course, having a majority of members, the better. Then my suggestions and any put forward by other honorable members can be investigated and the position put right. I know of many honorable members in this chamber who could give very good service on such a committee, and I hope that after a lapse of eight years the Government will re-appoint the committee, after which there probably will be less reason for criticism. The sad position is that to-day no Australians need apply for promotion in the A.B.C. under the leadership of Moses.
Davidson here
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.
Oct 17 here
Mr DAVIDSON» (Dawson) (Postmaster-General and Minister for the Navy) . - Let me say at the outset that I am glad of the opportunity which the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) has presented to me to discuss this important question. I am also glad that, to a large extent, he has submitted the matter in a reasonable way. He remarked on the fact that he had only limited time to deal with quite a wide subject. That also applies to me. I shall attempt to be brief and to answer only the main points that he has made. If 1 miss some of the points he has dealt with, then those who follow me on this side of the House will deal with them.
The honorable member for Parkes has charged me particularly with having failed to carry out an obligation and an undertaking that every effort would be made to use as much Australian talent as possible in the development of television programmes throughout Australia. I say that there has been no refusal to carry out the undertaking which was given by me on behalf of the Government. He said that I had no alibi for not using Australian talent. I reply that an alibi is not required because Australian talent is being used and will be used in increasing proportions. I make the point early that the best way in which Australian talent can be used on an increasing scale is- for all the elements involved in this difficult matter, including Actors Equity, to get together and by intelligent co-operation, instead of the use of threats, to create a state of affairs in which every one associated with this matter can derive the greatest benefit from it. Let me remind the House briefly that the Government's policy on television and the use of Australian talent was expressed in the Broadcasting and Television Bill. New section 88 (I), provides -
The Commission and licensees shall, as far as possible, use the services of Australians in the production and presentation of broadcasting and television programmes.
That is the statement of Government policy. In some instances, that has been interpreted to mean that only those who belong to, say, Actors Equity or are musicians and so on shall be taken into account in determining what constitutes the ' Australian content of television programmes. I have never stated, and I have never accepted, any such thesis. The position is that this Government's policy is to present television programmes which will properly portray the «Australian» «way» «of» «life» and which will include such items as drama, variety, children's sessions, sport, news, talks and interviews, women's programmes and the like. Australians will be used in all of those programmes, and they will present, not only to Australian viewers but also to those who visit our shores, a proper idea of the «Australian» «way» «of» «life» . That is the undertaking that has been given. That is the object at which we are aiming and which, when finally achieved, will result in a very high percentage of Australians, including actors, actresses, musicians, script writers, and so on, being employed in, and benefiting from, television.
It has been said that the Government and I have failed to honour an undertaking that we would watch the development of television and ensure that our policy was carried out. I want to point out briefly to honorable members that this undertaking has been carried out mainly by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which is the appointed instrument of the Government to give effect to this policy. At the same time, of course, the Australian Broadcasting Commission has its own authority, and also is applying the general policy so far as its programmes are concerned. Shortly, I intend to indicate the actual programmes that have been put on by the commercial television stations and by the Austraiian Broadcasting Commission, and I shall show that a very high percentage of Australians has been employed!
The board -has been keeping .a constant watch on programme content, and of , proper .standard, .and that the greatest use is made of Australian material. Also, -the
Let us pause for a moment to consider some of the 'important facts which have a bearing on the development of this "industry and the attainment of a high Australian content. -Let us remember that television in Australia is an entirely new venture. After alL only one of the .six stations at present operating has celebrated its first birthday, the first birthday in a life which will extend -far beyond our normal span of life. So, television can truthfully "be said to "be in its "infancy. The .present television licensees - and I am now speaking particularly df the commercial licensees - are the pioneers of this new medium df amusement and entertainment. They have expended, as the 'honorable member -for Parkes has said, almost £4,000,000 in .the early stages of the development of the u> dustry. They are facing considerable losses each .year. That was expected to be so at the start, but we must appreciate that they are facing these losses on behalf of the whole of the community, because the stations that will be established later will benefit from the experience of the earlier ones and the expanded market which they will create. Station TCN, for instance, lost £250,000 in the first year of its operations.
In order to succeed, these pioneers must be able -to .present attractive programmes which will interest a large number of viewers. .In doing that, of course, their own advertising will .be developed, -so that they will .go from strength to strength and enable us to improve -further 'the whole of the service. At the same time, these licensees are -required by Government .policy to increase the Australian content -of their programmes. They face :the position that .there is in .Australia mo established film production industry, producing films suitable for television, on which they can draw. They axe starting from scratch, so 'far -as 'obtaining films is concerned. They also face the position that -there 'are no trained television technicians, -script "writers, directors .and peop'le of 'that kind. All of this organization has to 'be -developed, and these
Yet, despite .these initial difficulties, which are very meal, in .the month -of August the commercial stations were .able to .provide programmes .containing .56 per cent, of Australian content
Mr Ward - They -were not.
Mr «DAVIDSON» - I say 'they were. This percentage is not regarded as the ultimate aim by the board, myself, the Government, or the licensees, but in view` of all the circumstances, 'I say that it is a 'creditable performance. While it:is:net accepted as being finally satisfactory, 'nevertheless .it is ;a performance whcih, ion ".the basis .of only one year's :eff ort, certainly (does -not demand the imposition of conditions 'which, as 1 said -in my second-reading speech, very probably would -result in holding back the future development >df -television.
In order to get this problem on -a proper basis, 'let us remember that there are interests, .other than .the -licensees, .which have to be taken into -account. For instance, there is the Australian Film Producers Association, which .has
These are the problems that this section of the industry is facing, and they are problems that I have referred to my colleague, who will be speaking shortly on this matter. I mention them in passing in order to show that here is an important part of this industry, whose operations are essential to the development of a high content of Australian talent by the licensees, admitting that at present it is not in a position to meet these requirements. Can it be contended that, because of this, the licencees must be forced to have no reliance whatever on the import of films? Such a position would be disastrous to the ultimate success of the industry, because its ultimate success depends on attracting a large body of viewers who are satisfied with the quality of the programmes.
Reference to the viewers reminds me that they also represent a very important element in the development of the industry, because they purchase television sets, pay licencefees, and so on. They want good programmes. The reviews that have been taken to date show that they have Very catholic tastes. They do not want rubbish of any kind, whether from Australia or overseas. Therefore, to force on them a low grade type of programme of Australian production would be just as disastrous as to force on them any other low-grade production.
I turn now to the other group, the artists, musicians and playwrights, all of whom are equally entitled to share in the profitable development of television in Australia. But they also are required to play their part, and this is the point that I want to make for the benefit of the honorable member for Parkes, because he may have some influence with these people and be able to direct them along wiser lines than they are following at present. They cannot expect these benefits to be handed to them on a platter, such as is suggested in the resolution which states that Australian actors, actresses, artists and musicians should be guaranteed engagements and contracts. Engagements and contracts are there for them if they like to co-operate with those other sections of the industry which are trying, under difficulties, to establish it as rapidly and as efficiently as possible. I say that, by reasonable co-operation, the actors and musicians represented by Actors Equity of Australia can have the opportunity that they seek. It is there waiting for them to take it, but it cannot be acquired by threats and by direct action, which do more harm than good to the whole of the concept. In order to demonstrate what I have said concerning the opportunities available for the employment of Australian talent I should like to read some of the latest reports from the Australian Broadcasting Commission. However, since time will not allow me to do so, I advise the House that I have been informed by television stations TCN, ATN and HSV that they are already employing large numbers of members of Actors Equity and other artists who are available. From time to time they have made efforts to build up the presentation of Australian plays, but, with the exception of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, they report that they have received no cooperation whatsoever from Actors Equity. They say, further, . that if Actors Equity likes to get down to a basis of friendly and constructive co-operation with the licensees, it will find that without resorting to demonstrations or strikes it can build up its rate of employment very considerably. All commercial licensees have assured me that they desire to employ Australian artists and use Australian productions. I have that in black and white, and I accept their statement. They are just as much Australian as we are.
These people who are criticizing what is being done, are withholding a lot of information about the actual volume of employment. They should get down to a reasonable and sensible understanding of the other elements in this industry and take the opportunities that are available to them for employment. Because of its great importance, I propose to make such information available later by way of a statement.
Davidson 3 Sept 2957
Mr DAVIDSON»
(DAWSON, QUEENSLAND) (Postmaster-General)
- It is correct, as stated by the honorable member for Yarra, that the
figures of from 45 per cent, to 61 per cent, that I quoted do include
all programmes which have an Australian content. May I make it plain to
the House that it is the objective of the Government, the Australian
Broadcasting Control Board, and the Australian Broadcasting Commission,
in the development of television, to develop a medium which will
portray, not only to Australian viewers, but also to visitors from
overseas, the typical «Australian» «way» «of» «life» . Therefore, in talking about the Australian content, we include all those programmes which show the «Australian» «way» «of» «life» . That, I think, is quite proper.
Dr Evatt
- Even though they are American made?
Mr «DAVIDSON»
- Such programmes do not portray the «Australian» «way» «of» «life»
. As I have said before, the proper portrayal of drama and similar
productions demands a pretty complete studio organization, which the
licensees have not yet been able to develop, but which is being
developed. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has already produced
several Australian dramas, which are a credit to the commission, and
which will be extensively increased when facilities that are being made
available, both to commercial stations and the Australian Broadcasting
Commission, have been completed.
Pearce in 17 Oct
Mr PEARCE (Capricornia) .- The Opposition, in making a noise about this matter,, exhibits its usual reckless disregard for facts. Opposition members have been presenting a case based on information supplied by other organizations. It would have been to the advantage of the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) if he had checked the information given to him in his brief, and had given honorable members of this House a factual outline of the case, as I now propose to do. The honorable member for Parkes used the phrase " blood baths ". This purist, this great exponent of culture, once wrote a play entitled "Blood on the Bottle", or " Blood on the Wattle ", so these phrases come readily to his lips.
Let us consider the facts in relation to the Australian content of television programmes, taking the Australian Broadcasting Commission first of all, and the way it has worked over the past twelve months. The commission has produced 26 live plays of half-hour or one-hour duration, in which a total of 150 professional actors or actresses were engaged. Three of these plays were specially written for television by resident authors. Like " Blood on the Bottle ", their authorship is Australian. In the field of light entertainment, there were 883 engagements of Australian artists by the A.B.C. in its television programmes. How does that compare with the Tivoli as an outlet for the talent of members of Actors Equity? In the field of serious music, the A.B.C. has engaged 120 artists in Australia over a period of twelve months and has produced an opera on television, the only one that has been so produced in this country. In the children's session the A.B.C. has used 149 live programmes catering especially for children* and in this regard 824 engagements were made. As far as the A.B.C. is concerned, in Sydney over a period of nearly twelve months the Australian consent has been 48 per cent., and in Melbourne 39 per cent.
Further, during August, of the people "appearing in live programmes from the national stations, 86.9 per cent, in Sydney and 89 per cent, in Melbourne were paid artists.
If we turn to the commercial stations and look at what they have to offer in this regard we find that on station TCN, 43.5 per cent, of all programmes are of live origin or concern happenings in Australia. That station says quite definitely that few live programmes for Australian artists of any quality and at a reasonable price have been offered to it. Indeed, it can give the list of programmes that was offered to it which it put on, but having no audience appeal attracted no sponsor. The stations complain that they have had no cooperation from Actors Equity in this matter, and I ask the honorable member for Parkes if he has any influence with Actors Equity, to induce its members to co-operate with those people who are anxious and who have demonstrated their desire to use Australian content in their television programmes, instead of coming along with this fatuous nonsense we have heard to-day. If anybody has a good live show or a good Australian film, and if it can command an audience .and a sponsor it will be given first priority by TCN and other commercial stations.
We go on then to station ATN. Although this station has been established for two years and has been transmitting for ten months, .apart from conferences with the court for the purpose of making awards it has not had any approach or offer of assistance or co-operation from Actors Equity. Where does Actors Equity expect to get if it will not co-operate or make offers of assistance? Neither before nor after its decision to strike in protest against the Government's intention to make currency available for the importation of programmes has it approached the station or sought to ascertain what was proposed. The stations have not received the slightest assistance from /Actors Equity and, generally .speaking, have received little co-operation from the artists themselves. For some time past musical shows have been planned and scheduled for presentation before the end of the year, but the greatest difficulty has been experienced in getting good talent at reasonable fees. The fees that have been asked have ranged from £25 to £50 for a single half-hour performance. Is this .the sort of co-operation that is going to .ensure the employment of Australian artists on a television programme?
We now turn to station HSV. It has been regularly and consistently increasing the Australian content in its television programmes, but again not .a great deal of support or co-operation has been received from Actors Equity. That station says quite definitely that opportunities are being extended as production experience grows and the .knowledge and technique improves. The organization recently acquired station .HSV7 and will transmit from the end of this month a completely .new Australian series employing leading Australian actors; and the station has agreed to underwrite this locally produced series without .any revenue support, .as it has done on many occasions. What greater guarantee can one have of the faith and desire of a station to employ Australians when it is prepared at its own expense to start a programme, without any financial support in any way whatsoever, for the encouragement of these Australian artists?
Looking at the facts, it is clear that the Opposition has been led by the nose by Actors Equity, and I urge honorable members opposite to look a little deeper at the intentions or desires of Actors Equity, because it has received the greatest encouragement from the broadcasting and television stations. Immeasurably more -money comes to the artists and musicians of Australia from broadcasting and television than from any other medium. They have to sell themselves to the public, and instead of carrying on with their stupid demonstrations and furnishing stupid briefs to the honorable member for Parkes, they should clean up their own house. Why should honorable members opposite take their brief from men who are seeking to destroy the Australian» «way» «of» «life» ? We know of the considerable Communist influence under which Actors ,Equity works. Hal Lashwood, president of the organization, is well known for the part he has played in Communistsponsored peace campaigns and cultural activities.
Mr Haylen - I ask that the honorable member be made to withdraw that complete and despicable lie. Mr. Hal Lashwood is not associated with the Communist party.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! The honorable member for Parkes will withdraw that assertion, because it is entirely unparliamentary.
Mr Haylen - I would like you to know-
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! The honorable member will withdraw.
Mr Haylen - Certainly; I hasten to agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you not think it is most unfair that the president of an honorable union should be libelled by this miserable rat who lives-
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order! The honorable member will withdraw that assertion about the honorable member for Capricornia.
Mr Haylen - I am sorry.
Mr PEARCE - So much for the president of Actors Equity. The secretary of Actors Equity, Hal Alexander, was the Communist party candidate for Grayndler in the 1955 election campaign. So, we have Hal Lashwood with his close connexion with Communist-inspired peace campaigns, cultural activities and Communist-sponsored youth carnival for peace and friendship, and Hal Alexander, the Communist partycandi date who stood for Grayndler in the 1955 elections. These people, who are known opponents of the «Australian» «way» «of» «life» , are the men for whom the honorable member for Parkes became the spokesman to-day in their efforts to destroy and capture the Australian TV programmes in this country.
8 Oct 1957
Mr Haylen
n asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
1.
Do imported syndicated features such as Racket Squad,
Captured, San Francisco Beat, Dragnet, Cross Current, Boston Blackie and
Mark Saber constitute a television school in advanced criminology?
2.
Will he ascertain whether the Broadcasting Control Board has approved of these features?
3.
Is it considered that these presentations represent the Australian» «way» «of» «life» ?
4.
Will he ask the board to seek the views of responsible
police administrators as to the effect of detailed explanations of crime
technique through the medium of television?
5.
Will he also ask the board to examine latest reports from
leading social workers in the United States of America into the effects
of such television crime features in relation to the growing problem of
juvenile delinquency?
Mr «Davidson»
- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: -
1.
(f the description applied to these television programmes
by the honorable member is accepted, it must surely be applied also to
very many productions of the stage and the cinema which, with the
detection of crime as their theme, have given entertainment to young and
old for a long time.
2.
Programmes of commercial television stations must comply
with the television programme standards determined by the board,
pursuant to section 99 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1956.
All imported films are subject to censorship by the Commonwealth Film
Censorship Board and by arrangement between the board and the
Broadcasting Control Board, the procedure for the censorship of
television films is based on the appropriate provisions of the
television programme standards and the classification of films set out
in the standards, namely - (i) unrestricted for television, (ii) not
suitable foi children, (iii) not to be televised before 8.30 p.m., and
(iv) not suitable for television. Special provision was made in the
standards to ensure the televising, during times when the television
audience is likely to contain a large number of children and young
people, of good, wholesome programmes which family groups of all ages
might view with complete confidence. None of the programmes mentioned by
the honorable member is televised before 7.30 p.m. and only two before 9
p.m.
3.
No.
4.
I am sure the police authorities will not be slow in
raising this matter if they think that these features are undesirable in
the public interest.
5.
Such matters are under continuous study by the board
which, with my approval, has appointed an Advisory Committee on
Children's Television Programmes.
Australian Content in Television Programmes,
Oct 17 from Bird
Mr BIRD
(Batman)
.- The information provided to the House by the Opposition has certainly
vindicated the point of view we have submitted. Our only purpose in
this debate is the express objective of stopping the unhealthy and
un-Australian trend that has developed in the television industry over
the last few months. As a matter of fact, the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen)
has, to take the most charitable view, engaged in nights of fancy. For
example, he said that the primary consideration should be the Australian
viewer. That is what the Opposition is concerned about. We contend that
the Government is not looking after the interests of the viewer as it
would be doing if it implemented the provisions of the act. Subsection
(1.) of section 88 of the act reads -
The Commission and licensees shall, as far as possible, use
the services of Australians in the production and presentation of
broadcasting and television programmes.
But the latest report of the Australian
Broadcasting Control Board for the year ended 30th June, 1957, does not
sound too happy about the present position. The Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson» )
threw out his chest and, with pride in his voice, told us that 56 per
cent, of the programme material in August was Australian. The board
states that the programmes represented by that percentage include
children's sessions, variety and talent sessions, news sessions, sport
sessions, quizzes and panel sessions, women's sessions, religious
sessions, talks and interviews, and demonstrations. Taken at random,
these programmes could include the trots, or the last quarter of the
football in Melbourne. The panel shows and quizzes cost the television
stations nothing.
The ninth annual report of the Australian Broadcasting
Control Board contains this very significant statement, which the
Postmaster-General apparently has not read -
The remainder of the programmes - a very,
substantial portion indeed - are being provided on films from overseas
sources . . . Many are excellent productions which provide much
appreciated entertainment for Australian viewers, but others are of a
type which, while in general complying with the Board's standards, do
not appear to the Board to represent the type of programme which would
be desirable as a permanent feature of the Australian television
services.
In other words, the Australian Broadcasting
Control Board is not very happy about the present trend of television
services in Australia. The Minister himself seems' to be extremely
pleased with the trend. He stated that Australian drama was being used
on television, and .it is quite possible that n'e has been misinformed
by interested people, because there has not been one Australian drama
televised on commercial television since the inception of television
twelve months ago.
The Minister stated that the board had received co-operation
from licensees. That does not seem to be on all fours with the statement
made by the board that it is not satisfied with a lot of imported
programmes. The Minister said that the viewers want good programmes. Of
course, they do, and I suggest that the Minister should have a word or
two with the viewers. I have had interviews with quite a lot of viewers
in my electorate, and all and sundry say that, whilst there is quite a
number of good programmes on television, the imported film content of
television programmes is far too high. I hope the Minister will not
conclude that television viewers are perfectly satisfied with the
programmes. The hiatus in the sale of television receivers has been
brought about, first, by the fact that the cost is too high, and
secondly, by the predominantly poor overseas programmes which are being
televised. I suggest that if television stations were prepared to put on
decent Australian programmes, they would find that the sales of
television sets would rise.
The Opposition's objection to the present small content of
Australian programmes is not for political purposes. We, on this side
of the House, are concerned about an unhealthy development, and we say
unequivocally that the Government must not allow television screens to
become a medium for the dissemination of imported culture and imported
ideas. That is what is happening to-day. There must be ample opportunity
for the presentation of Australian culture and the «Australian» «way» «of» «life
. The Minister this morning painted a gloomy picture of the future when
he said that we could not expect any improvement on the present
situation. Australia will be inundated with importations from overseas.
The Opposition pointed this out when the bill was being considered in
1956. At that time,, the Opposition said that there were already ' in (
Australia a large number of television films, which had been brought
into this country for the purpose of flooding the market as soon as
television was inaugurated. That has happened. ' Television stations
intend to apply the same policy in the future, and it is clear that the
Minister intends to allow the television stations to have an open . go.
What are the prospects for the future? America this year is
producing 120,000,000 dollars worth of television films. Last year,
100,000,000 dollars worth were produced, and similar quantities have
been produced in previous years. Many of those films have been dumped in
this country at a fraction of their original cost. They were very
profitable transactions years ago, and the owners of the films in
America are quite prepared to send them out here for a mere fraction of
their original cost, because if they do not get that money they will get
nothing at all. This Government, up to a month or two ago at least, was
able to prevent an extension of that policy by having a ceiling limit
on the amount of films which could be imported - £60,000 worth - but
to-day the sky is the limit. Television stations can import as much as
they like, and I have no doubt at all, seeing that the original
intention of the people who entered television was to make a profit,
that they will buy on the cheapest market and sell on the dearest
market. The cheapest market, as far as they are concerned, is the
overseas market, and they have now received the green light from the
Minister. I do not know whether the Minister is too naive or whether he
is trying to put it over the Opposition, but the fact remains that last
year he said -
In its report to my predecessor on these hearings, the
Broadcasting Control Board pointed out that there was an obligation on
the operators of television stations to ensure that the best use was
made of Australian talent, and that licensees were ready and willing to
discharge this obligation.
Surely in the light of what has happened
over the last twelve months the Minister still does not believe that the
licensees are ready and willing to discharge the obligation that rests
on them. The fact is that Australian drama and culture are not find->
ing any place on television at all.
When it was recently suggested that a television station
should employ six ballet girls at a nominal cost in order to produce an
Australian show, the station said that a much cheaper film on ballet
could be obtained, from overseas. What hope is there for Australian
talent when this attitude is adopted by the television stations, and
they are backed by the Minister? When the Government refused to insert
the quota clause twelve or eighteen months ago, I hoped that the
Minister would do the right thing, in accordance with the provisions of
the act, and see that, as far as he possibly could, there would be a
fair percentage of Australian material in television programmes. But.
such has not proved to be the case. Knowing the Minister to be very
sincere, I would have expected him to stand up to. the moguls of the
television industry, but he has not.
From Oct 17
Mr HAYLEN
(Parkes)
'.- The proposal of this subject for discussion as a matter of urgent
public importance is completely sincere and genuine. In the limited time
at my disposal, I shall present to the House a case which, in my view,
cannot he refuted, and which calls for action. This matter concerns the
broadcasting industry. The methods adopted in the broadcasting of
television programmes have left out of consideration entirely the
question of the Australian as an employee, and of the viewer and
listener as an Australian. When the matter was first raised, during the
consideration by this House of the Broadcasting and Television Bill
1956, the Australian Labour party declared, through the Leader of the
Opposition (Dr. Evatt), the necessity to require a specified
quota of Australian material to be used. We suggested that 55 per cent,
of the material used in all programmes should be Australian material, in
order that Australian actors and other performers, script writers, and
others dependent on them for employment should be assured of a
reasonable livelihood. We depend upon Australians employed in this new
medium of mass communication to present the Australian viewpoint and the
Australian way of life. We pressed for a specified quota of Australian
material, because we did not believe -that private enterprise and
commercialism, of their own volition, would -use sufficient Australian
material, since they were looking for profits and not to the -propaganda
value of the presentation of the Australian viewpoint.
Although the Opposition's proposals were defeated in the
Parliament, we received assurances from the responsible Ministers that
the position would be watched carefully. We now tell the House that it
has not been watched carefully enough, and that the Government has
failed, time and again, to honour the promises that were made. I should
like the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) to know that I think
that he is trying to do his best. On the personal basis, I believe that
to be true. However, because of the complex machinery of the bureaucracy
behind him, we are not getting any results. Therefore, this has become a
political question inasmuch as it relates to the situation against
which the Opposition warned during the consideration of the Broadcasting
and Television Bill 1956. It is a national question, because, on it,
depends the sort of television that we. shall ultimately have.
Therefore, the country should not be . held to ransom by licensees,
whose licences we control, merely because we have not the guts to tell
them that they must use Australian programmes.
I had the honour and .privilege to move amendments on behalf
of the Opposition during the consideration of the Broadcasting and
Television Bill 1956. In a general reply to observations that I had made
before that bill was introduced, the Minister said -
I am in full sympathy with the need to ensure that TV
programmes are adequately Australian in character, and I know that this
view is shared by the Board.
In that instance, the board referred to was the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The Minister continued -
The matter is regarded as one of considerable importance,
and if in the future any action is considered necessary to protect the
interests of Australian artists, you can rest assured that such action
will be taken.
This morning, we call on the Government to
take the action that the Minister promised, and we will prove, in the
debate that will ensue, (hat considerable importance is attached to the
fact that every promise made by the Minister has not been fulfilled.
This is not necessarily his own fault. In addition, the requirements
that are stipulated in the Broadcasting and Television Act have not been
fulfilled. Therefore, the Minister must answer the case that the
Opposition is putting.
As the Minister responsible to the 'Government for the
administration of broadcasting and television services, he must stand by
his assurance that action would be taken, because, as I will explain
later, television programmes have become simply programmes of cheap
material obtained .from overseas. Some attempt has been made, notably by
station TCN, to preserve a reasonable Australian content. However, most
television licensees ace looking for revenue. They complain that they
are losing money, that sponsors are scarce, and that television
receiving sets are not being sold as freely as they had hoped. But that
is not our worry. The television licensees came crawling to the
Government, and succeeded in persuading it to give them licences, which,
in the aggregate, had a total asset value of between £500,000 and
£750,000. They assured the general public and the Australian
Broadcasting 'Control Board, at its inquiries into the granting of
licences, that they did not expect to make profits, and that they would
build up their programmes slowly, because television was a medium in
which development had to be taken slowly. Although they knew all the
problems, they are now trying to bilk the Australian listeners out of a
fair enjoyment of 'the expression of Australian sentiment and culture,
simply because they have fallen for the cheap and nasty " quickie " that
conies in a can, mostly from the United States of America.
It is astonishing to hear some Australians who should know
better asserting that nobody is going to foist bad Australian programmes
on them. My answer -is that cheap and bad foreign programmes are being
foisted on them, and, to judge by the absence of protests, they seem to
like it. There will be no such' thing as a bad' Australian programme,
because the demand and preferences of the Australian public will see
that Australian artists live up to what we know they can do, and also
the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, the Minister, and the
Government will not be very tolerant of Australian productions that are
not of high standard.
This matter involves the employment of Australians, but
there- is another aspect of it that will touch the heart of the
Government much more closely than the employment of artists and
technical experts in a profession for which they are trained. Assets
worth, I think, £3,500,000 - I do not wish to overstate the case - are
tied up in television studios, which have been placed at a great
disadvantage by this flood of cheap and nasty " quickie " rubbish from
overseas. I have said that I do not wish to overstate the case, and 1 do
not, because I want a serious answer from the Government. Australian
television production studios are using about only one-tenth of' their
capacity, and, as a result, many actors, technicians, and script writers
are merely standing by waiting for work.
When shall we lose our unfortunate feeling that Australian
productions, particularly those in the art forms, are inferior? To-day,
world audiences are enjoying two Australian plays that are among the
finest ever written. One of them has revived the British theatre, which
was in the doldrums and was very happy to get " Summer of the
Seventeenth Doll". The Elizabethan Theatre Trust in Sydney, to come
nearer home, was very proud indeed to. present a new Australian play, "
The Shifting Heart ". These things are evidence that Australians can
deliver the goods, and that Australian productions need only financial
backing to assure their success. Yet, faint-hearted Australians - mostly
on the Government benches - say that they will not have cheap
Australian programmes foisted on them. Australian programmes are nothing
to be ashamed of.
However, I return to the Minister's assurance that he would
watch the position Carefully. The Opposition told him that it did not
trust the television licensees, because they would look only to making
profits as quickly as possible. What is the good of a protective section
in an act if penalties are not prescribed for breaches pf it? I call on
the Minister to-day to do what the Opposition asked him to do when the
Broadcasting and Television Bill 1956 was being considered by the
Parliament, and to require that a satisfactory quota of Australian
material shall be used in television programmes in order that Australian
artists, actors, script writers, and technicians may figure in the
field of television as they have a right to do. The sort of thing that
has happened in television in Australia could not have happened anywhere
else in the world. In no other country would local talent and material
be excluded from television programmes.
Does the House know that not one Australian drama has been
televised since television was introduced into this country7 We have had
newscasts, trots, horse races and interviews of the great, the
near-great and celebrities who appear in the daily news, but not one
play, even of a length of ten minutes, a quarter of an hour or half an
hour, has been shown. The only answer to this state of affairs is the
introduction, of a quota. The Government shrank from introducing a quota
because it thought that would be an interference with private
enterprise. Private enterprise is sponsored by the Government and,
indeed, it issues television licences. With the experience that we have
had, both as a government and as an Opposition, we thought the
Government would impose a quota. The British people, have a splendid
record for the production of entertainment, not only of the highest
character, but also of comedy and the music hall type. It is all
reasonably good entertainment, all entertainment in the genre character,
and it has provided employment for actors and actresses, scriptwriters
and playwrights in England. It was realized that this medium was
mechanical and a million-dollar job and that the employment of artists
should be protected. Accordingly, a quota of 80 per cent, was imposed.
The United States of America imposed a quota of 100 per cent. Only
American productions are shown on television screens there, and the
rubbish, when it has been used, is exported to mug countries such as
Australia, which is on the end of the line. Some programmes are years
old. We ask again that a quota be imposed in Australia or, at least,
that some effort be made to ensure that employment is not lost to
Australian artists in the way that it has been. This is a valid case.
»The Scandinavian Government also has imposed a quota, and many other
countries have followed that course. The Postmaster-General knows that
that is so and I need not reiterate the facts for him.
This new medium is of tremendous importance. It is as new in
the entertainment field as Sputnik is in the satellite world,, and it is
as revolutionary. Yet the Government has decided that Australians
should not have any voice in it. That decision is completely
preposterous and must not be conditioned by what television licensees
think about it. If a quota is not introduced, I have a warrant from the
party which I represent to say that we will closely examine the
position, from the point of view both of quota and the issue of
licences. That is not a threat but a solid attempt to do something for
the Australian community. The problem goes deeper indeed than
employment, which is important. It goes deeper than politics, which must
be involved because the Government issues the licences. It goes to the
very heart and soul of Australian culture. If we are not courageous
enough to act through the tender, faltering steps of television and
assist Australian talent, instead of making sarcastic rejoinders about
the sort of programmes that should be shown, we are not much of a nation
and have no integrity and no courage.
Having stressed the exclusion of Australian talent from
television programmes, let us see what is substituted for the Australian
programmes that cannot find a place on the television screens. Some
little time ago, a group of listeners decided to analyse the types of
programmes shown on television - the sort of programme they would see
and the sort of material that would be shown to their children. They
spent four days on this task. I shall give the House the result of their
efforts. This group of citizens, whose names are available, found that
the items I shall list, which came from America and other countries,
were shown on Australian, television screens. With the notable exception
that I mentioned, channel 7, which has made an attempt to do something
for the Australian producer and actor, the television stations work on
the slogan, " Give them blood baths, TV is for blood, bud " ! That is
one of the slogans. A team of protesting actors came to Canberra. It is
to the eternal disgrace of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), as
an Australian) and the Postmaster-General, that they refused to receive a
deputation from these actors. After that refusal, they had a long
interview with the Leader of the Opposition. Surely, it is not within
our province as parliamentarians to reject deputations that seek to
interview us.
Because my time is limited, let me illustrate what is being
shown instead of Australian plays, which would provide employment for
Australian actors and actresses. The survey revealed that ABN, the
national station, showed nine stabbings, three stranglings, one
attempted murder, one wounding, one suicide, three murders discussed and
one murder demonstrated. Not one of those programmes was made in
Australia. ATN, the commercial channel 7, showed six bashings, one
maiming, eight brawls, one blinding, . one armed robbery, eleven
murders, two woundings, two killings, eighteen corpses and a scene where
a child described how she found the body. TCN, channel 9, showed two
bashings, three brawls, four murders, one maiming, one armed robbery,
one assault, two stranglings one wounding, two attempts to murder a
child, one dope fiend showing his dope needle marks, and four murders
discussed.
I appeal to the Postmaster-General, who promised to do
something about the Australian content in television, to honour his
promise. We know, from the union concerned, from the Australian
Broadcasting Commission, and from the force of public opinion, that
Australians will not put up with the programmes that I have mentioned.
The Postmaster-General has no alibi to enable him to say why Australian
talent should not be used on television. He has had an opportunity to do
what he wanted to do in his own wisdom,, but a quota has not been
imposed. It is right up to him now to impose a quota, to so advise his
leader and to so persuade his party. What we ask is only fair trade
practice, but that has been -denied. When the Broadcasting and
Television Bill was before the House, we issued a warning that no
provision was made for Australian content in television. No work has
been provided for employees in the theatrical industry and no Australian
plays are offered through this mass medium of propaganda and
entertainment. The broad cultural level of Australia is not dealt with
at all. The Australian actor, looking for a job, has to pit his skill
against Rin Tin Tin or something equally absurd. I appeal to the
Postmaster-General to impose quotas and do something for the Australian
actor, actress and technician.
Oct 17
Dr EVATT (Barton) (Leader of the Opposition)
. - The point of view of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson)
is reminiscent of the attitude taken towards Australian artists 50 years
ago when they took part in theatrical productions. They had little
encouragement, and there was a considerable struggle for Australian
actors, writers, and artists to get recognition. One would have thought
that that attitude had disappeared. But no! This Government is so
hostile to the Australian sentiment that it banned from the air - call
it an anthem or song, it matters nothing - "Advance Australia Fair ",
which was the theme song of Australia's war effort. That shows how
hostile to Australian sentiment the Government is.
Mr Ward
- What about calling for a bit of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Another one here
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr C F Adermann (FISHER, QUEENSLAND)
- Order! The honorable member for East Sydney need not remind the Chair about keeping order.
Dr EVATT
- In the Seventh Annual Report of the Australian Broadcasting Control
Board for the year ended 30th June, 1955, the board gave undertakings
as to what would be done in the matter of employing Australian artists
and musicians. It said -
Television should provide great opportunities for
Australian artists and we agree with the Royal Commission on Television
that " There is an undoubted obligation on the operators of television
stations to ensure that the best use is made of Australian talent ". We
are satisfied by the evidence which was given to us on this subject-
that is before the licences were issued - that licensees will discharge
this obligation and we therefore do not propose to recommend that any
specific condition should be incorporated in licences for television
stations.
Then the board said that imported film material had to be controlled.
Of course, the Postmaster-General avoids the real issue. The
decision of Parliament was taken, and I will read it. It is contained in
section 88 (1.) of the act. That section provides -
The Commission and licensees shall, as far as possible, use
the services of Australians in the production and presentation of
broadcasting and television programmes.
But they are not doing that. The limitation
there, according to the act, is simply the possibility of the licensees
doing this; it does not say as far as it is economically possible to do
so. It says they are to employ Aus.tralians in the production of
television programmes. That is the relevant portion of it. Are they
doing that?
Mr Cope
- Channel 9 does not employ any Australians, to my knowledge,
Mr Ward
- Ministers are deliberately talking in front of the microphone.
Dr EVATT
- It is certainly difficult to speak against the conversation on the other side of the table.
Another here
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER
- Order! The honorable member for East Sydney is making more interruption than anybody else.
Mr Ward
- I am doing nothing of the kind.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER
- I want order all round.
Dr EVATT
- Although the act provides protection for Australian artists, the
Postmaster-General is not enforcing it. The Australian content of
programmes, which the Minister says is increasing, includes matters
which have no relation to what is of actual value from an Australian
point of view - such as weather reports and news. The news does not
relate to Australia only, but also to all the world. Does a news
broadcast have an Australian content because an Australian reads it? The
real point is that Australians must be used in the production of
programmes. That means that Australian actors, musicians and writers
have to be employed to the maximum possible extent. The act says " as
far as possible ", but that is being completely broken by the
Postmaster-General and the Government to-day, and also by the Australian
Broadcasting Control Board. The board has been most shameful in its
neglect of its duties. It passes responsibility away from itself. What
does the act mean? It means that this must be done, whether the
Government intended it or not. It is an obligation to employ Australian
artists.
I cannot understand why opportunity is not taken, positively,
by the Ministry to see that this broad duty is discharged. What is the
good of the Minister complaining about a particular organization such as
Actors Equity because it protests? He says, in effect, that if Actors
Equity behaves itself and like a good little union does everything that
it is asked to do and adopts a timid, tame-cat attitude, . somebody will
be graciously pleased to give its members further opportunity to be
included in programmes. It is the old story. The Minister's attitude is
really one of resting too much- faith- in- the authorities. As far as
the Postmaster-General himself is concerned, he is simply here as the
spokesman for those authorities. He has made statements on the matter
and' says there is no easy way in this. Of course, there is no easy,
way. It has to be worked: out; There ate matters in. which- he- must
have assistance. A. play- for television may be written or produced not
only by an Australian author, but from tame to- time the work of an
overseas author or playwright may. be presented. That is reasonable
enough, but the act provides that preference must be given to
Australians. It is not limited to 50: per- cent, or 55 per cent, of
Australian works or artists; the principle must be applied all along. I
ask, on behalf of the Opposition that the statute be carried out and
that the Broadcasting Control Board be not allowed to dodge- its
responsibility as it is doing..
I turn- to the licensees of televisionstations. I cannot
understand why they are not eager to put these- great Australian actors
on the- programmes.
Mr Haylen
- But who owns the- tele, vision stations?
Dr EVATT
- They are owned, in substance, by the newspapers. The honorable member
for Parkes has referred to outstanding successes by Australian artists,
and that is common knowledge. I thought the fight for' the- recognition
and employment of Australian artists was over, but it seems that we
have to- fight for Australian interests in this, and- in every field.
Yet, the Government calls itself Australian. The: issue is that the act
should, be enforced and that parliamentary, policy should not be treated
with utter contempt. The policy is contained in the act, but the
Government does not carry it out:. That is the- view of the Opposition.
McEwen bit here
Mr McEWEN (Murray) (Minister for Trade)
: - The. Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) has been quite explicit in stating what he describes as the policy of the Opposition in this matter.
Dr Evatt
- The policy of the act.
Mr McEWEN
- It is an interpretation of the act which the right honorable
gentleman- chooses to use and chooses to declare' to be the- policy of
the Opposition. Hi's argument is simply that irrespective of any other
consideration' Australian artists must be used. There is- to- be no-
limitation other than1 the- limitation of availability. Availability is
to- be the only criterion.
Dr Evatt
- Possibility. That is* what it says, in the act..
Mi. McEWEN?- "Possibility!." So the right honorable gentleman
interprets, it in. the way he has' done: Is this policy of the
Opposition to be confined to television? Are Australians- in the
artistic world capable of working only in television? Are we to look at
only the paintings made by Australians? Are we to be permitted to read
only books written by Australians? When we go to the movies are we to be
permitted to see only pictures made in Australia by Australians? Is
that the. policy of the Opposition.?
Mr Haylen
-. - You- know that that is a rotten argument.
Mr McEWEN
- I know that it is a logical argument.
Mr Haylen
- It is. un-Australian: You ought to be ashamed of. it. You can sell wheat to> the Japs, can- you not?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER
- Order!. The House will1 come to- order.
Mr Haylen
- We only want a fair share.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER
- Order! The honorable member for Parkes has already spoken in this debate.
Mr Haylen
- I was provoked, sir. This, is a serious matter..
Mr McEWEN
- This is a debate which has been produced,, not in the interests of
the viewers, but in the interests of those. Australians who,, it is
claimed,, could present television programmes. Is there to- be no
consideration whatever of the Australian viewer?' Surely that is the
prime consideration. The general sentiment of the Government's policy
and the legislation itself, on- reasonable- interpretation, is to see
that, there is not an. exclusion of Australian talent, that there is, to
the extent that Aus, tralian, talent is attractive to the-
Australianviewer, employment of Australian talent. No other field of.
Australian industry, enterprise, or culture is the subject of such an.
incredible policy as that propounded by the Leader of the Opposition,
that there should be- made available to Australian television viewers
only those- things that are produced' in Australia, to the exclusion of
all other television programmes produced elsewhere. That is a completely
indefensible policy. It is a completely contradictory policy on the
part of the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen), who only a
few hours ago was arguing that the Australian public is being
unwarrantedly denied access to such books as " The Catcher in the Rye_".
He was the spokesman in this House last night against censorship. He is
the most vocal man in the Parliament against control of what is to be
available- to the Australian reading public. But this morning, in
different guise - in the guise of an actor, if I may put it so - he.- is
showing us to what a> transformation he has apparently been
subjected. This morning he is advocating that there should be imposed
the most absolute: form of censorship that I have ever heard propounded
in this- place.
So the debate is to be recognized for what it is, Mr. Deputy Speaker
- a stunt! It is an act in itself, designed to gain some political
advantage for a political party that seems to be incapable ever of
propounding anything other than things calculated to give it political
advantage, no matter how trivial the instruments used may be.
The policy of this Government is to be discovered better by
examining the results of its eight years of office. Australian industry
and industrial enterprise have never experienced such a period of
expansion as they have in the years of office of the present Government.
Whatever aspect of Australian activity one may take as a measuring
stick for this,. I venture to say beyond fear of just contradiction that
there has been no other period of eight .years in the history of this
nation in which Australian enterprise and skill have been so well
catered for as during this Government's term of office. That will
continue to happen in regard to this new enterprise, television. The
policy of the Government in respect of television is to permit not an
accumulation of imported, film but just so much imported film as appears
to be desired by the Australian viewer.
Mr Ward
- The viewer has no choice.
Mr Haylen
- Of course he has not. What choice has the viewer?
Mr McEWEN
- The viewer, for- the reasons stated by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson)
a few minutes ago; admittedly has not very much choice of films,
because there is scarcely any Australian film industry for this
specialized purpose. However, like other industries, it will grow, and,
to the extent that an Australian film industry can be shown to be really
capable of carrying on, the traditional protective devices will be
available to if and regard will be paid; - I give that assurance - to
any representations for tariff protection of a practicable kind. Let me
remind the House, however, that at the present time to exclude
television films from being imported would not be to deny films to the
television transmitting stations because, of course, there has been an
accumulation through the years of great numbers of older films of the
kind that have- been mentioned in this debate - films such as those
dealing with Rin Tin Tin, the performing dog. It is clear that even if
there were no current import of films for television, there are plenty
of films available in the archives for the television industry.
Mr Haylen
- At 30 " bob " a can!
Mr McEWEN
- I know nothing of that. I say that you achieve nothing by imposing an embargo.
Mr.. DEPUTY SPEAKER__Order! The honorable member for Parkes has spoken in the debate: and I ask him to keep quiet now.
Mr McEWEN
- I have some sympathy for the honorable member for Parkes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
He is trying, by interjection, to recover some of the ground that he
and his leader have so demonstrably lost in this pitiful exhibition they
have turned on. There is really nothing that I require to add to what
has been said by my colleague, the Postmaster-General. He has stated,
the policy of the Government, and has given us the facts and figures,
not in broadcast allegations, but as a result of actual experience. He
said that in August television programmes had a 56 per cent. Australian
content - A pretty good percentage in an industry which is not yet a
year old, and which, I suppose, at that time was not nine months old. I
venture to say that no other industry in the history of Australia has
been able to claim within twelve months of its establishment that it was
supplying 56 per cent, of Australian consumption. So I say that no case
has been made out by the Opposition on this issue.
