Nov 1959 Debate

See here
Mr HAYLEN (Parkes) .During this last week I have made in this House certain allegations concerning television and the right of Australian dramatists, actors, writers and entertainers generally to have some part in the television programmes transmitted in Australia. That is the normal procedure on this side of the House, and members on this side have from time to time joined me in raising in this House, by way of proposals, for debates on matters of urgent public importance, questions Which are relevant to this problem. Indeed, until thisproblem is settled in favour of the Australian actor, the Australian writer and the Australian entertainer, we intend to keep in hot pursuit of those people who hold television station licences for five years.

My earlier remarks on this matter were challenged by Sir Frank Packer, who did notwire me direct but used the good offices of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) to communicate with me. He sent the Postmaster-General a telegram the contents of which the Postmaster-General at the request of Sir Frank Packer, included in a letter to me. I shall read as quickly as possible the relevant part of the telegram, because I believe I have a complete answer in vindication of the fact that we as a nation, as a community, and as a Parliament, should have some cognisance of the debt we owe to the contributions to Australian culture made by Australian writers, dramatists, actors and dramatic performers generally. The telegram read -

Referring to statement made by Mr. Haylen in the House concerning television» «programme : there is no truth whatever in the suggestion that television stations will not put on Australian programmes ' and tell the advertisers that they must select American or English programmes.

Sir FrankPacker says that there is no truth in my statement, but on Tuesday next, or later if the House rises, I hope to be able to present to the House statutory declarations from Actors Equity supporting my statements. Mr. Alexander, the secretary of Actors Equity, will show me, and I hope to show the House, letters from national advertisers complaining that they have not been able to get Australian programmes put on television stations in a time slot to suit them. You can see the cunning half-truths told by the television stations. They say, " We will give Australian programmes a go provided we can get them, and the price is right." But they will put Australian programmes at 10 o'clock or 1 1 o'clock at night, or even at the witching hour of midnight. The time slots that are considered the best are between 6.30 p.m. and9.30 p.m., when most viewers are before their sets, but -these are not available to Australian works whether they be of drama or comedy. Only recently the Commonwealth Bank - and I have this on reliable authority - attempted to have the presentation time of one of its programmes changed and get it into a time slot when the best viewing audience is watching television. Toget that time slot it would hove had to supplant a dumped American canned programme. Instead of that canned rubbishfrom America the Australian viewers wouldhave seen the Commonwealth Bank'sprogramme of a festival of Australianmusic, a particularly suitable programme whenwe are nearing Christmas.

However, despite the fact that the Commonwealth Bank had spent many thousands of pounds on publicity on television it was unable to get a time slot in the much sought after viewing period between 6.30 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. because, the time slot it wanted was tied up with some American product. That completely refutes the suggestion that there is no evidence that Australian programmes are being frozen out.

If any further evidence is desired, I shall give it and quote my sources. When I first brought this matter before the House I depended for my evidence on a report in the magazine known as " The Nation " by a man signing himself " Melbourne Spy ", who has written a very succinct report of his conclusions in relation to this matter. In all cases he quoted his authority as Actors Equity of Victoria which is worried, as we are in this House, about why the Australian programme cannot get an opportunity to be tested by public opinion. There are what are known as " ratings " - some sort of advertising gimmick which says this is a good show and this not a good show. But these shows are screened. The Australian shows that we are suggesting are good shows do not get an opportunity to be viewed by Australians in numbers. For that reason we are making this protest.

Actors Equity, the union concerned in this matter, made an investigation of 80 advertising organizations and advertising companies. In their telegrams both Sir Frank Packer and his general manager asked "Where are these people?" Actors Equity will put them in possession of the names of these people. Here are some of the statements, which I shall read if I have time, which support all the evidence that the Australian is being crammed out of his own television. Mr. T. G. Davis, director, Unilever Pty. Ltd., said, " In the early days of television, of the four half-hour programmes which we sponsored or partsponsored, no less than three were, in fact, locally produced. We persevered with these shows until the television stations themselves approached us and said that they were no longer prepared to carry programmes whose lack of popularity was weakening their entire entertainment structure."

The measure of the lack of popularity was three units of investigation known as ratings, taken by other advertising agencies, which is like taking in your own washing to decide which is and which is not a good show. Further evidence of the squeeze on Australian dramatists, writers and entertainers is given by Mr. H. Widdup, merchandizing manager of W. D. and H. O. Wills (Aust.) Ltd., the cigarette people, who said, " I commend Equity's campaign for Australian programmes, but the various television stations have made it clear that they would not telecast programmes unless they owned them - and the large percentage of these are American."

The general manager of Four'n Twenty Pies Limited, of Melbourne, said, "We would like, in fact we would be very happy, to be sponsoring an Australian programme on television. Up until now none has been submitted to our agency for consideration. Our agency has, in fact, been told that television stations will only telecast programmes which they own or control".

Therefore I say to the Minister that a clamp is on the Australian product, because it cannot get into the time slots when the Australian community is viewing television. Mr. Palmer, an advertising executive of Victa Consolidated Industries Limited, said, " Television stations are most jealous of their right to select their own programmes ". He said that if his company wished to advertise on these stations it must take their programmes - and their programmes are, in 98 per cent, of cases, American programmes.

A city business man, Mr. N. Aboud. who is well known to many members of this House, said that he was tired of westerns and Yankee contributions to culture on the air. He said he would like to get an Australian programme but did not know where to get one. He added that if he did get one he could not get it in the time slots that would provide him with the publicity he desired and provide the entertainment for the people who buy his products.

For the information of the people who have written to me on this matter, and to refute the suggestion that what I have stated are not facts, let us look at the Crawford report on television and see what is happening to programmes. Here is a typical case: The best time slots are between 6.30 o'clock and 9.30 o'clock in the evening. In the week ended 29th June, 1959, according to the Crawford report, during those three hours, four stations in Sydney and Melbourne screened shows as follows: - Sydney, 67 imported half-hour shows and one Australian half-hour show. That Australian half-hour show was Bob Dyer's " Pick a Box "; Melbourne, 64 imported half-hour shows, and four Australian halfhour shows. The total for the week was 131 overseas programmes and five Australian programmes.

That is what the Crawford report has to say, and the Crawford organization is one of the best known in regard to the technicalities of, and research into, television.

I conclude with this final indictment of the canned amusement that is being screened on Australian television stations. No matter what the sponsors and the television companies may say, I shall show, by quoting the relevant figures, how this rolling amount of overseas film rubbish, this dumped material, is coming into this country in an ever-increasing flood. The total of overseas film screened on television in 1957 amounted to 6,826 separate films of all sorts - gangster films, " Gunsmoke " and what have you! In 1958, it was 10,654 separate films. The Australian content continues to slip. In 1959 there were 11,500 separate films. So, in 1957 4,500,000 feet of overseas junk was poured into this country, and in 1958 there were 8,000,000 feet of overseas material. To-day we find that 10,000,000 feet of material alien in outlook and intent are poured into this country. We on this side of the House will continue to bring figures to the Minister.

 

Vincetn here

 o control, the type of programmes the people shall see. It is at that point that we get into deep water. I join issue with the people who wish tocontrol further the types of plays and literature that are to be presented to the public. I think that you get the greatest evil of all when somebody is set up as an authority on the morality of the people. That is the worst way to control morality, I suggest. It is not a matter of controlling crime plays; that is not the problem at all. The problem, I suggest, goes much deeper than that, and is far more complex. The truth of the matter is that the problem in our community arises from the public taste. We must be very careful how we control the quality or the nature of the programmes shown to the public. I suggest that the key to a solution of the problem is the encouragement of good quality programmes, rather than the prohibition of bad quality programmes. I think that is the approach to the problem that we should adopt. To prohibit is dangerous. We should, perhaps, encourage good quality programmes - and every one knows what a good quality programme is - but to insist that the public should see only good quality programmes would be very dangerous.

I wish, in this context, to refer to a very fine document that was published in September, 1959, by Mr. Hector Crawford, of Melbourne. It is entitled "Commercial Television Programmes in Australia", and in it he refers to one aspect of the matter of radio programmes. I suggest that this document might well be read and absorbed by all honorable senators who believe that control is the only way out of this problem. Referring to American programmes telecast by our television stations, he states that the incidence is as high as 98 per cent, of all dramas telecast by commercial stations. The incidence is not quite so high in the national stations, although it is inordinately high there, too. He suggests that 98 per cent, of American films is too high a proportion. I think it is, too. However, it is not a question of prohibiting American films. The matter is not as easy as that. Before proceeding further I should like to quote a few remarks made by Mr. Crawford in this very fine document, concerning the problems that confront us in regard to certain aspects of the quality of programmes. Referring to American programmes, he states -

Do these programmes stimulate among Australians a consciousness of national identity and pride in our nation, and a regard for our own cultural ideas and patterns? Do they typify Australian attitudes and institutions, Australian habits and customs, Australian manners, speech, and dress? Do these programmes help to enrich the life of Australian families? ... Dp they enlighten Australians as to their own country's history? ... Do these programmes help Australians to know and understand one another and to bring them to a wider knowledge of those areas of their own country which they may never have the opportunity to visit?

Surely the answer must be that these predominantly American programmes necessarily deal with the American way of life, American institutions, traditions and national heroes, and that continued viewing of these could tend to make our way of life a pale and insipid carbon copy of America's. 1 think every one will agree with those observations. He goes on to state -

Australia as a nation, cannot accept, in this powerful and persuasive medium, the present flood of another nation's culture without danger to our national identity.

He then goes on to make this very profound remark -

This does not imply a criticism of the values of American television programmes. They may be eminently suitable for the American audience-


Senator Branson - But not for us.


Senator VINCENT - No, not for us; there is the rub. He does not lightly say, as do some honorable senators, that we must prohibit them - nothing of the sort! I think he is quite right. There are very obvious reasons why we cannot prohibit them. He goes into this question but time will not permit of my reading his remarks. It is not only a matter of prohibition. I think we are far too prone in this chamber, when we come across a problem, to utter the parrot cry, “Prohibit”. We can no more prohibit the American film than we can the bad Australian film. If we prohibited the bad ones, we would raise a social complex, a social objection to good films or good programmes. I suggest this is not a matter for prohibition. It is a far bigger question than that. It is something that could well be examined by a select committee of this Senate - the matter of how we could improve our culture by encouraging good drama in both commercial and national television shows.

I shall leave the matter there. There is no easy answer to the problem. I feel that a lot can be done. A lot must be done before we can be proud of our programmes. I do not agree with previous speakers who have insisted that the matter is simple - that all that needs to be done is to prohibit bad programmes.