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.