October 1960 Parliment

 

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.

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.