See here
Mr BIRD (Batman) . - I propose to direct my remarks to the item Broadcasting» «and» «Television» «Services , and to say something about the twelfth annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The first thing I noticed was a very interesting fact in relation to the financial results of the commercial broadcasting stations. One would have thought that as the result of the advent of television on a competitive basis, the profits and popular appeal of the radio stations would have diminished; but when we look at the financial results we find the opposite to be the case. Television has been in existence in Australia now for nearly four years - for three complete financial years - and we find that for the year 1956-57 the profits of the 108 broadcasting stations in Australia amounted to £1,489,000; but three years later, in spite of intensive competition from the television stations, we find that the profits last year were £2,372,000. So, although one would have expected a diminution in the profits of the radio stations, such has not been the case.
However, an examination of the programmes put over the air nightly leads one inevitably to the explanation. The fact is that the radio programmes over the last three years have shown a marked deterioration in quality. As far as the commercial stations are concerned, one can turn from one station to another and find oneself always listening to one of the 40 top tunes.
Mr Peters - They are all right, are they not?
Mr BIRD - Yes, they are all right; but I would suggest that some consideration be given to the adult section of the community in this matter. It is very amusing to hear the great excitement that the radio commentator puts into his voice when he tells his radio audience that the number about to be played was No. 37 on the national chart last week and is now No. 36. Apparently that is a matter of great national importance; and we get that kind of thing at all hours on every day of the week. I agree that we must make some provision for the musical tastes of the adolescents and teenagers, but some consideration should be given to the requirements of people of 30, 40 and 50 years of age or more. That is certainly not being done by the commercial radio stations at the present time.
It is true that the report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board refers to this matter, but I feel that it airily skims over the problem. On page 19 of its report under the heading, " Broadcasting - Programme Services ", the board states -
From casual listening it may appear that the programmes offered by commercial broadcasting stations lack variety and consist mainly of frequently repeated American popular tunes. However, the table of composition of commercial broadcasting programmes on page 20 shows that there is also a considerable amount of material of general interest and value.
I must be one of the unfortunate members of the community, because whenever I listen to any radio station in Melbourne - I think there are six of them - I consistently get this continual blaring of American bands, rock and roll, jive and all the rest of it. It is high time that some protest was made on behalf of the section of the community which, after all. plays some part in Australia's progress - the older people. Whilst it is very nice to pander to the insistent demands of the teenagers, so far as their musical tastes are concerned, when all is said and done the articles being advertised over the air during those sessions are not, in the main, bought by teenagers, but by young married couples, middle-aged and elderly people.
Mr Beazley - Many of the teenagers do not like the programmes to which you have referred, and they buy classical records.
Mr BIRD - I am glad to hear from the honorable member for Fremantle that lots of teenagers do not like these programmes and that they buy classical records. But there seems to be a pandering on the part of the commercial stations to lower musical tastes. I hope that the Minister will take notice of my representations, because I am speaking for thousands of Australians who have mentioned the matter to me continually over the last couple of years. The reason why the profits of the broadcasting stations have risen so much over the last few years is because the programmes have deteriorated owing to the drivel we are expected to listen to every day.
I refer to these programmes because, again, we find that the radio stations are not doing what they should. On page 21 of its report the Australian Broadcasting Control Board refers to children's programmes. In paragraph 52, it says -
While the Board appreciates that, in a period of rapid and perhaps fundamental change in broadcasting practices and in the habits of listeners, the broadcasters may find some difficulty in providing suitable programmes for children according to the spirit of the Standards, this does not excuse the large number of stations which almost completely ignore their responsibilities in this field. Certainly there is, in most cases, no financial reason for this, as will appear from the table showing the financial results of the operations of the commercial broadcasting service in 1958-59.
That is the profit to which I referred. The report continues -
The Board is reluctant to give directions to licensees as to the content of their programmes or the manner in which they should discharge their responsibilities, since these are primarily matters for the licensees, subect to compliance with the appropriate standards.
It is high time the board dropped its reluctance and gave definite instructions that it expects these stations to broadcast children's programmes of a reasonably high standard. I think that the commercial broadcasting stations are deliberately ignoring the instructions of the board, and the intentions of this Parliament when it laid down the instructions in the original act. I would like to see the Minister make provision to ensure that children's programmes shall be of a reasonably high standard and cover a reasonable number of hours per week.
In respect of advertising by commercial radio stations, we find that the board has laid down instructions as to the amount of time that can be devoted to advertising, but I think it is safe to say that those instructions are disregarded more than they are observed. The act lays down that in a programme not exceeding fifteen minutes there shall be not more than two and a half minutes of advertising, and in a fiveminute programme, not more than one minute, but I believe that in most instances the period devoted to advertising is greatly in excess of those limitations. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board recognizes this fact because in paragraph 59 of its report it says -
Even so the Board has had occasion to invite the attention of some stations to their failure to keep their advertising matter within specified limits.
I hope that the board will get tough with these people, because apparently they have got away with it for so long that they find they are getting more and more advertising in this way, as can be seen by the increased profits they have made over the last three years. The increased profits have been gained as the result of the deterioration in both the standards and duration of programmes. It is reasonable to expect the commercial broadcasting stations to do the fair thing by the Australian public. Whilst the board makes those comments, which are very significant because they are critical, they are of no earthly use unless the board's instructions are enforced. I hope the Minister will have a discussion with the board with a view to ensuring that the broadcasting stations live *\p to their responsibilities under the act.
I propose now to say something about television programmes and particularly their Australian content. This has been a matter of much discussion in this House over the years. On many occasions honorable members from this side of the chamber have expressed to the Government the view that it should see that there is a reasonable Australian content in all television programmes. When the bill for the purpose of establishing television was introduced in this Parliament we on this side pressed for the implementation of a quota system. While the Government opposed such a system, it assured us that it would see that a reasonable proportion of Australian material was included in television programmes. Actually this has not been done. The twelfth annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, for the year ended 30th June, 1960, gives a table showing the proportion of time occupied by programmes of Australian origin on commercial television stations. A perusal of the figures shows that in all cases the proportion of programmes of Australian origin declined substantially from June, 1957, to June, 1959. The figures are as follows: -
It can be seen that the commercial stations have not taken much notice of the Minister, although his remarks on this matter in the Parliament have demonstrated his optimism. There has been a progressive diminution in the Australian content of the programmes. The report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board says, in paragraph 99 -
Early in 1960 the Minister, after considering a report by the Board, invited the attention of all commercial television stations to the provisions of section 114 and expressed the view that at the end of three years operations the proportion of Australian programmes televised by any station should be not less than 40 per cent, of its total hours of transmission.
The Minister expressed this view, but I have given the figures, which show that not one station has reached the level of 40 per cent. and quite a number are far below it. As a matter of fact, despite the pressure on the commercial stations that was applied by the Minister - and it was not a very heavy pressure, unfortunately - there has been very little improvement. During the last twelve months ATN has increased the Australian content of its programmes by .6 per cent., TCN by 2 per cent., GTV by 1.7 per cent., and HSV by 1.7 per cent.
It would appear, therefore, that the Minister has quite a big job ahead of him. I think he has made a genuine effort to increase the Australian content, but unfortunately he does not seem to have had much success. He has made certain pronouncements, but 1 would like to see the Minister get tough with the stations and see that Australian artists and Australian culture are not thrust aside in the interests of commercial profit for the television stations. After all, we cannot accept any statement by the commercial television operators that they are forced to show more American programmes because they can buy them more cheaply. I know they can buy them cheaply, but I direct the attention of the committee to the fact that although in 1957-58 the television stations incurred a loss of £56,000, a year later they enjoyed a profit of £959,000. It cannot be said that they are running in the red and therefore have to buy cheaper programmes.
I suggest that the Minister must seriously consider insisting on a much higher Australian content in television programmes. Even when the stations claim that the Australian content is about 38 per cent., we find that the Australian programmes include quiz sessions, amateur talent quests, news and weather sessions, sporting sessions, talks, interviews, cooking and dress-making demonstrations and various audience participation features. These cannot be said to be covered by the requirement in the act regarding the production and presentation of Australian television programmes. What we want is the inclusion in the programmes of more Australian artists. Is this nation going to be led by the nose and forced, in season and out, to look only at programmes consisting of importations from America? It is easy for commercial stations to present American programmes because of their low cost. This country has erected tariff barriers to enable Australian industries to compete reasonably with their counterparts overseas, but what do we find in the case of imported television programmes?
See here
Mr Malcolm Fraser (WANNON, VICTORIA) . - I would like to make only one comment concerning the remarks of the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Bird). He referred to the reduced Australian content of television programmes, and he cited figures which do indicate, of course, that the actual proportion of Australian material in those programmes has fallen. But this statement does not give the complete picture, because it might lead one to believe that the actual number of hours devoted to Australian programmes in any one week had been reduced. I understand that this has not been the case. The number of hours service given by the television stations has been greatly increased. The extra hours have been filled in very largely with imported programmes, and there has been no actual addition to the Australian content of the programmes. It would be wrong to infer, however, from the honorable member's remarks, that there has been a positive reduction in the number of hours devoted to Australian programmes.
I would like to commend the Postmaster-General's Department on the way in which it has, in recent years, met the twin challenges to provide better telephone services and, at the same time, to cater for the developmental needs of a rapidly expanding community. However, this rapid development, and the changes that have been introduced in order to provide a better service, have at times brought with them difficulties and inconveniences for certain subscribers. I know that the department does what it can to overcome these difficulties, but there are one or two matters I would like to bring to the notice of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) at this time.
The first concerns the extended local service area system. I understand that this system was introduced as the first step in a programme which would eventually result in a service enabling any person to call any subscriber in Australia simply by dialling that subscriber's number. But I think it was clear from the statement made by the Postmaster-General, in announcing the introduction of Elsa, and from subsequent statements, that the system was designed, in part at least - and, from the subscriber's point of view, the main part - to bring the benefits of a metropolitan local call service to many people in rural areas. In other words, it would enable people in country districts to be connected readily to reasonable business centres in their districts. This result has not always been achieved.
I do not suggest that this has been because of any ill will on the part of the department. I understand that there may have been considerable difficulty in drawing up the various zones. However, in my own district in western Victoria no less than twenty completely separate submissions, supported by local councils and by a great many residents, have been made with regard to Elsa. In one case a particular area mav have been included in a zone centering on a town seldom visited by the inhabitants of that area, while being cut off from a town the services of which are frequently used by those inhabitants. In another area we may find a complete zone having no sizeable town that the people in the zone can call on the local service basis. When we remember that trunk-line charges were increased about the same time as Elsa was introduced, it becomes all the more important for us to make sure that the people in rural areas have reasonable and sensible access, on the local service basis, to a decent business centre.
There are two ways in which the department may be able to correct some of these anomalies. T can understand why it has taken some time to provide solutions to the various problems. I realize that if you alter one zone you must alter all the other zones in the vicinity, and you cannot then be sure where the repercussions will end. I appreciate that because of this, difficulties have arisen and perhaps delays have occurred in giving answers to some of the questions that have been raised.
There are two ways of overcoming the difficulty when people in one zone cannot ring the town or business centre on a local call basis. The first is to juggle zones, which has its difficulties and, because of those difficulties, there may well be some zones which, even after juggling, still cannot be connected to a business centreTherefore, in those cases where a change of zones will not connect people to the business centre which is the natural one for them, I ask the Postmaster-General to allow those people to ring through the second zone into the third zone where their usual business centre may lie. If the Minister approves this suggestion, rural subscribers will receive the full benefits that the department intended they should receive following the introduction of this system.
The other matter concerns the provision of television in western Victoria. I think it was during the debate on the Estimates last year that I spoke very strongly in favour of making television licences available to independent companies. I still believe that where possible independent companies should be given television licences, but not flagrantly to the detriment of television viewers.
Mr Duthie - What do you mean by independent companies?
Mr Malcolm Fraser (WANNON, VICTORIA) - If the honorable member will listen for a moment perhaps he will understand what I have in mind. Two applications were made for a television licence for the Ballarat area. One application came from an independent company which, in large measure, is sponsored by people in Ballarat. The other came from an off-shoot of GTV9. It may be thought that because TCN in Sydney has a controlling interest in GTV9, that would rule out the second applicant, but I understand that the managing director of GTV9 has indicated to the department, or to the board, that his company would be prepared to organize another company to serve this area, and to keep his company's shareholding in the second organization to less than the 15 per cent, which is required by the act. Therefore, there would be no contravention of the act.
It is well to consider the two applications, one from an independent company with shareholders centered mainly at Ballarat, and the other from GTV9 which has undertaken to organize a television station for this area. The independent company has stated that it is prepared to offer 30 hours viewing a week in the first year, 35 hours a week in the second year and 40 hours a week in the third year. GTV9 is prepared to offer 75 hours viewing a week in the first year.
Theso-called independent company made it clear that it did not want to proceed with its application if a second licence was granted, lt wanted a complete and absolute monopoly of the area. GTV9 does not mind any competition that will arise if two licences are issued.
The worst aspect of the application which was submitted by the independent company relates to the site which the company said would be preferable for the erection of a station. It wants to erect a station on Mount Buninyong, which is in very close proximity to Ballarat. But GTV9 wants to erect a station on Mount Buangor, which is about 35 miles west of Ballarat. This would bring about 60,000 or 80,000 additional viewers within range of adequate reception. If a station were erected on Mount Buninyong, these people - would not receive any transmissions from it. Why does the independent company want to place the station so close to Ballarat? It is well known that, at present, more advertising is available in Melbourne than the two commercial stations there can handle. If a station were placed on Mount Buninyong it would be possible to filter a service into Melbourne so that in effect, there would be three commercial stations serving the people in the metropolitan area. If this were the position, a good deal of advertising would be attracted to the station. I sincerely hope that neither the Minister nor the Australian Broadcasting Control Board will consider granting a licence in these circumstances. We do not want to give additional service to the metropolitan area, which already is well served. The purpose of this operation surely should be to bring as many new people as possible into a viewing area in which they will receive an adequate and satisfactory standard of reception.
The independent company, in submitting its application, completely ignored this criterion. Its intention to place a station on Mount Buninyong clearly is an underhand way of trying to get Melbourne advertising which would not be available to it if the station were placed on Mount
Buangor. As I have said, a station on Mount Buangor would not receive the benefit of Melbourne advertising but would extend the benefit of television to some 60,000 or 80,000 people.
The attitude of the two applicants, as brought out in the hearings before the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, clearly indicates which company would give the consumers the best service and which company, to my mind, has the interests of th; viewers at heart as opposed to its own particular and immediate interests.
I have stated that we should not support independence at the expense of the viewers. This is most important. 1 am in favour basically of an independent company getting a licence if it will play fair and give the people an adequate service. These circumstances epitomize, in a way, something on a much wider scale throughout the community. Very often a large concern gives better and more efficient service to consumers than does a small and possibly inefficient organization that wants to create a monopoly for itself because it cannot stand up to competition. I suggest that the independent company should have a good look at this matter generally and revise its ideas in regard to the programmes that it would be prepared to give to the people in western Victoria. It should also revise its ideas in regard to the siting of the proposed station so that a more honest estimate of the best site for the people in the area can be made. Further, it should revise its ideas in regard to competition.
For the reasons that I have given 1 oppose, as strongly as I can, the site which has been chosen by the independent company. I oppose the granting of a monopoly in this area to any company, be it independent or otherwise, and I oppose giving a licence to the independent company at the expense of the people of western Victoria. It is clear that the best interests of the people in that area would be served if two licences were given, even though the independent company has said that it would not be interested in obtaining a licence if GTV9 were granted a licence also. If two licences cannot be given for this area - my opinion is that the district is populous enough and rich enough to support two stations - clearly, on the statements of the two applicants, the people in the area would receive the best service from GTV9 or a company organized by that firm. The worst service would be- given by the independent company standing alone. I repeat that basically my instincts in matters of this kind would lead me to favour the independent concern, but my prejudice will not carry me to the extent of supporting the independent company if this will be at the expense of the people in western Victoria.
