Robert Hughes on Intellectualism in Australia

 From this piece in 1968 - originally published in London Magazine.

1963 writing comp

 

TV Times 3 Feb 1963

Aug 1959 debate

See here

 e other part- of the statement which I view with some trepidation is the allusion, to programme standards, as laid down by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. It is< important to note that section 88 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1956, under the sub-title " Encouragement of Australian Artists", specifies that commercial licensees- shall, as- far as possible, use the services of Australians in the production and presentation of broadcasting: and: «television» «programmes» . The wording of the section- evoked a good deal of protest from writers, actors, musicians and production companies who argued that the licensees would be free to interpret the phrase. " as far as possible " to suit- their own convenience. They added that licensees would tend to employ Australian talent in panel shows, interviews, talent quests and cooking demonstrations only. A similar warning was given by Mr. Charles Moses, the general manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission during evidence before the Royal Commission on Television. He said that the only appropriate means of guarding against excessive use of imported material was to stipulate that there should be a minimum percentage of Australian material in all' programmes. He went on to say that in fixing quotas it must be' realized that if an overall percentage were laid down the stations would be free to do little, or nothing, in. the way of developing Australian talent, and that the percentage could be made up of sport, discussions, cookery demonstrations and so on. Headded that the intention of the quota would thus be largely defeated.

I should like to refer to what the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) said when presenting the Broadcasting and Television Bill in 1956. Referring to clause 114, he said -

No one on this side of the chamber will bow to any one else in his realization of the potentialities of television and in his determination to use those potentialities to the utmost extent for the development of Australian art and culture. Let that point be understood immediately.

In looking at those remarks of the Minister,, and of Mr. Moses,, we need to see a little more closely just. what, is happening in regard to the Australian content of programmes. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board said in its report for 1958. that in Sydney 41 per cent, of television items were of Australian origin, and 49 per cent, were imported; that in Melbourne 43 per cent, were of Australian origin, and 47 per cent, were imported. In my opinion, those figures are misleading unless one understands how they are made up.

It is important here to ask ourselves perhaps four questions. What proportion of the programmes in the peak viewing hours between 6.30 and 9.30 p.m. is Australian in content? What proportion of the total television drama is of Australian origin? What proportion of the music heard is performed or composed by Australians? What will be the effect of the present programmes on the rising generation and the preservation of the national identity.

As for the first question, the Minister said on the same occasion in 1955 -

The importation of American productions cannot be allowed to continue to the detriment of Australian production. At the start, therefore, we are endeavouring to restrict such importation by the imposition of import quotas. It is no secret that the television licensees have been given import quotas to the value of £60,000 per annum, of which no more than two-thirds may be spent on dollar imports. I understand from some producers that that would enable them to import material from dollar sources for about 20 hours telecasting a week, whereas the television licensees are planning to telecast, by some time next year-

The Minister referred to 1957 - up to 35 hours a week.

Since then the import quota has been increased. More programmes are coming in now, and the Minister's hope that the viewing time available would limit the amount of American films shown has not come to pass.

It is interesting to look at the statistics concerning viewers. According to a recent survey, the national stations in Sydney and Melbourne attract only a very small proportion of the viewing public. In Sydney they attract 1 1 per cent, and in Melbourne 1 2 per cent.,, while the figures for the commercial' stations are 89 per cent, and 88 per cent, respectively. Despite this, the commercial stations, which are watched by the bulk of the viewing public, had only one half hour programme with Australian content in 42 hours of telecasting. That half hour was devoted to a session called "Pick A Box".

My second question concerns the proportion of drama that is of Australian origin. In this connexion it might be interesting to look at some of the programmes shown at the peak viewing time. They include, " Maverick ", " Brave Eagle ", "Dragnet", "Man Without a Gun", "I Love Lucy", "Trackdown", "The Rifleman ", " Cisco Kid ", " Lawman ", " Annie Oakley"; "Perry Mason", "Steve Canyon" "Wyatt Earp", "Cimarron City", and " Buffalo Bill, Junior ". None of them is very elevating; certainly none is of Australian origin. We need to do a great deal to protect our viewing public from these second-rate American programmes which have flooded the market here to the exclusion of some of our own better-type programmes. If such protection were given we might see more of those better programmes, but it is extremely difficult for Australia to build up good feature material to compete with these cheap films from the United States.

As to the proportion of music which is composed or performed by Australians in the television field, figures are difficult to obtain. However, 60 per cent, of radio programmes are made up of music, and only 3 per cent, of that is serious. In Melbourne the proportions are 54 per cent, and 3 per cent. Obviously, most of the music on the radio is American jazz and such serious music as is provided comes from overseas musicians and artists. Probably the same pattern will become apparent in television if more is not done to protect our local talent.

My fourth question was as to the effect on the rising generation of this flood of American films. I believe that we are becoming a pale imitation of America and that if we continue to view these programmes in such quantity the American influence will become apparent in our attitude, dress and speech.

Being a parent of what were once two small boys, I know only too well what happened when they were passing through the comic reading stage. Practically all their speech was moulded on the " Comic Cuts " kind of language. They got their comics perhaps once a week; but, with this new medium in the home for seven days a week and being able to listen to far more American speech than they were able to read from their comics, children undoubtedly will mould their speech on American language. That is happening already. I discovered in Melbourne just recently that one programme being telecast features an American star called Kookie. So popular has he become that his photograph appears in the " TV Weekly ". What is even worse is that inside that publication is a dictionary of Kookie talk, which I presume the parents are supposed to study so that they will be able to understand the language of their children. I discovered there such phrases as " Smoke in the noggin ", which means loss of memory; " Blowing the jets ", which means getting excited; " Making with the Queen's jive ", which means speaking English; " Lid of your cave ", which means the door of your office; "Beating the bed bugs", which means staying up all night. That is the pattern we will have for our children if we do not do something to ensure that they are treated to more Australian culture.

At this stage I should like to make a fewreferences to what the Australian Broadcasting Control Board had to say about «television» «programme» standards. The board' said, in regard to family programmes -

Children readily imitate speech and pronunciations heard in sound broadcasting and «television» «programmes» . They should be encouraged in the art of correct speech and pronunciation, and' slang and incorrect English should be avoided, except when necessary for characterization, when, a minimum amount of appropriate vernacular may be employed.

It seems to be that that has been forgotten, when one finds in the weekly television magazine a dictionary of Kookie talk.

We need to note what is happening in the presentation of children's programmes. The board, in paragraph 17 of its report, at page 8, said -

It is therefore necessary to make special provisions in these Standards in respect of programmes to be televised between 5 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. on week days, and at any time before 7.30 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday.

The point I make here is that I feel it is quite erroneous to think that children are not viewing «television» «programmes» before 5 p.m. on week days. It may be said that that is the responsibility of the parents; but it is not so easy, if children have finished their homework, to prevent their viewing the programmes. It is important that what is televised before 5 p.m. should be watched carefully. It is of no use allowing adult programmes to come on then when the younger children are likely to be watching.

Dealing again with family programmes, the board said, in paragraph 16 of its report - . . during week-ends and holidays, the television audience is likely to contain large numbers of children and young people. Programmes to be televised at these times should therefore be wholly suitable for viewing by children though not necessarily directed exclusively to them. There are . . . special responsibilities to be discharged in the production and presentation of programmes during these periods.

The board further said - . . the television broadcaster must allow for the likely composition of his audience at these times of day. . . . During these periods there are great opportunities for good in television, in enlarging the horizons of children and in cementing family ties and associations. It is earnestly hoped that television stations will make the most of these opportunities.

I feel that that is a pious hope. Unless some form of control is imposed, television stations, and indeed the Broadcasting Control Board, may find that it is too late to change whatI consider to be a tragic drift towards the American culture.

Another point that I thought was of interest when I was investigating this matter was the type of programme that was being viewed by children after 7.30 p.m. I found that in Melbourne on a Sunday at 9 p.m. 62,000 children were watching " Gunsmoke "; that on Saturday night at 8 p.m., which is half an hour after the time at which children, according to the Broadcasting Control Board, are supposed to cease viewing, 94,000 children were viewing the programme " Sugar Foot "; that at 10.30 p.m. on Saturday 32,000 children were watching the programme " Mike Hammer "; that on Friday at 8.30 p.m., 119,000 children were watching " Have Gun - Will Travel "; and that at the same time on other commercial stations 62,000 children were watching another American crime programme. I discovered also that on Friday night the programme " Texas Rangers " attracted 158,000 children and "West Point " attracted 54,000 children, in addition to which on Wednesday night " Buffalo Bill" attracted 159,000 children.

Senator Henty - The titles have not altered much over the years.

Senator BUTTFIELD - That is the point. Children, I think, are getting an overdose of this kind of programme.

Senator Marriott - Are you considering it from the viewpoint of the effect of the cinema and the radio?

Senator BUTTFIELD - In my opinion, the cinema is not as pernicious as is the «television» «programme» , because children go to the cinema possibly only once a week and they do not get the overdose that they are getting through television being available every night of the week.

Senator Marriott - Well, the parents must be weak.

Senator BUTTFIELD - I do not think it is a question of the parents being weak. The «television» «programme is there, and the children will watch it. We must recognize that fact.I think the Minister recognized that fact.I am pointing out what is happening and am expressing the hope that something will be done before it is too late and before we lose our national identity.

In regard to programme standards, the board said -

Dramatic action should not be overaccentuated.

If all these " Buffalo Bill " and similar programmes are being watched by so many children, obviously dramatic action is being over-accentuated. I refer now to paragraph 21 of the board's report, in which it says -

It is recommended that there be regular sessions for children designed -

(a)   to impart a broader knowledge of the history and potentialities of our country and of current affairs;

(b)   to foster an appreciation of such cultural pursuits as music, painting, ballet, the theatre and literature;

(c)   to encourage interest and active participation in simple scientific investigations such as botanical, geological and other pursuits; and

(d)   by the use of the great examples from the Bible, and from history, biography and literature, to impart a real appreciation of the spiritual values and of the qualities of courage, honour and integrity which are essential to the full development of the individual, and of national greatness.

It is further recommended that programmes be designed to cater for children's propensities for sport and for hobbies such as handicrafts and the care of animals.

It is of no use saying that that should be done - I think the national stations are doing it very successfully - unless there is a truce between all the stations so that the children will not turn from one programme to another. That obviously is happening, because one notes that in Sydney only 11 per cent, of the viewing population watches the national programmes. We must try to obtain this truce between all stations so that they will all show similar programmes at the same time and so the children will not be placed in the position of turning from a better-quality programme to a sensational American film.

There is one further point I wish to make; it has to do with the classification of films. The censors are doing splendid work in the classification of films, but at the moment it is not compulsory for television stations, or for advertisements, to state the classification into which the programmes fall. The existing classifications are "General", which means the programme is 'unrestricted; "'Adult'", which means it is not suitable for children; and "A.O.", which means it is not suitable for adolescents, and therefore is not to be shown before 8.30 p.m.

Senator Ormonde - Some are not suitable for any one.

Senator BUTTFIELD - Well, they are the classifications. The point I am making is that the particular classification should compulsorily be flashed on the screen before the show starts and also should be published in all programme notices so that parents may see what their children are likely to be watching at a certain time.

Senator Marriott - They would only get a bigger audience.

Senator BUTTFIELD - You cannot do more than make it compulsory to indicate the type of programme. If the adults are still irresponsible, it is very difficult for the Government to ,do anything more. I am suggesting what the Government might do to try to improve the cultural standards of the younger generation.

Senator Ormonde - That will interfere with the profit motive.

Senator BUTTFIELD - I do not think that is the point at all. I do not think that any of the people running the stations are irresponsible. What is happening is that they are giving the children what they want. I admit that my children would be exactly the same as others; they would look for the sensational. As responsible members of Parliament, I urge that, before it is too late, we take some positive steps in the direction I have indicated.

I want to make it quite clear that I have no grudge against America when I say that these programmes will make our children little Americans. I think that the good American programmes are splendid, but we are not getting enough of that type of American programme. We are getting the second rate, and that is what is becoming popular in Australia. Unfortunately, America can afford to dump these programmes on this market. I think there is a half-hour programme called " Perry Como", which, according to what I read in a television magazine, cost about £A.70.000 to produce but it is sold here for £200. The point is that the Americans have been able to sell the programme so many times in America that they can afford to sell it in Australia at any price, because whatever they sell it for is all profit.

I am suggesting that perhaps the customs tariff procedure or the Australian Industries Preservation Act could be invoked to protect our industry from this dumping by America. It might also be necessary for us to impose some sort of a quota system, although I know there is a danger in imposing quotas. I have read what happened over the years in England, when that country imposed quotas. There was a spate of what they called " quota quickies ", which were absolute rubbish, produced only in order to meet the quota requirements. I do not want that to happen in Australia, but a quota system may be necessary to protect our industry by forcing Australian programmes ;on to our television stations.

Senator Henty - -You would then get Australian " quickies'".

Senator BUTTFIELD - Exactly. In imposing any form of quota, we should have to be careful that we did not get " quickies " which were just rubbish.

There is a second way in which, I think, the industry can be assisted. It is by imposing a 10 per cent- charge on the revenue received by television stations from their sales of time and programmes, and using that money to assist our young and, I hope, growing industry in Australia. Senator Mattner asked what return there was to the commercial stations from their programmes. From my investigations, I have found that up to September, 1958, the gross takings amounted to £4,000,000. The proceeds from the sales of time were £2,500,000 and the proceeds from programmes were £1,500,000. It is estimated that for the current year the gross revenue will be £7,000,000. As revenue is far in excess of what was expected by the commercial television licensees, there should be no difficulty in persuading them to contribute to the perpetuation of Australian culture.

I conclude by saying that I am delighted that television in this country is going ahead so well and is of such a high standard technically. However, I urge the Minister to reconsider his decision to spread phase three only into the densely populated areas, and to assist the cause of decentralization by endeavouring to put at any rate adequate national television, stations in the more outlying areas. I hope that he will begin now, before it is too late, to impose some form of: restriction on programme standards in order that we may develop our own independent national identity.
Senator McKELLAR (New South Wales) . see here- As one who has spent a lifetime in country areas, I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to congratulate the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) upon the rapid expansion of television to the stage we are now entering, phase 3, and the extension of this amenity to country areas. This service will open up a new era 'to those of us -who live in the country, and I hope it will be an inducement to the younger people in particular to remain in the country, because they have been drifting to the cities in such large numbers over the last few years that in many country areas it has not been possible to hold the natural increase.

It is, ;most gratifying to know that perhaps within the next eighteen months or two years, 75 per cent, of the population of Australia will be able to view television» «programmes» . Because we have lagged behind other countries in introducing television, we have the advantage of benefiting from the inevitable mistakes made by those other countries and so avoiding the difficulties experienced by them in the earlier days...

Senator O'Flahertycastigated Senator Buttfield, whom I should like to congratulate upon her excellent contribution, for praising the «television» «programmes» . I do not remember precisely the words she used, but I do know that Senator Buttfield was praising the presentation of the programmes. I have not had the privilege of viewing television overseas, but those people who have enjoyed that advantage have stated that the presentation of «television» «programmes» in Australia is better than is the presentation in most overseas countries. Yesterday, and again to-day, in a most informative address, Senator Hannan stated that one of the .reasons for that difference was the fact that we in Australia have decided to use the 625 lines method of presentation. I have no technical knowledge of television; I know only whether I like or dislike what I see on the screen and, unfortunately, I do not see enough good programmes. I repeat that Senator Buttfield was speaking of the actual presentation of the programmes, and, having had the opportunity to compare television here with that overseas, she has stated that the presentation here is excellent.

Much of the criticism we have heard of the Australian «television» «programmes» has been justified. Although I do not own a television set, I do view «television» «programmes» frequently and I must agree with the statement that many of the programmes presented are very poor. In all fairness, however, it must be admitted that they are improving steadily and I have no doubt that as we progress in this field the programmes will get better and better. I must admit that I was distressed upon hearing Senator Buttfield castigate one of my favourite programmes - " I Love Lucy ", for in that programme there is good, humorous, light entertainment, and no shooting! In any event, when speaking of poor programmes does any honorable senator know of anything worse than some of the trash' dished up to us over the radio?

If the programmes presented by the television stations are so bad, why is it that 800,000 people have taken out viewers' licences, and this after not quite three years of operation in Australia? I understand that the first «television» «programme» was presented in Sydney in October, 1956, and up to 30th June last there were 300,779 licensed television viewers in New South Wales, 270,073 in Victoria, 360 in Queensland, 6,021 in South Australia, and 74 in Tasmania. I venture the opinion that if the programmes were so bad as some honorable senators would have us believe the growth in the number of licensed viewers would not have been so rapid.

It has also been stated that too few Australian artists are being given parts in our «television» «programmes . I point out that there is a limit to the number of artists we have in Australia. It certainly would be very fine if we could employ more Australians in television and I have no doubt that as we progress with this medium a higher percentage of Australian artists will take part in the programmes. I remind honorable senators that television companies are bound to use a certain percentage of Australian artists in any production. No doubt as we progress that percentage will increase. We have also to remember that Australian television is in its infancy, lt could grow into a very valuable industry for this country. I am not sure what position television occupies in the United States of America at the moment, but two years ago it was one of the five big industries in that country. Even if we cannot foresee a similar expansion here it seems plain that eventually television will provide a great deal of employment for our people. That is something - quite apart from the entertainment aspect - that we must keep in mind when we set out to encourage the expansion of television throughout Australia.

Criticism has also been made of the proposed location of the new country television stations. I would remind honorable senators that this is but another stage in the long-term development of television. There will be further stages, and doubtless the Postmaster-General and his advisers have adopted the wisest course in taking into account population density. That is surely essential if we are to develop television on an economic basis.

One aspect that country retailers of television sets will have to keep in mind is the difficulty of servicing television sets after they have been sold. Country conditions are very different from those of the city, where vehicles can travel along tarred roads at any hour of the day or night for the purpose of effecting repairs. In the country it may be necessary to travel 15 or 20 miles along unmade roads and in the face of bad weather.

Opposition senators have suggested that city television is subject to monopoly control. Let us consider the position in New South Wales, which I represent in this Senate. In Sydney there is the national station, ABN, on channel 2, station ATN, on channel 7 - commonly known as the " Sydney Morning Herald group " - and station TCN on channel 9 - commonly referred to as the "Daily Telegraph group". Would any one suggest that those two commercial companies would be likely to get together to form a monopoly? Those of us who live in Sydney know that about as much love is lost between the "Daily Telegraph " and the " Sydney Morning Herald " as is lost between the Australian Labour Party and the Australian Democratic

Labour Party. Present indications are that several companies will be applying to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for licences at the end of September. That is a very good thing indeed.

Opposition speakers have suggested that in many country areas there will be great danger in granting two licences. In fact, the Postmaster-General has not stated that that will happen. He has merely said that two commercial licences may be granted. I feel sure that most centres would not have the potential revenue to support two commercial stations, even if two licences were granted. 1 do not think that we need worry very much on that score.

Senator O'Flahertyspoke rather disparagingly of the Postmaster-General and said that he was being bamboozled. 1 have known the Postmaster-General for quite a long time and I am satisfied that I cannot bamboozle him. After hearing the honorable senator I might be prompted to have another try, but I doubt whether I shall be very successful. In view of what has been said by Opposition senators, I propose to quote just what the Minister had to say on the subject in another place yesterday. He said: -

The suggestion has been made that the metropolitan stations may attempt to corner the film market and hire out the films to the stations in the country areas only if they are given some form of control over those stations. If that should happen, and if the Government desired to ensure the successful operation of a country station to which a licence had been granted, it would be up to the Government to see that something was done to ensure that programmes were available.

There is nothing ambiguous about that statement. I do not accept the suggestion that that was an attempt to give a lead to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in dealing with applications. I find that a similar statement was made before the first applications for television licences were called. The Minister is to be commended upon his statement. No one could have fought harder to avoid monopoly control of licences in country areas. It is my sincere hope that in each case a licence will be granted to an independent company representing country interests. I feel that it would not be in the best interests of the country people to grant licences to metropolitan companies, however worthy their objects might be. I sincerely hope that in each centre it will be possible to find a com pany having the necessary financial backing and knowledge to provide programmes satisfactory to country people. A possible alternative would be the establishment of companies composed in the main of country interests but having perhaps a small representation of these bigger concerns - with adequate safeguards to prevent future control by metropolitan interests.

I end as I began - by commending the Postmaster-General, his advisers and the Government upon the rate of progress achieved in the extension of television. I am quite sure that if the Postmaster-General follows the route that he has marked out, and has his own way in these matters, country people will get television of which they can well be proud.

 

 

Aug 1960 Debate

 

Table Of Contents

 Download Full Day's Hansard    View/Save XMLGo To First Hit

Senator ARMSTRONG - Even the children do not go to the suburban theatres in such large numbers as before.

Senator Willesee - I thought that would be the biggest drop.

Senator ARMSTRONG - It accounts for the biggest drop at the week-end, but the drop in attendances is not confined to the week-end; it affects every night of the week.

Therefore, when we talk of an Australian film industry we must bear in mind that there are not now available the exhibition facilities that were available before for Australian films. It was the object of every one who made an Australian film to get back the capital cost of the film from exhibition in Australia. If a producer could do that he was more or less content, and whatever he could make on the film overseas represented a profit. Even some of the great Australian films that have been mentioned in this debate barely earned in Australia the cost of producing them. In most instances, they were not sophisticated films. They had a particular appeal to Australians, but when we tried to sell them in England or America the people there just did not know what they were looking at. The film " Jedda " that was made here by Charles Chauvel was a magnificent film, showing some of the most fantastic scenery to be seen in the world, but when we tried to place that film in Great Britain it was looked upon as a curiosity. It did not receive the support there that one would have expected in view of its success in Australia, but the background to it was, of course, well known to all of us here. So when we talk of making more pictures in Australia to-day, we must not forget that at the moment the internal market has almost disappeared - and that is the market on which formerly the cost of making Australian films was recovered.

There has been a tendency in the las! few years for American film units to com*: here, spending money in a way in which the Australian film producer has never been able to spend it. I remember that when " Sons of Matthew " was made here by Charles Chauvel, the cost was estimated at between £50,000 and £60,000, but the final cost was, I should say, £120,000 or £130,000. When American units come here they bring with them actors who are known world-wide. They bring also their own equipment and highly-skilled technicians. They use as background, for instance, the City of Melbourne, as was done in " On the Beach ", or South Australia, as was done in " Kangaroo ", and Pinchgut, as was done in a recent film, but they have actors who are known world-wide and they have large sums at their disposal. I would say that Stanley Kramer must have spent well over £1,000,000 in making " On the Beach ". The problem is to recoup that expenditure, and that cannot be done by exhibiting solely in Australia. The film must have a world market. A picture in which top-line stars appear will have a wide appeal, but the Australian producer of pictures cannot make films on that scale. To begin with, he has not got stars of world renown and, except in unusual circumstances, the star value makes a picture. So for the moment I do not think that we in Australia can build up a picture industry that can compete with the large industries overseas.

I think that our salvation lies in making films in a small way. In Australia to-day we have a competent film-making industry that has been in existence for many years. In the days of Charles Chauvel, Ken Hall and other great Australian producers there was no industry in the real meaning of the word. In those days pictures were made one at a time. The producer would make a picture, perhaps taking three months to do so, and then the production unit would be disbanded. The film would go to the cutting room and would eventually reach the theatres twelve months or more later. If the picture was at all successful the boys would get together again and start to make another picture. They would try to get the cameramen and technicians together again. Making a top-class film is a highly technical process. The producer would have to get together all the necessary manpower in order to make his next film. Once again, after the film had been made, the organization would be disbanded. Every time this happened it became increasingly difficult to re-organize the production force because some men who had taken jobs elsewhere were inclined to stay where they were rather than run the risk that is involved in making films in Australia.

I think that the industry could operate satisfactorily if it concentrated on producing films on a small scale. Our hope lies in applying the industry to the needs of television. The making of television films for advertising purposes is no small industry in Australia to-day. The industry is spread over a number of small producers but in all it amounts to a substantial industry.

Senator Brown - There is plenty of room for improvements in quality there.

Senator ARMSTRONG - Yes. I do noi know what percentage of advertising films are imported. Perhaps Senator Hannan could tell me.

Senator Hannan - There is a prohibition on imported commercial films at the moment.

Senator ARMSTRONG - Does that mean that to-day all commercial films are being made here?

Senator Hannan - Yes.

Senator ARMSTRONG - But some that were imported earlier are still being used, I think.

Senator Hannan - Some are.

Senator ARMSTRONG - I think I have seen some imported commercials on television recently.

Senator Hannan - There is a direction that they should not be used, but it is difficult to police this matter.

Senator ARMSTRONG - Is the direction against showing them or against importing them? Having brought them in twelve months or so ago, can they now be shown?

Senator Hannan - I think the Postmaster-General has given a direction that they shall not be used.

Senator ARMSTRONG - That is a very important step forward. The advertising films that are made in this country are quite good. At first sight they may appeal to be simple types of films, but they form the basis of a highly technical operation which is employing a very large number of people in Australia.

Senator Ormonde - It is quite an industry.

Senator ARMSTRONG - Yes, and it is providing work for many good cameramen and other technicians. A few weeks ago I was looking over the studios of Cinesound and 1 saw some young cameramen who were developing in a promising fashion. Their seniors spoke well of their capacity to make commercial and other film* for television. So there you have a small but solid foundation on which to build an industry. An advertising film has been made in colour of the capital cities of Australia. It will be used for exhibition in theatres. I do not know whether it has been shown yet in commercial houses. It was made for the Rothman company and gives three-minute views of each capital city, lt is one of the most magnificent films I have ever seen. Any country would be proud to say that it had produced it. We in this country can produce the goods if we have the opportunity and provided a market is available.

The next step, in my view, is the filming of live shows. The production of a live show is a very expensive undertaking. Some television stations, particularly in New South Wales, have been making courageous efforts in what is an unrewarding and thankless job - putting live shows on television. The national television station which televised " Stormy» «Petrel " deserves great credit for its efforts. Channel 7 in New South Wales has made great efforts and has spent substantial amounts of money in using Australian actors and actresses in live shows on television. But sponsors for such shows are hard to get because they do not think they obtain value for their money. In many cases a substantial part of the cost of production of live shows is borne by the television station. Their only chance to cut their costs is to have a wide network of stations and thus share the costs of the live shows that they are putting on television. A half-hour show on Channel 7 could not be made for less than about £3,000 and the one-hour shows, such as the Shakespearian plays, would run to about £6,000 each. Unless the initial expense of those shows is shared by several stations, the stations producing the shows are faced with a heavy burden. I compliment station ATN on its efforts to put live shows on television and to give opportunities to Australian actors and actresses. Within the last month station ATN has purchased the Artransa studios, which is an indication that it is prepared to spend substantial amounts of money to bring live shows to Australian audiences.

Senator Ormonde - That is the " Sydney Morning Herald " station, is it not?

Senator ARMSTRONG - Yes. It is useless putting live shows on television in this country if the viewer simply turns the knob to look at " Tombstone Territory ", " Maverick " or some of the other shows that captured the imagination of the viewing public in the early days of television in this country. But this attitude of the viewing public is settling down and we are obtaining a more appreciative audience which is more and more looking at live shows on television. This pattern will continue although I confess that some of us still like to watch half a dozen cowboys shoot it out, with the goodies always winning and the baddies always losing. That sort of entertainment is refreshing after a hard week in the Senate. But that type of programme, which has been popular with adults and children alike, is gradually losing its appeal. I do not suggest that Hollywood is running out of bullets, but it may be running out of bodies.

The problem of diversity of characters is one that will face the producers of "Whiplash". It will be hard to obtain sufficient actors so that the same faces do not appear in scene after scene, even though in one scene they may have a beard and in another they may be clean-shaven. In some American films you find the same faces appearing week after week. One week a particular character may be a hero, next week he is the villain and a week later he is a cripple. But the same faces are emerging on American television because of the tie-up of television stations in that country. One of the problems associated with " Whiplash " - the only one that was made in Australia - was that in one series of television films the producers ran out of different types and so the monotony was retained. Therefore I say that, in the television field, our Australian film industry should be nurtured and developed. If the Government wants to help, of course, it can be drastic and insist on quotas and things like that. Television Channel 9 in Sydney has made a very definite movement in the last month or two towards doing more live shows. Both the Australian Broadcasting Commission and Channel ATN have always done as much, indeed more than, they could be reasonably expected to do at the current stage of development, and they are being rewarded slowly but surely. The filming of live shows is a highly technical and exciting job, involving know-how. The making available to country television stations of these films will, I think, give the industry a needed fillip.

Senator Hannanis worried about the effect of the influx of American films on Australian sentiment and culture. There is a virtual monopoly of foreign films. I do not know how that position could be changed quickly unless we had something to take their place. It is of no use changing something that the people want to see.

Senator Ormonde - They may want to see our local sort of crime.

Senator ARMSTRONG - They , may want some other attraction for a while until the characters become typed again. Of course, it is easy to talk and to be critical of these things. If the people do not like the things provided, the films have no value. lt is of no use making a propaganda film or a documentary if there is no audience to view it; that would be a complete waste of money. The fact that a documentary film is awarded a prize at the Glasgow Exhibition or the Cannes Festival or in Venice does not impress me at all, because a film is meant to be seen, not to be put in the archives with a little label on it saying, for example, that it was awarded a prize at Cannes in 1960. Unless a film is made for people to see, why make it? I believe that the success of a film is measured by the number of people who see it. We are making a lot of films, directly and indirectly, at our own laboratories. Senator Tangney said last night that 500 films have been made there. I suppose that number includes " Australian Diaries ".

Senator Ormonde - The " Australian Diaries " go to about 50 countries.

Senator ARMSTRONG - I do not know that to be a fact but I think it is a good thing if they do. What happens when the films get there? Is it necessary to substitute the local language for our language? I think that the production of " Australian Diaries " over the last twelve or thirteen years has been accomplished in a workmanlike manner. I was a member of the Australian National Film Board when it first started making films for the Government. We got a gentleman from Canada named Foster, and when he left we got Stanley Hawes. He came from England to Australia via Canada, and he is still here.

That brings me to Senator Hannan's assertion that our culture is being jeopardized because the people are looking continually at foreign films. I can only agree with Senator Hannan. I have never agreed with him so much in my life; he must be improving out of sight. The effect of films on our culture is real. I do not intend to get into an argument concerning our culture. Even the poets Adam Lindsay Gordon and Henry Kendall were not Australians. I maintain that we need the influence of people from all parts of the world to develop our culture. Nobody can deny that the American way of life has an important bearing on us which it did not have 50 years ago, when the most important bearing on our culture came from the United Kingdom because 98 per cent, of the people in Australia were British. Is it a good thing to have only British culture? I suggest that, due to the great influx of new Australians, in 40 or 50 years' time we will have a better developed and wider culture than we have now. As I have said, I do not want to be dragged into an argument on culture. The last GovernorGeneral was not in this country ten minutes before he attacked our beer and our betting habits. He seemed to think that that was all that our culture embraced. He might not have been wrong because they are a part of our way of life. The fact that we do drink beer and that we have a casual approach to betting undoubtedly influences some aspects of our nature. I am quite certain that what we see on television, whether it be American, British or European, does affect our culture. I am a very simple fellow. I do not think that merely because I can appreciate a painting, or can do one, I am cultured. I might listen to most beautiful singing by a bird in the bush and not take any enjoyment out of it at all. The culture that I admire, and which I myself try to develop, is that which leads one to be a gentleman at all times. I think that the attainment of gentleness in men and women is a big step towards culture, by whatever name it is described.

There has been a great deal of talk about the impact on Australians of American films. A young boy in South Australia wrote what I thought was a horrible letter to the " Saturday Evening Post " describing his reactions to some of the television programmes. I think that the reactions he mentioned were ridiculous. I listened to Senator Hannan read the letter, and I thought as he proceeded that mum and dad must have helped the boy with it. I thought it was very weak.

Is it not strange that as far back in life as we can remember the aspect of violence has been presented to us? It was first presented to us, not during adolescence, but when we were babies, by means of the nursery rhymes. Fancy in modern days any one writing about Little Red Riding Hood in the way presented in the story; about the wolf dressing in the grandmother's clothes and then waiting in bed to eat Little Red Riding Hood.

Senator McCallum - There were two versions of the ending to the story.

Senator ARMSTRONG - Later, educationists devised a happier ending; the grandmother hid in the cupboard from the wolf. In the unexpurgated version, the grandmother was eaten by the wolf. Then the wolf dressed itself in grandmother's clothes and waited in bed to eat Little Red Riding Hood when she arrived at the grandmother's house. What an impact that story would make on the mind of a little child. So also would " Jack and the Beanstalk ". If I remember aright, Jack stole from the giant the goose that laid the golden eggs, and chopped down the beanstalk when the giant came in pursuit and the giant was killed. I think that Tom, Tom the Piper's Son was the first juvenile delinquent, when he stole the pig and ran away. When one thinks of Jack being at the top of the beanstalk and stealing the goose that laid the golden egg-

Senator McCallum - All giants are wicked.

Senator ARMSTRONG - Yes. But I do not think that justifies their destruction. Incidentally, we have even eliminated the death penalty in our modern law. Is it not extraordinary that this sort of violence is presented to children from their earliest days? But I do not believe it does the slightest harm. We see little babies playing on the carpet with guns, and almost the first words they learn are, " Lie down. You're dead! " I am quite sure that the violence we see portrayed on television and cinema screens is not harmful.

Senator Dittmer - It is not harmful to normal minds.

Senator ARMSTRONG - It is not harmful to the normal mind because it is part of the release - part of the game. The goodies always win and the baddies always lose, and in the overall picture no harm is done. Of course, a person with an unbalanced mind may go off at a tangent if he sees violence portrayed in a television film or in some other way. Trying to protect people against such things is like trying to protect people against alcohol. If one is weak, the weakness will show through, whether it be in the doing of violence or becoming a cat burglar.

We have had an opportunity to discuss what could be a matter of great importance in Australia, particularly with the development of the television industry over the next few years. I should say that a government subsidy in such fields is always welcome. I like Senator Hannan's suggestions as to how assistance could be provided for the proper development of the Australian film industry. The industry is important in all its aspects. Films, more than any other medium, are able to depict to people overseas our way of life. We must develop in our own country a highly trained, technical industry which will be of tremendous value both culturally and economically. Although I am pleased that Senator Hannan submitted this matter for discussion, I am rather disappointed, as I said in my opening remarks, that he did not ask for the appointment of a select committee or seek a resolution of substance that could be conveyed to the Government.

Senator Hannan in Nov 1962

 
Senator HANNAN (Victoria) .- I move -here

(1)   That a select committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon the encouragement of the production in Australia of films and programmes suitable for television, and matters incidental thereto.

(2)   That the committee consist of seven senators, four to be appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and three to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

(3)   That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in open court or in private, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken.

(4)   That the committee have power to sit during any adjournment or recess of the Parliament.

(5)   That the committee report to the Senate on or before the 30th June, 1963.

The simultaneous transmission of sight and sound is one of the technological marvels of our age. By and large in this country, as a result of prudent inquiry and a substantially wise administration - I have some reservations about certain frequency matters - we have been given a television service which is technically superior to those in most of the countries of the world. However, after eight years of television in this country only about 3 per cent, of the creative drama content of our programmes is Australian. It is because of that appallingly low percentage that I have been moved to submit this motion to the Senate this evening.

This is a matter which, I think, interests all Australians, irrespective of political affiliations. It is a matter in which all parties in the Senate can collaborate. There are no ideological marks to be won. It is a matter in which the welfare of the nation can be assisted by the combined efforts of the members of the Senate. In the eight years that we have had television, on the basis of our experience, and of reports that have come from abroad television has been proved to be perhaps the most potent medium of instruction, entertainment, propaganda and salesmanship that the world has yet seen. The message which comes to people in the privacy of their own homes seems to have an impact and to possess a punch which the message more publicly displayed in the cinemas or in the newspapers seems to lack.

It is my belief that if we allow our television screens to be monopolized by foreign programmes, even the programmes of a friendly country such as the United States of America, our people will absorb a foreign culture and a foreign manner of speech. There is a danger that we will forget or denigrate our national heritage, our culture and our traditions. When Winston Churchill made his famous speeches to the British nation, when they had very little other than broken bottles with which to fight the invader, he was drawing on a bank of British heritage, British tradition and British culture. He knew that the British people would respond to the almost impossible calls that he was going to make upon them because they had a national British spirit.

This country has a magnificent record in two world wars, both of them prior to the advent of television, but it is my personal opinion that our national spirit gets very little help from our television programmes, and could well be imperilled by a continuous diet of foreign entertainment. I do not want to be misunderstood. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the Americans as a nation and for the American way of life as it affects Americans in America. All I say about the American way of life is that it is not Australian. I feel that the primary purpose of this exercise is to discover whether - I have not pre-judged the issue - there is any feasible, practical method of encouraging the production in Australia of programmes suitable for television.

I do not believe that Australia as a nation can accept, in this powerful and persuasive medium, the present flood of another nation’s culture without danger to the national identity. When we see that the proportion of Australian productions transmitted from most of the television channels is 35 per cent, to 38 per cent., we may well be inclined to say, “ That is fair enough. What more could you expect from a small nation and a small industry such as it possesses?”. When you realize that the bulk of that 35 per cent, to 38 per cent, is made up of news readings, cooking demonstrations, sporting descriptions and other things which it is very nearly impossible to import anyhow, the percentages cease to have any meaning.


Senator Ormonde - It is not as bad as that.


Senator HANNAN - I ask the honorable senator to look at the figures in the report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, and then repeat that interjection.


Senator Sandford - You are just antiAmerican.


Senator HANNAN - I do not think I have to answer that. What I have said does not imply criticism of American television programmes. They may be quite suitable, and they probably are suitable, for American audiences. But a programme structure which might suit the Americans certainly is not, in my view, the type of programme structure that is best for Australia. I am sorry that honorable senators opposite are not prepared to look at this serious matter in the spirit in which I am putting it forward. I am quite prepared, as I think I have shown in the past, to trade them blow for blow in any political argument or political discussion. I ask honorable senators on both sides to consider this matter, which affects Australia’s culture, heritage and traditions, in a non-party and non-political manner.


Senator Sandford - I have never heard you talk about anything non-political.


Senator HANNAN - I have done it in the past and I shall do it in the future. 1 am not going to be diverted from my purpose by childish interjections.

About four years ago I had occasion to speak at an Anzac Day function in my home city and I saw the most extraordinary example of the powerful effect of television programmes on our young people. I was in a school about 5 or 6 miles from the heart of Melbourne, in a class room with 25 children, the average age of whom was twelve to thirteen years. I found that only two of the 25 knew what Anzac Day was. Only two of the 25 knew what the day we commemorate was all about. You may well say that with children of that age it really does not matter, but here is the rub. All 25 of those children knew who Wyatt Earp was and who Matt Dillon was - two obscure American gunmen or lawmen whom they had seen portrayed on television over the preceding two years. This took place when television had been running in our city for only two and a half to three years. Since that time the gross percentage of Australian matter on television has, in fact, declined. In the last two or three years I have been able to visit most of the major television film and programme producers in Australia. There were never very many of them, and since I concluded my visits to all of them, in Sydney and in Melbourne, four have closed because there was no outlet for their productions. They were unable to compete with the cheap but proficient imported American article. In our country at the moment the industry is kept alive by the making of commercial films - the little advertisements which we love to turn off whenever possible - about soap, breakfast foods, detergents and cigarettes. That is all the creative work which is left to the Australian film industry.


Senator Ormonde - It is a big industry.


Senator HANNAN - Commercials have their place. I am not denigrating them altogether, but it seems to me a pity that a country which played such a prominent part in the development of the film as such and which, in fact, made the first feature-length film in the world, should be relegated to a position so far behind Denmark, Indonesia, Formosa and other small countries, when it comes to making films.

I commend the Government, in passing, for the ban it has imposed on imported commercials. Without that ban, the industry might well have disappeared altogether. I think that the industry is important, both in regard to our internal programmes and to the sale of our programmes abroad. A vigorous Australian industry, if we were able to find a practical method of encouraging the production of Australian programmes, without excluding the best of the imported material would provide us with programmes of a definitely national flavour. I do not think anybody would suggest that wc should have a 100 per cent, diet of Australian material; we must still get the best of the material from abroad. In addition, it would help to keep alive our national history, traditions and culture.

I give full marks to the Australian Broadcasting Commission for the courage that it showed in the production, a year or so ago, of an epic dealing with early Sydney. I forget the name of the film at the moment, but it dealt with the doings of Captain Bligh.


Senator Ormonde - It was “The Outcasts “.


Senator HANNAN - Yes. I think there was also a film called “ The Stormy» «Petrel “. Another film dealt with the life of the great-great-grandfather - I am not quite sure of the correct number of “ greats “ - of the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth). Those programmes had the effect of stimulating the interest of the Australian people in their history. From inquiries which I have made at libraries, I have found that there was a greatly stimulated interest in Australian historical books which was directly attributable to the screening by the Australian Broadcasting Commission of the programmes I have mentioned. While I am on this subject, I think I should also commend one of the commercial channels for the Australian series called “ Jonah “ which is running at the moment and which also deals with early Australian history. I do not know which television station has produced the series’.
Senator Ormonde - I hate to say it, but it is the “ Daily Telegraph “ station.
Senator HANNAN - Then I have no hesitation in commending the “ Daily Telegraph “ station for the production of “ Jonah “.

I have spoken on this matter so often and at such length that I do not propose to traverse the entire field this evening, but we should not lose sight of the consideration that a vigorous Australian film industry would save’ us some millions of pounds a year in overseas exchange. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the gross figure paid for imported productions at present seems to vary between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000 Australian a year. Those figures are not precise, because all the films that are imported in one year are not necessarily screened in that year. Films may be bought in advance, in package lots and the like. Therefore, the figures I have given are estimates based on the inquiries I have made. If we could save £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a year, that would be a substantial contribution to our overseas payments position.

It is pretty well accepted that the film, whether it is shown on television or in the cinema, is the best means of making known to other countries a country’s way of life, even if the film is commercially produced. I believe that a local industry could provide attractive Australian programmes which would help to make Australia known, respected and liked, particularly in SouthEast Asia. We have only to consider the success of Radio Australia in the radio field to appreciate the force of that argument. For the last nine years, Radio Australia has topped the poll conducted by a London organization to decide the most popular short-wave transmitter in the world. Apropos of that matter, it is not my belief that the making of an endless series of documentary films and their export abroad would do us much good. I think there is a limit to the amount of information which people are prepared to absorb from documentaries. While I do not deny their importance in certain respects, I believe that if we have an Australian story to put over we should not do it by making a nut-and-bolt, or a tractorandearthmover type of picture, such as one depicting the work of the Snowy Mountains scheme; we should use Australian script writers to prepare an Australian story of heartwarming interest which our neighbours, particularly in South-East Asia, would watch appreciatively and from which they might be able to absorb the Australian atmosphere, and learn of the achievements of Australian engineers and administrations, both Labour and Liberal-Country Party, in regard to, say, the Snowy Mountains scheme.

In similar vein, I believe that a suitable Australian industry could help to lift Australia’s export trade, because it is undoubtedly true that in the middle of this century films are of vast importance. In the old days, it used to be said that trade followed the flag. Now, it is clear that trade follows films. Far more films are screened on television than on the wide cinema screens. The motion I have moved relates, of course, only to television films and video-tape films. In the early 1930’s, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, a member of the House of Commons, made visit to the China coast. He observed that most of the manufactured goods in that area were of British origin. This was due to British interests in the area and to a long British connexion with the places he visited. By 1938-39, however, when he returned to the China coast, he found that the vast bulk of manufactured goods were American in origin. In a speech which he made in the House of Commons on the Cinematograph Bill, he attributed the change to the fact that, during the previous decade, the people of the area had been viewing almost exclusively American films showing American customs and habits and, above all, American goods such as motor cars. In this drive for exports we must, as far as practicable, take advantage of this modern weapon which is to our hand, namely, the film industry.

I come to the fifth head of interest in this matter, Mr. President. I believe that a vigorous Australian film industry would provide work and income for Australian actors, actresses and technicians. At the moment, there are many of these people - capable people - who are out of work through no fault of their own. In case Senator Ormonde is looking at me, I hasten to add that when I say “ capable people “ I am not speaking about myself. They are unable to obtain regular employment because, owing to the number of hazards involved - which I will not discuss here - nobody wishes to produce Australian productions in the quantity which would give them continuity of employment. I recall speaking (& Sydney with a small Australian producer who pointed to a couple of men leaving his place of business one evening. He said, “They are. both experienced lighting tech.nicians. When Kramer was here, both those men worked as lighting technicians with his unit and he could not praise them highly enough. When he left, there was no work for them to do and both of them went back to their old vocations, one driving a truck and the other driving a taxi.” That ^happened to the technicians, but what applies to them applies also to actors and actresses. An Australian script writer cannot earn a living by writing scripts for Australian productions, not because he cannot do it, not because he has not got the talent, but because the opportunity for using that talent is not available.

I noticed that when a visiting American or Canadian film producer was giving evidence to somebody in Melbourne last week, he commented on the lack of Australian script writers. Whilst I think that gentleman may have been almost right, I think it only fair to say that if there are no opportunities for these people to exercise their talents it is obvious that they will not remain in the field. I believe that if the committee is able to ascertain facts along that line, that will be another avenue which might well be covered. My union has taken a considerable amount of action to protect its members, as far as possible, from the hazards amongst which they move and live in this industry. Despite all its efforts, Actors Equity has not been able to guarantee reasonable security of employment for its members.


Senator Sandford - It has a Communist member.
Senator HANNAN - I did not think you would accuse me of that. Because of the lack of outlets for their talents, Australian technicians, actors, actresses, script writers, property men and all the multitude of people who make a film production are forced to go abroad. I do not propose to recite the names, but one has only to look at the list of Australian artists who, by their talents, have made their names in foreign enterprises, both British and American. The complaint made by some of the members of our union at the quarterly meetings is that very often third-rate actors are imported and used by the television channels when first-rate Australian actors are not given an opportunity to work. I do noi blame the Australian producers. They have struggled valiantly against the cheap imported programmes. They must have a reasonable prospect that their products will find an outlet. The cast must have reasonable security of employment. Of course, absolute security of employment is impossible. Work in the industry at the moment is such a hazard that I just cannot understand how people still engaged in it can stand the risks involved. From a national point of view, all those connected with the industry, including producers, directors, technicians, actors, actresses and script writers, deserve a better deal than they are getting at present.

I am fortified in this opinion by an address given by the forthright president of the American Federal Communications Commission, which was appointed by President Kennedy shortly after he took office. Addressing an assembly of broadcast and television licensees of the United States, Mr. Minnow pointed out that in being allotted a licence they were given the privilege of exercising a great right. Whilst the licence conferred upon them certain privileges, namely, to broadcast and be paid for advertisements which were transmitted, it also involved a direct responsibility to the nation. He pointed out that if this responsibility to the nation were not observed, the prospects of renewal of their licences would be greatly impaired. He said also that people who operate on the radio frequencies of a nation are just as truly using the natural resources of the nation as are the people who mine its iron and coal or extract its oil. It is my personal belief, for what it is worth, that in this day and age the radio frequency spectrum is more important to a nation than its supply of uranium.
Senator Hannaford - You would not say it was more important than food.
Senator HANNAN - I would not say that. So far, television in Australia has not created the opportunities for Australian talent that we hoped it would. That, of course, is the primary purpose of the proposal which I am putting to the Senate to-night. When I speak of encouraging the production of films for television, I include also the video-tape film, which I suppose the purist might say is not a film in the ordinary sense. It is a picture made by electronic means and broadcast by a type of tape recorder called a video-tape machine. However, the principle is the same with all canned or recorded video and audio entertainment.

It is my hope that music, art and drama will not go down the drain of this nation to the plumber, no matter what importance we attach to that artisan. It is my belief that a vast and important job awaits this committee if the Senate should agree to set it up. It may well be that the future of the Australian content of television programmes will hang on the deliberations of this committee and on whatever action the Government may feel disposed to take as a result of any recommendations the committee might make. I regret that Senator Vincent, who has done so much research work in this matter and who has a knowledge of the production of drama which I could not hope to match, is unavoidably absent through sickness.

The final point I wish to make in commending this proposal is, to repeat the call I made at the outset, that this proposal to set up a committee of inquiry should be treated in a non-political manner. Speaking purely for myself, I would welcome the co-operation of the Australian Labour Party in a serious and genuine attempt to find a remedy for the evils which I have outlined. I want to express my personal thanks to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Spooner), and to the Government, for giving approval to the proposal to set up this committee. Without the goodwill of the Government in these matters, everything is purely of academic interest. The goodwill of the Government is important because, by giving its approval to the proposal-
Senator Hannaford - More than its approval - its enthusiasm.


Senator HANNAN - Let us take it step by step. The Government has given its approval to the setting up of the most important mechanism that the Senate is capable of using. I regard that as a very important decision. It is one for which I personally am very grateful. I commend to the Senate the motion that I have submitted. ...

Senator SPOONER (New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development) . - I do not pretend to be expert on this topic. I suppose like every one else I take an interest in it because this has been such a modern and rapid development. Still it is a field which is almost a world on its own, with all its own problems and peculiarities. In those circumstances it is a good thing to commence by acknowledging a lack of expert knowledge.

Before developing the things that I want to say, I should like to refer to two points made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). First, he referred to the tabulations that are contained in the Australian Broadcasting Control Board's report. Strange as it is, my reading - also limited - in anticipation of this debate, took me also to a report of the same body. It was the last report that the board made on applications for commercial television licences in a number of country areas. When I read the report, I underlined the statement that the board had adopted in 1960 a principle, which experience had indicated was sound, of seeking in country television stations a combination of a local newspaper, a local radio station, and local capital subscriptions. I hazard a guess that that is the reason why Senator McKenna finds so many newspaper interests in the lists that are contained in the board's report.

In other words, the board has the responsibility of seeing that television is produced as efficiently and as advantageously as is possible. Charged with that responsibility, it has consciously adopted a policy of enlisting or desiring country newspapers and country radio stations to be part of the organizations which run country television stations. I would say that that logic in country areas is equally good for the metropolitan areas.

Senator Wright - I suggest that it should not be automatically applied to metropolitan areas, although it may be justified in country areas.

Senator SPOONER - I made the point that the logic seems to stand good for metropolitan areas as it does for country areas, because there is a sort of affinity or relationship between the work that is carried out by radio stations, television stations and newspapers. So we must not be harsh in our judgment on these matters. The simple facts of life are that in respect of so many industries one is an extension of another. One manufacturing activity leads to a similar manufacturing activity and to an extension of manufacturing business. I suppose that the same thing applies in show business and that in entertainment one activity has some connexion with another activity. So we have the position in which the television industry has emerged from the newspaper and radio industries.

I must say as an average sort of chap who, on the occasional night that he has free, enjoys looking at a television programme, that I subscribe to the view that I have heard expressed from time to time that the companies that have gone into television in Australia have, by and large, done a really good job. I think that the programmes that we see on television are interesting and good programmes. I speak for myself. Perhaps my tastes are not on as high a level as those of some other senators. For my part, I find that I get good value from my television set in the programmes and the choice of programmes.

Senator O'Byrne - You must look at the Australian Broadcasting Commission programmes. You should see some of the others.

Senator SPOONER - I am quite impartial. I have only one aversion. That is the advertisements. But I suffer the advertisements.

Senator Hannaford - Now we know which station you look at.

Senator SPOONER - I look at all the stations, whether there is advertising or not. I search for and take the programmes that appeal to me. For instance, the other night I saw the programme to which I think Senator Hannan referred, the story of the Lambing Flat riots. I thought it was a first-class, interesting programme.

Senator Hannan - Do you watch the court-room dramas?

Senator SPOONER - I do not think that the court-room dramas come on the Sydney programmes. I have not seen them. The first point I make in reply to Senator McKenna is that the fact that there are so many newspaper and radio interests in television stations is very largely the direct product of the conscious policy adopted by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in its endeavours to get as good television as it is possible to get. We cannot eliminate that from our consideration. That is a pertinent point.

The next point that Senator McKenna made, on which I differ from him but cannot speak as dogmatically as I did on the first point, is that it is lack of finance that holds back the production of Australian films for television purposes. I doubt very much whether that is so, because there is no lack of capital on the part of the proprietors of television stations to the extent that they are linked with the newspaper world. The newspaper world is not short of capital, nor lacking in the means of attracting such additional capital as it may desire. I would not accept the view that this is a question of capital. I think that this is a question of markets and being able to sell the films. The Australian audience is so comparatively small, in relation to the heavy costs involved in the completion of Australian films, that a market greater than that which is available in Australia is needed to recoup the costs incurred and earn profits. Again I do not speak with certainty, but I have a recollection of reading that we have reached a stage at which two or three of the features produced for television in Australia have been shown on overseas television programmes. One feature which ran in serial form on Sydney television was shown in Britain.

Senator Hannaford - " Stormy» «Petrel» "?

Senator SPOONER - No, " «Stormy» «Petrel " was telecast by the national station Channel 2. The one 1 am referring to was " Whiplash ", which was shown over a commercial channel. I was told that " Whiplash " had been sold and had run as a serial on London television programmes. I think it is too quick a conclusion to arrive at to say that lack of capital resources is at the root of the trouble. It goes deeper than that. It is lack of markets and, I think, lack of expert technical knowledge.

Senator Ormonde - And lack of advertising revenue.

Senator SPOONER - That is linked with lack of population in Australia. The Government parties will support the motion for the appointment of a select committee, but they will oppose the amendment, which is designed to widen the terms of reference of the committee. We have had a chance to consider the amendment and have decided to vote against it. I do not think it is correct to say that the committee to be appointed will have a small task ahead of it. I think it will have a very big task before it, even if it deals only with the encouragement of production of Australian films. There are questions involved in that matter which require answering. One is why the development in that direction has not been as fast as many thought it would be. Senator McKenna quoted a section of the act which lays down the principle regarding the use of Australian matter on television. Despite that statutory provision, despite the fact that the use of as great a percentage as possible of Australian material is the policy of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and also the policy of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) - and, what is even more important, the policy of the commercial television stations themselves - there is room for improvement in the percentage of Australian material used. I say that the use of more Australian material is the policy of the commercial television stations because in my discussions with representatives of those stations those people repeatedly make the point that they are just as keen to see development in that direction as other people are. So, there you have a situation in which there is a unanimous desire to proceed along certain lines. If I may express a personal opinion I should like to say that a good deal of success is being achieved in the way in which Australian productions are increasing in both number and quality. Yet we would like to see more done, and I think the select committee will have a pretty big task to do.

Senator Hannanreferred to particular types of programme. I think the term he used was " creative drama ". The terms of reference for the proposed select committee will embrace all types of Australian films.

Senator Hannan - I did not intend to limit the inquiry.

Senator SPOONER - That is the point. The committee's experience may show that there is more to be done in other types of films - for instance, documentary films, which are decried by some people but which fascinate me. I would sooner watch a documentary film than a straight play on television. There are discussion group films and science films. There is a variety of activities which inquiry may show can be encouraged so as to lead to an increase in the percentage of Australian films shown.

So I am against the amendment, first, because I completely disagree with the view that the proposed committee will not already have a big and important job ahead of it with the terms of reference as stated in the motion. I am opposed to the amendment, secondly, because it is entirely unrelated to the idea behind the appointment of a committee. The amendment in effect branches off at a tangent from the spirit of the motion proper. I suppose one could find half a dozen different directions in which inquiries associated with television programmes could proceed. We are concerned with the production of Australian films. That seems to me to be a big task for the committee. The amendment deals with something different. To those who hold certain views that, too, might be an important task, but it is quite unrelated to the main task.

Not speaking dogmatically, I suggest that if the proposal contained in the amendment were linked with the original proposal the possibilities of the committee's functioning successfully in regard to its primary objective to improve the production of Australian films could be destroyed, impaired or reduced; because, whichever way you put it, there is some atmosphere of criticism, some attack on the existing television station proprietors, implicit in the amendment. Whether or not some honorable senators think that that is justified is one thing; but what we want to do is to get a committee that will work satisfactorily, and in this matter those television station proprietors have the same objective as we have. They also are anxious to increase the Australian content of their programmes, and we want their co-operation. We want to get the benefit of their knowledge and experience, because they are the fount of knowledge and experience in this matter, up to this stage at least. In my view we do not want this committee to enter on its work in an atmosphere other than that of co-operation.

That outlines the views that I hold. Members of the Government parties will support the appointment of the committee and will watch with great interest the activities of the committee, and wish it well. But we will oppose the proposed amendment....

Senator HANNAN (Victoria) .- In opening my remarks on the reports of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, I think it only fair to congratulate Dr. Darling, the new chairman of the commission and his colleagues upon the presentation of the thirtieth report of the commission, and also to congratulate Mr. Osborne and the other members of the board on the fourteenth report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. I think both documents are well set out. There may be some substance in Senator Kennelly's suggestion that there is some legal prolixity in some aspects of the report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, but I do not think that criticism applies to the report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I think the latter report is prettier, more nicely got up and more attractively presented.

Senator Wright - I do not agree with theidea that it is prettier.

Senator HANNAN - I think it is attractively presented. The schedules are well prepared and contain a mine of information for people who are prepared to delve into them.

I have been most impressed by the statements appearing on pages 4 and 5 of the Australian Broadcasting Commission's report, relating to Australian programming. At the bottom of page 4, the commission says -

Having completed nearly six years of television programming, our senior programme officers have made a major assessment of future possibilities, which has led to important policy decisions by the Commission for television planning in the next five years. This plan is comprehensive and detailed. The full development of the scheme will depend on funds being made available and on the speed at which physical production facilities can be built. Two broad principles are involved. The first is the fact we consider the function of an Australian National Service is, inter alia to increase the proportion and improve the standard of the locally produced material . . .

I emphasize those last few words - in order to ensure that our programme is essentially Australian in character whilst still using the best of the high quality productions from overseas.

Might I break off there to say that that strikes me as showing an entirely commendable state of mind on the part of the commission I look forward to seeing that programme put into effect. The report continues -

Our second objective is aimed at ensuring that our stations will be transmitting programmes continuously once the stations are opened, thus giving a sustained choice of programme to the viewer.

Such a policy as is mentioned above cannot be achieved within the normal budget, and it is therefore hoped that, with the help of the Government, the Australian film industry will be encouraged to meet the special needs of television.

Experience in the television medium has shown there is considerable scope for the use of filmed programmes of documentary and informative character, but because of the shortage of trained personnel and with the restricted sale overseas, some additional financial help will be needed to make any substantial contribution in this field.

The report suggests that the commission hopes to achieve its objectives with the help of the Government. I put the view to the Senate that those objectives should receive the support of all honorable senators in this chamber, irrespective of their political allegiance. Notice has been given of a proposal to set up a select committee to inquire into some of the matters which are referred to in the portion of the report which I have read.

I note that, on page 5 of the report, the commission says that all States have been equipped with videotape recording facilities, which enable the commission to present local programme material to the viewers in a shorter time and with better technical quality than with the earlier process in use. Tapes depicting items of topical interest are now available for simultaneous release in all capital cities. The only comment I have to make on that is that it seems strange that it took eight years for the national stations to be equipped with videotape machines, having regard to their much better performance and their speed of operation compared with other types of recording instruments.

On page 9 of the report the commission outlines the comprehensive cover of music which it has given to its listeners during the year, lt is almost impossible to criticize the vast variety which has been presented. My only comment is that it is a great pity that in most of the capital cities of this country these programmes were very greatly interfered with by man-made noises - heterodyne whistles, frame oscillator whistles and all the other noises and disturbances to which amplitude modulation is heir. It is a pity that the musical transmissions were not made on frequency modulation. Dealing with the question of interference and coverage, the late Sir Richard Boyer once said - and I know that my friend, the Minister for Health (Senator Wade), will be vastly interested in this -

The requirements of the country dweller alone justify the installation in Australia of a full-scale frequency modulation system.

The present manager of the commission has made public statements in which he has supported the use of frequency modulation transmission. However, for the moment I do not want to be diverted to discuss frequency modulation as there are other matters in the report to which reference should be made before frequency modulation is covered, perhaps at some length.

If I may say so, there is a tendency in the community to underestimate the importance of radio in our national life. The commission, at page 11 of its report, gives a factual reminder that the importance of radio should not be underrated. It states -

In radio, the A.B.C. maintained most of its pre-television drama output, with a total of 235 productions, excluding serials. Producers, technical staff and actors in every State contributed to the weekly broadcasting of from three to seven plays. There was evidence that the play which is heard but not seen - which calls for imaginative effort in the listener - not only held its own against television but actually increased its audience. Research figures show that the A.B.C.'s Monday Night Theatre series maintained a national audience of about 100,000.

On the score of local productions, I think the commission should get a medal for the work it has done in producing Australian drama and programmes of quality and interest. One has only to recite some of the names of the programmes that have been on our television screens in the last twelve months or so to agree that that is so. I think of programmes such as " Stormy» «Petrel ", which dealt with Governor Bligh, "The Outcasts" and "The Patriots ". Those were serial plays dealing with the early days of Australia. They were made intelligently and in such a manner as to capture the interest of the Australian viewer. They stimulated the interest of the average Australian in the history of his country in a way which has not been possible before. After viewing " The Outcasts", I recall going to the Parliamentary Library and demanding Dr. Evatt's book on the rum rebellion in order to learn more of the incidents depicted in the play. It is common knowledge that factual plays of this nature have given rise to great demands on Australian libraries for works of a non-fiction nature. I believe that they make a very good impact on the community.

The commission, at page 12 of the report, refers to the most discussed programme project for the year, which was called "The Candidates". There was an offer by the commission to televise free of charge all candidates at the last general election. I thought that the arrangements for the telecasts were somewhat gauche. They were put forward poorly and in such a fashion as to make it difficult for the Government to accept them.

Senator Toohey - Your candidates were a bit camera-shy.

Senator HANNAN - I shall come to that in a moment. Although the scheme was put forward poorly, I think the Liberal Party was wrong in not accepting it. However poor the programme arrangements may have been, I believe that Liberal candidates should have appeared and done something to rebut the constant stream of Labour propaganda which was put before the viewers night after night.

Senator Branson - Would you have appeared on a platform with the Corns?

Senator HANNAN - That does not seem to me to be the entire issue.

Senator Toohey - Would you ride on a bus with them?

Senator HANNAN - We will get around to that in a moment. At page 13 of the report the commission deals with its news service which, I think, has been greatly appreciated by all in Australia for its factual reporting and for the unemotional way, which Senator Kennelly insists is the right way, in which the news is presented. I regret I cannot say the same thing about the educational programmes, particularly the programme entitled " University of the Air ". I refer especially to the sessions which dealt with political science, for want of a better expression, before the writs went out for the last general election. I could not help but think that the choice of so much pro-Labour matter was purely fortuitous. I know it was entirely accidental and that the commission would not have done so on purpose. It was just one of those accidents which happened to mar, shall I say, the integrity of the programme.

The commission's sporting sessions are excellent and are in great favour with most Australian listeners and viewers. I wish to refer to an exasperating habit, however, which the Minister might bring to the notice of the commission. When Harvey, O'Neill, Dexter or some other well known batsman has reached a score of 99 runs, the programme is switched off in order to give the horses and riders for the Bandiwallop Cup. If we are to have the starters and riders, let them be announced after the crisis has passed for the potential centurymaker.

Senator Henty - After he has got his 100.

Senator HANNAN - Yes. That is only a small matter, but it can be quite exasperating.

In more serious vein, I think the commission deserves the thanks of all Australians for the magnificent success it has made of its short-wave broadcasts. For the last nine years, Radio Australia has been chosen by the International Short-wave Club as the world's most popular short-wave broadcasting service. The vote is taken every three years. Australia first won the award in 1956. For a country of our size, that speaks volumes for the initiative and ability of those who direct Radio Australia and the programmes which it broadcasts. I do not say that the programmes are entirely perfect, but by and large, the impact made by Radio Australia, especially on our neighbours, has been extremely good. Rather modestly, the commission gives the reasons for its success at page 18 of the report, where the following statement appears: -

Radio Australia's mail indicated the reasons for its popularity - entertaining and informative programmes, accurate and objective news and commentaries and the friendly informality of its announcers.

That may or may not be so. The proof of a pudding is in the eating. Radio Australia has been one of the most successful means of publicizing this nation in a favorable way abroad. Turning to the report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, we must recall that this authority is vested with great technical and administrative functions. It is, I think, almost the Australian equivalent of the American Federal Communications Commission, although it has but a pale shadow of the authority which that American statutory body possesses. I notice from page 18 of the report that the board went to a great deal of trouble to avoid interference with a New Zealand transmitter. Dealing with the development of the broadcasting services, the board says that a variation was made of station 7ZR in Tasmania in order to avoid interference with station 2ZA, Palmerston, New Zealand, which occupies the same frequency as station 7ZR. This will reduce radiation in the direction of the New Zealand station and hence reduce the night-time interference which has caused difficulties in reception of the station in that country. I think that is a good example of international cooperation.

Further down the same page we see that the night-time power of station 4KQ, Brisbane, is being increased from 1,000 to 2,000 watts. That, to me, appears to be a step in the wrong direction. One of the great difficulties experienced, because of the cluttered state of the air in Australia, is that station powers at night in the medium wave band are far too high for interference-free reception. One of the results of increasing night-time power is that the interference about which so many people have been complaining for years becomes worse. If power has to be increased, surely the time for increasing it is during the day, when, even though the listening public may not be so great, the amount of damage will certainly be less.

I notice from paragraph 35 of the report that the board's technical officers are going to investigate the compatible singlesideband system for broadcasting. This is a method which might remove half of the interference to which amplitude modulation transmitters are subject, but I regret very much to note that, instead of making the definite statement that the work is in hand, paragraph 35 rather suggests that it is going to be postponed or put off. Paragraph 35 reads -

Due to more urgent work associated with the expansion of television services in country areas, no further progress has been made in a study of complex modulation requirements for the compatible single-sideband system of sound broadcasting.

The results so far available of the work of the study group are being examined by the experimental investigators of the board, but I feel that if we are to have a system of priorities we must not put everything on one side in order to have television services. I would be the Lst one in this chamber to underestimate the power, the influence and the value of television, but it must not be allowed to take over all our technical services, to the exclusion of the tremendously important radio transmission field, especially when it looks as though this nation must be resigned to being without a modern transmission service, since we are not going to have any frequency modulation transmitters.

That brings me to page 19 of the . report, on which the board deals with interference to the reception of broadcasting programmes. I am not going to analyse the items given in detail; I simply say that, looking at those items, it seems to me that the vast bulk of that interference would not have arisen with frequency modulation transmitters. Going further, the board refers to programme services, and, in paragraph 39, says -

It is obviously in any station's interest to hold its audience as the years go by, while building a new audience in the younger generation. The sudden change of programme practices following the introduction of television has given rise to many complaints from listeners, and the Board feels that many licencees could with advantage give more thought to the provision of programmes which will be attractive to older listeners, and especially to listeners who are still wholly dependent on broadcasting stations for programme services in the home.

It is good to see that in that paragraph the board seems to contradict what it says in paragraph 35 and that it is fully alive to the importance of sound broadcasting as compared with television.

On page 22 of the report there is an interesting table dealing with the times allocated to the various political parties and their candidates at election times. Honorable senators opposite claim that they are the representatives of the downtrodden and oppressed workers, that they have no money and that they are unable to present their points of view. They say that the party to which I belong represents wealthy vested interests and has great advantages in the presentation of its political message. Yet they had 58.6 per cent, of the metropolitan station time in Victoria.

Senator Ormonde - That is on the radio?

Senator HANNAN - Yes. But wait till we come to television. We are dealing now with radio. The Australian Labour Party had 58.6 per cent, of the broadcasting time.

It led all the other parties by streets. The Liberal Party was next with 21.7 per cent.

Senator O'Byrne - That shows it pays to advertise.

Senator HANNAN - Admittedly the Liberal Party did very well in holding seats in Victoria. I think that 58.6 per cent, is sufficient to dispose of the myth that the Australian Labour Party is short of funds. If we go from the important medium of radio to' television, we find that in Victoria 72 per cent, of the television time was bought by the Labour Party and that the poor unfinancial Liberals had to be content with 9 per cent. In other words, the Labour Party had eight times as much money to spend on political telecasting as we had.

Senator Cormack - Where did it get the money from?

Senator HANNAN - I know where it- got some money in 1958. I do not know whether it got money from the same source in 1961. I think it was judiciously cut off. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Kennelly) said something this afternoon about this party currying favour with the newspapers and licence-holders. Surely those figures do not support his contention. After all, we are dealing with facts put coldly before the country in the report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

On page 25 of its report, the board makes reference to advertising. Personally, I think the monitors who are given to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board do a pretty good job and very little directly offensive advertising or other matter comes before either listeners or viewers. It is impossible to stop everything but the commission itself and the Federation of Commercial Broadcasting Stations have assisted in policing this evil, and I think our loud speakers and our screens are free from much of the offensive matter which might pollute them in other places. At page 24 of the report the board refers to the employment of Australians. It quotes section 114 of the Broadcasting and Television Act which reads - (1.) The Commission and licensees shall, as far as possible, use the services of Australians in the production and presentation of broadcasting and television programmes. (2.) Not less than 5 per centum of the time occupied by the programmes of the Commission, and not less than 5 per centum of the time occupied by the programmes of a commercial broadcasting station, in the broadcasting of music shall be devoted to the broadcasting of works of composers who are Australians.

I concede that sometimes there may be difficulties in getting sufficient works by Australian composers. Despite that, both the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the commercial stations seem to scrape by the statutory requirements.

I come to another part of the section of the report dealing with the employment of Australians. In my view, the board has been rather mealy-mouthed on this subject for the last six or seven years. Paragraph 59 of the report reads -

For several years the Board has been in some doubt whether licensees of commercial broadcasting stations were, in fact, using the services of Australians as far as possible in the production and presentation of their programmes, as required by sub-section (1.) of this section of the Act.

If the board has had that doubt for several years, why on earth has it not done something about the matter before this? Why has it waited until this report has been presented in 1962 and said, in effect, " For several years we have been in some doubt and we are making inquiries from the federal council of the Australian Federation of Commercial Broadcasting Stations "?

There has been a fairly substantial change in the type of programme material presented over radio in the last few years. Two years ago in my home city, Melbourne, about 50 commercial quarter-hour serials were transcribed every week. Currently, not one is being produced. That means that a large number of Australian actors, actresses and technicians are without employment. The reason for that is that there has been a very substantial increase in the quantity of music played over radio stations. I refer to popular music, most of which is imported; most of which gives no employment at all to Australians, and most of which is-

Senator Prowse - Horrible!

Senator HANNAN - My friend says that most of it is horrible. I will not deny the appeal of some of it, but most of it does very little to enable the station to comply with the requirements of section 114 of the act. I should like the Postmaster-General, in his wisdom, to have a look at that aspect of radio programming and to see whether anything can be done to further the employment of Australians in this industry.

Senator O'Byrne - I hope there will be no more of those disc jockeys.

Senator HANNAN - I agree completely that people who say " record " with an American accent, and do that sort of thing, are not doing anything to build up Australian characteristics in our listeners or viewers.

Most of our Australian television transmitting stations put on programmes with an Australian content of between 30 and 40 per cent. When that is said, having regard to the smallness of the production industry in this country one might well think that it is very good because it is giving employment to many Australian technicians, scriptwriters and so on. But that just is not true. What happens is that the large percentage of Australian content is built up by cooking demonstrations, news-readings, sporting telecasts and any one of 101 other activities which are telecast and which could not be imported anyway. I can remember one transmitting station - as a matter of decency 1 shall not mention its name - importing sporting telecasts of games and sportsmen who were unknown in Australia, whose actions were of no interest and whose sport had few if any followers.

Senator Ormonde - We in Sydney imported a telecast of the Melbourne Cup.

Senator HANNAN - That is a different matter. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition singled me out to some extent this afternoon, I think I should make passing reference to his speech. I regret his attack on the commercial stations because of the vigour in which it was couched. During his one-hour speech he made a number of valid criticisms, but I believe it is unfair to make a wholly unjustified attack on the entire management of commercial stations in relation to their programmes. I think it is true that I have spoken probably more often than has any other member of this chamber in criticism of the quantity and quality of programmes presented by both the A.B.C. and commercial stations; but I hope that my criticism was constructive and was not designed merely to destroy.

Senator Kennelly'scriticism was wholly destructive. It had no constructive suggestions in it at all.

I believe that his criticism of the Melbourne station HSV7 was not based so much on its programmes, as he said it was, as on the fact that - certainly, in my view, with just cause - from time to time the Melbourne " Herald " has been highly critical of some of the honorable senator's political and extra-political activities. The honorable senator claimed to be interested in Australian-produced programmes. He then went out of his way to deliver a blast at that very distinguished programme " Consider Your Verdict". All I say about that programme - obviously, modesty precludes me from saying much about it - is that it is the only Australian drama to run on television for eighteen months. It is in hot and active competition with the slick imported American article. Above all, it is produced by a private producer, Hector Crawford Productions Proprietary Limited, in conjunction with the much-maligned HSV7.

Senator Ormonde - And the Actors Equity.

Senator HANNAN - I will get around to the Actors Equity in a minute if the honorable senator will allow me to. It is silly to praise a programme simply because it is Australian. Our material has to stand on its own feet. However, I believe it should be given a fair trial. I will not praise this programme simply because I have some connexion with it. It is made in Australia by Australian producers, Australian actors and actresses, Australian technicians and, above all, Australian script writers. If we intend to put on the television screens of this country a reasonable image of our national life and habits and, if we want to be dramatic about it, our national heritage, we must use Australian script writers. For good or ill - I express no view on that - this programme has held its own with the imported product in the ratings. I can tell Senator Kennelly that it would not be televised if it were not holding its own.

Of course, the honorable senator's real grievance against this programme is that he belongs to a party which actively supports the nationalization of television - the abolition of all commercial stations - and the nationalization of banking, insurance companies, shipping and a whole host of other activities. He probably wants to nationalize any activity which is earning a profit. 1 feel that the reports of both the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board are in a sense more notable for what they omit than for what they contain. 1 have made passing reference in this chamber from time to time to the fact that we have no modern broadcasting service in Australia, no frequency modulation transmitters, and that our frequency spectrum is jammed by improperly allocated frequency users. In my view, all of this stems from the fact that in Australia we have three or four different authorities allocating radio frequencies. We have first, and perhaps most importantly, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. Then there is the strong influence of the Postmaster-General and the defence services. We have the lowest frequency allocation review committee, the Huxley committee, which I suppose could be described as an ad hoc committee