Parliament Oct 1961

Oct 1961 see here

See here
Mr HAYLEN (Parkes) .- I should like to refer to the control of radio and television services by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson). In view of the strictures and the charges of lack of good faith made by the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Luchetti), I am rather surprised that the Postmaster-General is not present in the chamber to answer any question we may ask. If Ministers are not present when estimates affecting their departments are being debated, the long and sometimes tedious discussion of the Estimates becomes a farce. If we want answers, we should get them from the Ministers. Does the Postmaster-General now intend to read the depositions, the minutes or " Hansard " and come along with a prepared statement?

I wish to direct the attention of the Postmaster-General to the lack of good faith in the development of television and the re-adjustment of radio services to meet the challenge of television. I remind the Minister, or his satellite or cohort the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr. Opperman), who is now at the table pinchhitting for him, that he stands condemned under section 114 of the Broadcasting and Television Act, relative to the employment of Australian artists in television and radio. If the Minister does not observe this provision in the act, he is breaking the law and not doing the job he has sworn to do. The act 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, of course, has not been done. Whether supporters of the Government belong to that peculiar brand of Australians who have a fear that their own countrymen cannot put it over - whether in the writing of a play or the performing in one, the singing of a song or the composing of one - the Government stands still and is indicted because it has not given Australian performers, artists and script writers a chance. What has happened as a result of the Government's attitude? This is what has happened: Australians who formerly had a very high level of employment in radio and television are now unemployed, and unemployment in this field is higher than that in any other field in Australia. While the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) prates of seasonal increases in unemployment, he should have a look at the position in radio, and if I get another chance to speak on these estimates, I will deal with television.

Radio met a sharp challenge from television, but how did it adjust itself? It adjusted itself by throwing aside all the features and direct entertainment, and going bald-headed for the playing of records. Turn on any radio programme anywhere in Australia to-day and most consistently it will be found that the programmes are recorded - and they are mostly records of popular tunes. In addition, we have some news, weather information and a rather weak attempt at essential services. Honorable members should remember that radio is not a poor relation of television any more. By dumping the Australian performer - by saying " The devil take the hindmost" and making the hindmost in this country the Australian artist, author and playright - radio stations are making money out of a bad situation.

I shall give honorable members some information from this miserable little document which is the report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. This is the weakest report I have read in years. From it we find that in 1949-50 the profits of all radio stations was £429,766. But the profits have increased in the last ten years. The last recorded figures show that the profits in 1959-60 were £2,594,348. How do the radio stations do it? They do it by giving a cheap performance from records all day, by providing a mediocre service and by eliminating the wage bill for Australian performers.

I point out to honorable members, as a serious matter, that actors and actresses engaged in this profession must of necessity have work in both radio and television. Television performances must remain fresh to viewers and the faces of the performers must not become too familiar. The employment force must be deplored. If radio dramas are eliminated and Australian actors and actresses are not used even to perform in imported dramas that are re-processed in Australia, a very serious unemployment situation is created for the television artist and the radio artist. They must of necessity have the two jobs to survive. Well-known names have dropped from' radio performances and the artists also have difficulty in obtaining continuous employment in television. I am informed by Actors Equity that the artists are in a parlous position. Formerly, the well-known performers earned £3,000 or £4,000 a year and their names were well known nationally and sometimes internationally. Now, if they have any jobs at all, they can earn only £600 or £700 a year.

The Australian Broadcasting Commission is somewhat mealy-mouthed about the provision that as far as possible the services of Australians will be used in the production and presentation of broadcasting and television programmes. Something is wrong with the way this provision is enforced. If the Government does not intend to have a national content in these programmes and has not the courage to ensure that the Australian way of life is reflected in our entertainment, there is not much hope for Australia. If the Government intends to view these matters with a colonial mind or an imported mind or some sort of snob mind that believes Australians cannot produce good programmes, what is the good of the Australian people putting their hands in their pockets and paying for the preliminary stages of television?

The Australian Broadcasting Control Board says that it would like to stop this indiscriminate playing of records but that it will not make a decision because this trend has been arrested. Nothing of the sort! This trend has not been arrested; it is worse than ever! In the last few months, one Sydney radio station - if I had the time, I would give the definite proportions of dramas that have been dropped - has saved £700 a week in wages by not employing Australian performers. The Postmaster-General, if he realized the problems of unemployment in the industry, would be on to trends of this sort like a shot. He should do something to ensure that employment is provided for the acting profession in this industry.

That is the tragic story of radio at the moment. Radio is not an ancillary of television. At the moment, radio programmes are nothing more than a host of records played continually, interpolated occasionally with a news flash, some weather information and a little bit of news. Some people might like it that way, but since all Australians contribute towards the cost of television and radio by way of viewing and listening licences the authorities should be forced to see to it that the Australian content of programmes is preserved, and the Australian actors and artists given the opportunity to live.

When we mention these matters, the general cry is that the Australian people do not like Australian artists and Australian drama. That is not true, as was proved by a survey or median rating taken recently by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. That survey covered the breakfast session, the midday session, and the night session. It disclosed that the majority of the people prefer drama for the night session. They do not necessarily ask for Australian drama, but they prefer drama, and we should have a proportion of Australian drama in our programmes. The survey which is a lower figure ratio disclosed that 2.6 of the people preferred hit tunes in the evening session, 1.0 expressed a preference for other music, 6.4 favoured drama and 4.1 of the people favoured other programmes. At the peak hour of the night, we do get some Australian vaudeville and some Australian plays, and I am very pleased at that because my first concern is employment and my second quality. The survey disclosed that after 7.30 p.m. 1.4 of the people preferred hit tunes, 1.7 favoured other music while 4.5 expressed a desire for drama, and I repeat that this is what they want at the best listening time of the night. We must have Australian drama. The figures here are low as in a median survey but the figures are significant.

I come now to television. What do we get from television for the Australian actor? What is the use of Packers making £400,000 profit out of television stations, what is the use of the " Sydney Morning Herald " in Sydney and other stations in Melbourne and other capital cities making huge profits if they deny Australians the right to work in an artistic medium? These companies should be stood up for their actions, and if ever there is a Labour government - I know there will be one after 9th December - the people can rest assured that those who break the law in connexion with giving employment to Australian artists wi!l be made to observe it.

Discussion of this matter has to be curtailed in the short time at my disposal, but there are strong arguments, supported by statistics, why more Australian artists and actors should be employed in these programmes. There is ample proof that radio has been subverted to the needs of television, with the result that many Australians have been thrown out of employment. One may ask, "What do we need if we are to give employment to Australians in the product ion of programmes? " I have a few suggestions to offer. First, I suggest that we should have some prohibitions. For instance, overseas films produced over five years ago ought never to be televised. They should be banned. If we must have overseas films, then let them be first-class films of fairly recent making. Again, there should be a ban on the boring replays of films or features. Time and time again we sit before our television sets and continually see these old friends. It is disgusting that such a thing should happen without protest from the Minister at this lack of cultivation of Australian artists.

The cultivation of Australian artists should be the paramount consideration. The point I make is that if we are compelled to rely upon imported films and imported featurettes time and time again for filling in our programmes, it is a clear indication that there is a shortage of this type of material, and that here is a splendid opportunity for the employment of Australians. Of course, we know that the reason why Australians are not employed is that the television companies are able to obtain cheap, nasty stuff from some dumper in the United States of America, and they prefer that to paying reasonable award wages to Australians to make a film or play.

Here, if he were not so indifferent, the Minister has an excellent opportunity to do something for Australian performers. We need television and radio, but we need much better programmes than we are getting to-day.

The use of excessive advertising is objectionable, but as my time is short I should like to tell the committee just what the Australian Council of Trade Unions thinks about these matters. What the Australian Council of Trade Unions suggests is the Labour Party’s policy and, for the Minister’s benefit, I point out that the Australian Council of Trade Unions says that it is essential that more money be made available to the Australian Broadcasting Commission to allow that body to produce more Australian television programmes, that further funds should be made available to the Australian Broadcasting Commission to permit of the establishment by that body of a national film-making industry and that the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s charter should be amended accordingly. What a splendid idea! Its suggestion is that money be made available, through a government instrumentality, for the making of films to encourage the exhibition of more Australian television programmes and to ensure that Australian film-making becomes part of a national industry fostered by the Government through television and radio work.

I have time to deal with only two suggestions by the A.C.T.U. The second is that the Government should institute measures to ensure that the large number of lowstandard imported films depicting brutal crime and violence shown over television channels, particularly those of the commercial stations, be banned completely from television exhibition. I am very proud of the suggestion by the congress of trade unions that the Government should enliven the Australian Broadcasting Commission, that it should make more money available to that body for the purpose of encouraging and training actors and actresses and for the production of Australian films. If that were done, an excellent opportunity would be provided for the Australian actors and actresses. Already we have produced “ The Outcast “ and other brilliant films, and who is to say that, with more funds available to it, the Australian Broadcasting

Commission will not rank with the best in the world in the production of programmes? But what we need from the Minister is a little encouragement and a little more thought for those people who have chosen radio and television for their profession. We want something more than this wishywashy report in which the Australian Broadcasting Control Board apologizes for everything, including being alive.

As I have said before, 1 am proud thai the Australian Council of Trade Unions has considered this matter, and has made the sensible suggestion that the Government should subsidize the employment of Australian artists and players in the production of Australian films by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and its ancillary organizations. Television is increasing rapidly, and there is a crying need for better programmes. Surely we can do better than run through the same programmes three or four times, surely we can do better than televise four or five times over the same 20-year old film. Recently, I saw one film, every actor in which has since died, as has the theme. Surely we can do better than that. 1 should like to galvanize the Minister into some awareness of this problem, and 1 shall be pleased to give him the recommendations of the Australian Council of Trade Unions as to how we may obtain better radio and television programmes.

 

See here
Mr CHANEY (Perth) .- It is becoming an annual event now for the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) to spend the whole of his fifteen minutes in dealing with radio and television programmes. Next year he will be doing it again, and from the same old place. But we must give him full credit for his efforts to see that more Australian artists are employed. 1 remember the occasion two years ago when the honorable member for Parkes organized a march on Parliament House by a number of Australian artists. I remember how they carried banners, how they came into King's Hall and how everybody had a quite enjoyable time. I also remember that two weeks after that occasion, when I was travelling back to the west by air, I met, in the lounge at the back of the aircraft, three of those who took part in the march. When I asked whether they had taken part in it they said: "Yes, we do not know what it was all about, but we had a marvellous time. It was a good picnic. We saw the national capital and all went home happy." I wonder how many more of those who took part in the march felt the same way about it?

The honorable member for Parkes forgets that the sole judge of what should or should not be included in television programmes is not the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) who, incidentally, was attending a cabinet meeting when the honorable member for Parkes was criticizing him for his absence from the chamber. Surely the Australian public should have some say in what should be included in the programmes. I venture the opinion that a perusal of the results of any type of poll taken of viewers and listeners will disclose that the vast majority of the people watch commercial television stations, and listen to commercial broadcasting stations. The reason for this is that they choose the programmes they want to see or hear, and those are the ones to which they tune in. The way to solve the problem is not to regiment an organization like the Australian Broadcasting Commission and force it to maintain great drama schools or employ Australian artists. I suggest that the solution is in the hands of the Australian artists themselves. Once they achieve the quality that the people expect, the viewers will want to see them or hear them. There will not be any doubt about it then; they will fill the television screens when they can produce the goods. That must be expected.
Mr Reynolds - People can also be attracted to very brief bikinis.

Mr CHANEY - The honorable member for Barton probably sits with his eyes glued on " Gunsmoke ", and if somebody told him there was an Australian production on another channel he would not change over to watch it. He would probably say, " Go away and let me see the end of my blood and thunder serial! " That is true of most of the critics. I pay a tribute to the honorable member for Parkes. I think there is a certain amount of sincerity in his desire ;o get Australian artists on the programmes; jut many viewers watch the imported programmes and would not change stations if in Australian production were shown on mother channel. If these critics were honest enough, they would admit that.
Mr Haylen - You think the Australian artist is inferior to the overseas artist anyhow
Mr CHANEY - There is a standard in all things. An artist is an artist and we should not clutter up the television screens with third-rate artists whether they are Australian, British or American. The same might be said about old films. The honor.able member for Parkes said there should be a law against old films. On the odd occasions that I have an opportunity to watch television, I have found some of the jest entertainment in some of the old films :hat have been reproduced. Some of these films which are a little aged were produced n days when there was more competition md were more skilfully directed than some of the modern films that you might see at a theatre 1 think it is time that the Government or ±e Postmaster-General's Department gave consideration to a combined licence for radio and television, and that is the matter to which I wish to direct attention particularly. Television was started in Australia in 1956. Licences were issued about the end of 1956 and came into operation in January, 1957. The " Financial and Statistical Bulletin " of the Postmaster-General's Department for 30th June, 1960, shows that :he number of ordinary radio listeners' licences has grown from 1,127,423 in 1939 ;o 2,015,488 at 30th June, 1960; but although the number of broadcast listeners' licences did not reach 2,000,000 until 1959, there was an increase of only approximately 3,000 licences in the financial year 1959-60 compared with an increase of 100,000 a /ear in the 1940's. Radio listening increased rapidly in those days but the expansion is now static.

There is a natural increase in the population and young married people probably buy a radio set, but even the number of licences issued to those groups is probably offset by those who give up radio licences. On the other hand, the number of tele vision viewers' licences has increased phenomenally since television was introduced. At the end of I960, there were 954,995 television viewers' licences and that represents a tremendous growth in the number of television viewers in five years. It seems to me that it would be quite a simple matter for the Postmaster-General's Department to amalgamate the licences. At present, a person who is licensed pays £5 for a television licence and £2 15s. for a radio licence. They fall due at different times.


Mr James - What about those who cannot afford a television set?


Mr CHANEY - That is different. If they cannot afford a television set, they have no problem with a licence. I am talking of those who have both a television and a radio set. For those people, there should be a combined licence and instead of paying £7 15s. they should get one licence at a cheaper rate. It is obvious that nobody who has a television set makes use of a radio set now except for the purpose of ascertaining the correct time in the morning. Perhaps a few housewives will listen to a serial occasionally, and incidental! these serials are produced in Australia with Australian artists. They seem to go “ on for episode after episode and it takes 42 years for a girl to get married. I do not see what the honorable member for Parkes has to complain about in that respect. However, I think consideration should be given to those who hold two licences.

The only other point I want to make is this: The radio licence which costs £2 15s. is given to a pensioner for 10s. and a television licence which costs £5 is granted to a pensioner for £1 5s. I do not think anybody quarrels with those concessions. Recently the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) was asked a question by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Bland) who requested that some consideration be given to reducing the telephone rental charge for age pensioners. The Minister said that the Government had looked at this proposition, but in future it would be considered by the Department of Social Services. I believe it should be considered by the Postmaster-General’s Department. The concession on a television viewer’s licence might be given to somebody who has never paid a television licence fee because the pensioner might have reached pensionable age before the introduction of television, but he is still given the benefit of a reduction in the charge from £5 to £1 5s.

Actually, there is a stronger case for giving a concession to a person who has had a telephone for many years. As the honorable member for Warringah has said - and I agree with him - the telephone is important to an aged couple. Sometimes it is their only means of communication with the outside world, including their own familes. I would like to see the department consider a concession according to the number of years that a person has had a telephone. A telephone is something that you live with. If a person has paid telephone rental for 40 or 50 years, he or she has contributed considerably to the revenue of the Postal Department. I believe it costs on an average £500 to install a telephone, and at present rentals, a subscriber would not be paying interest on that amount at the rental of £13 a year which is charged in the capital cities. But the telephone itself costs £10 or £12 from the manufacturer. If that is taken into consideration, the higher charge will pay for it many times over, if a person has a telephone for twenty years. At the same time, there are call charges and surely there is some profit in those if the “ Financial and Statistical Bulletin “ of the Postmaster-General’s Department is accepted. A person who has had a telephone for 30 years might be given some concession and one who has had a telephone for twenty years might get a lesser concession. There need not necessarily be a concession for a person who has been waiting for years to get a telephone connexion. However, I think the proposal is worthy of consideration.

The statistics show that although there were 2,015,488 broadcast listeners’ licences in force at 30th June, 1960, the number of licences on which pensioners paid reduced fees was only 258,874 so the proportion is not very great. Consideration should be given to telephone rentals concessions particularly in areas where the telephone has been part of the lives of the people for many years. I notice that in the annual report of the Postmaster-General’s Department, the general provisions for depreciation charges on telephone, telegraph and mail handling plant has been split up. Last year there was provision of £9,780,000 foi depreciation on telephone plant. I do noi know whether these telephones were installed in houses but if that is so, it seem? that after a few years the cost has been completely covered and depreciation ha; been deducted. No charge would be needed to provide a concession for aged persons so that they could maintain a telephone as their only means of communication with the outside world.
 

Bird see here

Mr BIRD - As the honorable member for Parkes has interjected so correctly, the Australian content is telecast during the dead period. When hundreds of thousands of Australians are viewing, the Australian content in programmes is very low. I believe that the Government is genuine in its objective of a larger Australian content in programmes, but it is time tint the Government woke up to the fact that it will not achieve its objective by appealing to the television stations to act of their own accord. A quota must be set. In England not more than 14 per cent, of programmes telecast in a day may be imported material. Canada has a high quota of local programmes. In the early days of television the Government imposed a ceiling limit on imported films, but to-day the sky is the limit. When the Government lifted import controls, £2,000,000 worth of television programmes flooded the country. I know that there is an insidious campaign against Austraiian television programmes.  

 
Mr HAYLEN (Parkes) .- see here I should like to refer to the control of radio and television services by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson). In view of the strictures and the charges of lack of good faith made by the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Luchetti), I am rather surprised that the Postmaster-General is not present in the chamber to answer any question we may ask. If Ministers are not present when estimates affecting their departments are being debated, the long and sometimes tedious discussion of the Estimates becomes a farce. If we want answers, we should get them from the Ministers. Does the Postmaster-General now intend to read the depositions, the minutes or " Hansard " and come along with a prepared statement?

I wish to direct the attention of the Postmaster-General to the lack of good faith in the development of television and the re-adjustment of radio services to meet the challenge of television. I remind the Minister, or his satellite or cohort the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr. Opperman), who is now at the table pinchhitting for him, that he stands condemned under section 114 of the Broadcasting and Television Act, relative to the employment of Australian artists in television and radio. If the Minister does not observe this provision in the act, he is breaking the law and not doing the job he has sworn to do. The act 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, of course, has not been done. Whether supporters of the Government belong to that peculiar brand of Australians who have a fear that their own countrymen cannot put it over - whether in the writing of a play or the performing in one, the singing of a song or the composing of one - the Government stands still and is indicted because it has not given Australian performers, artists and script writers a chance. What has happened as a result of the Government's attitude? This is what has happened: Australians who formerly had a very high level of employment in radio and television are now unemployed, and unemployment in this field is higher than that in any other field in Australia. While the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) prates of seasonal increases in unemployment, he should have a look at the position in radio, and if I get another chance to speak on these estimates, I will deal with television.

Radio met a sharp challenge from television, but how did it adjust itself? It adjusted itself by throwing aside all the features and direct entertainment, and going bald-headed for the playing of records. Turn on any radio programme anywhere in Australia to-day and most consistently it will be found that the programmes are recorded - and they are mostly records of popular tunes. In addition, we have some news, weather information and a rather weak attempt at essential services. Honorable members should remember that radio is not a poor relation of television any more. By dumping the Australian performer - by saying " The devil take the hindmost" and making the hindmost in this country the Australian artist, author and playright - radio stations are making money out of a bad situation.

I shall give honorable members some information from this miserable little document which is the report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. This is the weakest report I have read in years. From it we find that in 1949-50 the profits of all radio stations was £429,766. But the profits have increased in the last ten years. The last recorded figures show that the profits in 1959-60 were £2,594,348. How do the radio stations do it? They do it by giving a cheap performance from records all day, by providing a mediocre service and by eliminating the wage bill for Australian performers.

I point out to honorable members, as a serious matter, that actors and actresses engaged in this profession must of necessity have work in both radio and television. Television performances must remain fresh to viewers and the faces of the performers must not become too familiar. The employment force must be deplored. If radio dramas are eliminated and Australian actors and actresses are not used even to perform in imported dramas that are re-processed in Australia, a very serious unemployment situation is created for the television artist and the radio artist. They must of necessity have the two jobs to survive. Well-known names have dropped from' radio performances and the artists also have difficulty in obtaining continuous employment in television. I am informed by Actors Equity that the artists are in a parlous position. Formerly, the well-known performers earned £3,000 or £4,000 a year and their names were well known nationally and sometimes internationally. Now, if they have any jobs at all, they can earn only £600 or £700 a year.

The Australian Broadcasting Commission is somewhat mealy-mouthed about the provision that as far as possible the services of Australians will be used in the production and presentation of broadcasting and television programmes. Something is wrong with the way this provision is enforced. If the Government does not intend to have a national content in these programmes and has not the courage to ensure that the Australian way of life is reflected in our entertainment, there is not much hope for Australia. If the Government intends to view these matters with a colonial mind or an imported mind or some sort of snob mind that believes Australians cannot produce good programmes, what is the good of the Australian people putting their hands in their pockets and paying for the preliminary stages of television?

The Australian Broadcasting Control Board says that it would like to stop this indiscriminate playing of records but that it will not make a decision because this trend has been arrested. Nothing of the sort! This trend has not been arrested; it is worse than ever! In the last few months, one Sydney radio station - if I had the time, I would give the definite proportions of dramas that have been dropped - has saved £700 a week in wages by not employing Australian performers. The Postmaster-General, if he realized the problems of unemployment in the industry, would be on to trends of this sort like a shot. He should do something to ensure that employment is provided for the acting profession in this industry.

That is the tragic story of radio at the moment. Radio is not an ancillary of television. At the moment, radio programmes are nothing more than a host of records played continually, interpolated occasionally with a news flash, some weather information and a little bit of news. Some people might like it that way, but since all Australians contribute towards the cost of television and radio by way of viewing and listening licences the authorities should be forced to see to it that the Australian content of programmes is preserved, and the Australian actors and artists given the opportunity to live.

When we mention these matters, the general cry is that the Australian people do not like Australian artists and Australian drama. That is not true, as was proved by a survey or median rating taken recently by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. That survey covered the breakfast session, the midday session, and the night session. It disclosed that the majority of the people prefer drama for the night session. They do not necessarily ask for Australian drama, but they prefer drama, and we should have a proportion of Australian drama in our programmes. The survey which is a lower figure ratio disclosed that 2.6 of the people preferred hit tunes in the evening session, 1.0 expressed a preference for other music, 6.4 favoured drama and 4.1 of the people favoured other programmes. At the peak hour of the night, we do get some Australian vaudeville and some Australian plays, and I am very pleased at that because my first concern is employment and my second quality. The survey disclosed that after 7.30 p.m. 1.4 of the people preferred hit tunes, 1.7 favoured other music while 4.5 expressed a desire for drama, and I repeat that this is what they want at the best listening time of the night. We must have Australian drama. The figures here are low as in a median survey but the figures are significant.

I come now to television. What do we get from television for the Australian actor? What is the use of Packers making £400,000 profit out of television stations, what is the use of the " Sydney Morning Herald " in Sydney and other stations in Melbourne and other capital cities making huge profits if they deny Australians the right to work in an artistic medium? These companies should be stood up for their actions, and if ever there is a Labour government - I know there will be one after 9th December - the people can rest assured that those who break the law in connexion with giving employment to Australian artists wi!l be made to observe it.

Discussion of this matter has to be curtailed in the short time at my disposal, but there are strong arguments, supported by statistics, why more Australian artists and actors should be employed in these programmes. There is ample proof that radio has been subverted to the needs of television, with the result that many Australians have been thrown out of employment. One may ask, "What do we need if we are to give employment to Australians in the product ion of programmes? " I have a few suggestions to offer. First, I suggest that we should have some prohibitions. For instance, overseas films produced over five years ago ought never to be televised. They should be banned. If we must have overseas films, then let them be first-class films of fairly recent making. Again, there should be a ban on the boring replays of films or features. Time and time again we sit before our television sets and continually see these old friends. It is disgusting that such a thing should happen without protest from the Minister at this lack of cultivation of Australian artists.

The cultivation of Australian artists should be the paramount consideration. The point I make is that if we are compelled to rely upon imported films and imported featurettes time and time again for filling in our programmes, it is a clear indication that there is a shortage of this type of material, and that here is a splendid opportunity for the employment of Australians. Of course, we know that the reason why Australians are not employed is that the television companies are able to obtain cheap, nasty stuff from some dumper in the United States of America, and they prefer that to paying reasonable award wages to Australians to make a film or play.

Here, if he were not so indifferent, the Minister has an excellent opportunity to do something for Australian performers. We need television and radio, but we need much better programmes than we are getting to-day.

The use of excessive advertising is objectionable, but as my time is short I should like to tell the committee just what the Australian Council of Trade Unions thinks about these matters. What the Australian Council of Trade Unions suggests is the Labour Party's policy and, for the Minister's benefit, I point out that the Australian Council of Trade Unions says that it is essential that more money be made available to the Australian Broadcasting Commission to allow that body to produce more Australian television programmes, that further funds should be made available to the Australian Broadcasting Commission to permit of the establishment by that body of a national film-making industry and that the Australian Broadcasting Commission's charter should be amended accordingly. What a splendid idea! Its suggestion is that money be made available, through a government instrumentality, for the making of films to encourage the exhibition of more Australian television programmes and to ensure that Australian film-making becomes part of a national industry fostered by the Government through television and radio work.

I have time to deal with only two suggestions by the A.C.T.U. The second is that the Government should institute measures to ensure that the large number of lowstandard imported films depicting brutal crime and violence shown over television channels, particularly those of the commercial stations, be banned completely from television exhibition. I am very proud of the suggestion by the congress of trade unions that the Government should enliven the Australian Broadcasting Commission, that it should make more money available to that body for the purpose of encouraging and training actors and actresses and for the production of Australian films. If that were done, an excellent opportunity would be provided for the Australian actors and actresses. Already we have produced “ The Outcast “ and other brilliant films, and who is to say that, with more funds available to it, the Australian Broadcasting

Commission will not rank with the best in the world in the production of programmes? But what we need from the Minister is a little encouragement and a little more thought for those people who have chosen radio and television for their profession. We want something more than this wishywashy report in which the Australian Broadcasting Control Board apologizes for everything, including being alive.

As I have said before, 1 am proud thai the Australian Council of Trade Unions has considered this matter, and has made the sensible suggestion that the Government should subsidize the employment of Australian artists and players in the production of Australian films by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and its ancillary organizations. Television is increasing rapidly, and there is a crying need for better programmes. Surely we can do better than run through the same programmes three or four times, surely we can do better than televise four or five times over the same 20-year old film. Recently, I saw one film, every actor in which has since died, as has the theme. Surely we can do better than that. 1 should like to galvanize the Minister into some awareness of this problem, and 1 shall be pleased to give him the recommendations of the Australian Council of Trade Unions as to how we may obtain better radio and television programmes.

...

Mr CHANEY (Perth) .See here - It is becoming an annual event now for the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) to spend the whole of his fifteen minutes in dealing with radio and television programmes. Next year he will be doing it again, and from the same old place. But we must give him full credit for his efforts to see that more Australian artists are employed. 1 remember the occasion two years ago when the honorable member for Parkes organized a march on Parliament House by a number of Australian artists. I remember how they carried banners, how they came into King's Hall and how everybody had a quite enjoyable time. I also remember that two weeks after that occasion, when I was travelling back to the west by air, I met, in the lounge at the back of the aircraft, three of those who took part in the march. When I asked whether they had taken part in it they said: "Yes, we do not know what it was all about, but we had a marvellous time. It was a good picnic. We saw the national capital and all went home happy." I wonder how many more of those who took part in the march felt the same way about it?

The honorable member for Parkes forgets that the sole judge of what should or should not be included in television programmes is not the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) who, incidentally, was attending a cabinet meeting when the honorable member for Parkes was criticizing him for his absence from the chamber. Surely the Australian public should have some say in what should be included in the programmes. I venture the opinion that a perusal of the results of any type of poll taken of viewers and listeners will disclose that the vast majority of the people watch commercial television stations, and listen to commercial broadcasting stations. The reason for this is that they choose the programmes they want to see or hear, and those are the ones to which they tune in. The way to solve the problem is not to regiment an organization like the Australian Broadcasting Commission and force it to maintain great drama schools or employ Australian artists. I suggest that the solution is in the hands of the Australian artists themselves. Once they achieve the quality that the people expect, the viewers will want to see them or hear them. There will not be any doubt about it then; they will fill the television screens when they can produce the goods. That must be expected.


Mr Reynolds - People can also be attracted to very brief bikinis.


Mr CHANEY - The honorable member for Barton probably sits with his eyes glued on " Gunsmoke ", and if somebody told him there was an Australian production on another channel he would not change over to watch it. He would probably say, " Go away and let me see the end of my blood and thunder serial! " That is true of most of the critics. I pay a tribute to the honorable member for Parkes. I think there is a certain amount of sincerity in his desire ;o get Australian artists on the programmes; jut many viewers watch the imported programmes and would not change stations if in Australian production were shown on mother channel. If these critics were honest enough, they would admit that.


Mr Haylen - You think the Australian artist is inferior to the overseas artist anyhow


Mr CHANEY - There is a standard in all things. An artist is an artist and we should not clutter up the television screens with third-rate artists whether they are Australian, British or American. The same might be said about old films. The honor.able member for Parkes said there should be a law against old films. On the odd occasions that I have an opportunity to watch television, I have found some of the jest entertainment in some of the old films :hat have been reproduced. Some of these films which are a little aged were produced n days when there was more competition md were more skilfully directed than some of the modern films that you might see at a theatre 1 think it is time that the Government or ±e Postmaster-General's Department gave consideration to a combined licence for radio and television, and that is the matter to which I wish to direct attention particularly. Television was started in Australia in 1956. Licences were issued about the end of 1956 and came into operation in January, 1957. The " Financial and Statistical Bulletin " of the Postmaster-General's Department for 30th June, 1960, shows that :he number of ordinary radio listeners' licences has grown from 1,127,423 in 1939 ;o 2,015,488 at 30th June, 1960; but although the number of broadcast listeners' licences did not reach 2,000,000 until 1959, there was an increase of only approximately 3,000 licences in the financial year 1959-60 compared with an increase of 100,000 a /ear in the 1940's. Radio listening increased rapidly in those days but the expansion is now static.

Bird... See here

The employment of Australians on television is a very vexed and contentious question. It is debated at length each year when we discuss the estimates for the Postmaster-General's Department in relation to broadcasting and television services. The board's report indicates that, in percentage terms, the Australian content in programmes is increasing. Previous reports included a graph which continued to show a downward trend, but this year the graph is missing. However, according to the report, at long last Australian actors anc! actresses are enjoying a reasonable allocation of television time. But the figures indicate a grave exaggeration of the true position because any television viewer knows that the increased Australian content is on frivolous and frothy matter which plays no part in raising Australian standards of culture. An examination of the dissection of the Australian content in programmes to which the report refers reveals why the percentage is so high. Page 47 of the report makes clear that a great deal of the Australian content in programmes- is of such a nature that it would not matter whether it was telecast or not because it does nothing to improve Australian cultural standards....

Table 11, on page 41 of the report, sets out the percentage of time occupied by types of programme matter. A great proportion of the Australian content is devoted to the family. All honorable members know that the main viewing time is after 6.30 p.m. That is when one would expect to see a reasonable amount of Australian content, but, apart from a regulation issued by the Minister to the effect that Australian programmes must occupy at least one hour telecasting time between 7.30 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. each week, one would look in vain for any Australian content during the main viewing period. The content about which the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is so happy is telecast in the morning and afternoon periods when, relatively speaking, there are very few viewers.

Mr Haylen - A dead period.

Mr BIRD - As the honorable member for Parkes has interjected so correctly, the Australian content is telecast during the dead period. When hundreds of thousands of Australians are viewing, the Australian content in programmes is very low. I believe that the Government is genuine in its objective of a larger Australian content in programmes, but it is time tint the Government woke up to the fact that it will not achieve its objective by appealing to the television stations to act of their own accord. A quota must be set. In England not more than 14 per cent, of programmes telecast in a day may be imported material. Canada has a high quota of local programmes. In the early days of television the Government imposed a ceiling limit on imported films, but to-day the sky is the limit. When the Government lifted import controls, £2,000,000 worth of television programmes flooded the country. I know that there is an insidious campaign against Austraiian television programmes....