- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 2 December 2003
Film and Television Industry Free Trade Agreement
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 25 of 49
| Next Item »
Page: 5591
Urgent Motion
Mr BOB CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [3.53 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that more than 70 per cent of film-making in Australia takes place in New South Wales; and
(2) calls on the Federal Government to protect the Australian film and television industry during the current US-Australia free trade negotiations.
I am a strong supporter of a free trade agreement [FTA] with the United States of America. So are all the Australian Premiers and the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. However, it now appears that the Federal Government is wedded to a different interpretation of the protection of Australian culture. The Federal Government reassured us that Australian culture would be nurtured following an FTA and we were assured that protective mechanisms for film and television production would remain in place. However, the film and television industry wants guarantees regarding the new quickly developing digital media.
Think back to the 1940s. If a comparable agreement had been negotiated at that time it might have provided protection for Australian content on radio but it would have offered no such protection for television, which arrived in the mid-1950s. Such protection would not have been allowed because the agreement would have said that no future legislation could protect that part of the Australian industry. That is analogous with our current position. The Australian Government is saying that it will not protect Australian content in the quickly developing new digital media. This means that technological breakthroughs such as video coming direct to television screens and all that digital technology promises will be open slather for the United States. Under the terms of the FTA it would be impossible to say, "Look, in these areas we're going to legislate for Australian content, as currently occurs with Australian television and film."
No-one can deny that the Australian market is open to American products. About 250 feature films are released into the Australian market each year, 70 per cent of them from the United States. Only 10 per cent of the films that we see are Australian. Last year 94 per cent of movie tickets sold in Australia were for films made in the United States. The story is similar in television. Between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of Australian prime-time television comes from the United States. In fact, more than 75 per cent of new television programs launched between September 2002 and April 2003 were foreign. In contrast, in the United States only 4 per cent of new television programs are foreign. Many would argue that the balance has been tipped too far in the direction of Hollywood. For example, George Miller recently said:
My kids know more about American culture than they do about our own, simply because of the onslaught of American culture.
That is a comment from one of our best directors. We can certainly say that the United States gets a fair deal in Australia. This means that any move by the Howard Government to scrap or cap Australian content rules is unnecessary. Two weeks ago at the Australian Film Industry Awards Geoffrey Rush said that the FTA would: leach the soil that nourishes and eventually produces this celebrated flowering.
That is the flowering of Australian talent. He was referring to Nicole Kidman, Russell Crowe, Baz Luhrmann, Naomi Watts, Cate Blanchett, Heath Ledger and the many other stars who have given our film industry international stature in the past decade. The Federal Minister for Trade has openly admitted that there will be a trade-off of local content, not necessarily affecting current technologies, such as free-to-air television and big-screen cinema, but certainly imperilling new technologies, such as video on demand, which may well become the main way that we view movies at home in the not too distant future. That would be disastrous.
Imagine a stand-still agreement signed in the 1920s that would have protected silent movies but not the technology to come—talkies. Imagine an agreement signed in 1940s that would have protected radio but not television. We cannot have an agreement that protects the current but not the future technology. We cannot afford to have any erosion of local content when production of Australian feature films has fallen by one third, from 30 to 19, in 2002-03. Expenditure on feature film and drama production is also down by 23 per cent to $513 million. We cannot afford for the industry to take any further blows. That is why this side of politics is calling on the Federal Government to take the same intelligent approach it took to the Singapore free trade agreement, which was signed earlier this year. That agreement contains an exclusion clause protecting cultural products. It states:
Australia reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure relating to:
• the creative arts, cultural heritage and other cultural industries, including audiovisual services, entertainment services and libraries, archives, museums and other cultural services
• broadcasting and audiovisual services, including measures relating to planning, licensing and spectrum management, and including:
1. Services offered in Australia
2. International services originating in Australia.
That is in the FTA between Australia and Singapore. It protects Australian culture. In particular and specifically, it protects our right to legislate to protect Australian content in future technologies. Let us see an exclusion clause for all present and future cultural content in any free trade agreement with the United States of America. Let us bear in mind that the Americans reportedly want to use the expression of cultural content in this FTA as a model or template for future free trade agreements elsewhere. That is not a big issue to them in terms of what they do in the Australian market, or what they will get, but it is a big issue to them because the Australian FTA will be a template for future FTAs that America might settle with bigger countries, for example, China.
That is why America attaches a high priority to this, and that makes it all the more important that we resist it: not only to protect out culture but to stake out the argument that we want to seek cultural diversity right around this planet. The Iranians, Pakistanis, and Chinese, among all the other peoples of the earth, are entitled to project their own culture through all the future technologies that will become available. There should not be a single culture dominating the world, emanating from Hollywood. That is what this is about: it is a huge issue of cultural diversity and cultural conservation. Culture is not just another economic product like cars or computers. It cannot be traded away as a mere bargaining chip.
As I said at a press conference with Australian actors earlier today, Sea Biscuit is not the story of Phar Lap. Stories like Phar Lap's ought to be told in the future and not just subsumed in movies like Sea Biscuit. We want to project our own stories. We want our creative people to be able to tell Australian stories to the world. That is fundamental to our sense of identity. It is about who we are and our place in the world. We have a movie industry and a television industry only because of those protective mechanisms. It is always cheaper to import the Hollywood product. We have Australians doing well overseas because they were nurtured in our industry. Nicole Kidman was in Australian television before she got a chance to be in big movies made in Los Angeles. Let us have a free trade agreement, but not at the price of our culture. As someone said at the Australian Film Industry awards a fortnight ago:
We're not talking about inanimate objects. We're talking about the way we express ourselves, our hearts and our minds… and you can't sell that. You can't sell out.
I commend the motion to the House.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore) [4.03 p.m.]: I absolutely agree with the Premier and that is why I compliment the Commonwealth on its position in relation to the outcomes of the Australia-United States of America free trade agreement for making sure that the Government's ability to regulate for cultural and social objectives now or into the future is not undermined. It is very rich of the Premier to jump on the latest bandwagon when he has been absolutely silent on all matters to do with the arts for as long as he has been the Minister for the Arts.
The Coalition has nurtured the arts in this State, and the Federal Coalition Government has done that throughout Australia. The most acclaimed Arts Minister in this State was Peter Collins. I can assure honourable members that in the latest round of discussions about the free trade agreement [FTA] the Commonwealth Government made it quite clear that it has no intention of jeopardising the future of Australia's film industry. In fact, the Federal Government is on record saying that it recognises that flexibility is needed in existing media—film, media and so on—and in new media. The Hon. Mark Vaile, the Federal Minister for Trade, said:
We will ensure that our capacity to support Australian culture and national identity, including in audiovisual media, is not watered down in the negotiations.
That could not be clearer and I do not understand the motivation of the Premier in moving this motion, except to make mischief. The Federal Government has clearly recognised both the importance of existing policy interventions in the audiovisual sector and the challenges posed by new media and technological developments. The Federal Government is factoring those considerations into the negotiations. The commitment is spelled out in the Federal Government's statement of objectives for the FTA. It is a shame the Premier did not read those objectives before he moved his motion and scared people in the arts community about something that was obviously never on the agenda.
It is quite extraordinary that the Premier has ignored the fact that this year the Howard Government budgeted $133 million for the film industries, in contrast with the Federal Labor Government commitment of $104.56 million in its last year in office, 1994. The most ludicrous aspect is the State Government's commitment to the film industry, as reported in 2003-04 Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, at page 2-135. There the operating statement for the New South Wales Film and Television Office, which is funded by the Minister for the Arts, who is none other than the Premier, records that last year the Government allocated $9.853 million to the Film and Television Office and that this year it has cut that allocation by 2.9 per cent to $9.57 million. According to the budget papers:
The New South Wales Film and Television Office promotes, encourages and facilitates film and television production, invests in script development, provides grants for industry and audience development and new media and offers a liaison service between filmmakers and locations owners.
Today, the Minister for the Arts, the Premier, in a sanctimonious manner, called upon the Federal Government to protect the industry free trade agreement, when he has betrayed the industry by reducing its real funding this financial year. That is the most hypocritical approach to a very important aspect of our life in Australia because everybody in this country recognises the wonderful job that Australian film-makers have done in recent times. That includes people involved in all sectors of film-making, including performers, directors, cameramen, costume designers and those involved in animation. One of my children trained in the arts and has worked in theatre, and a friend of one of my children works in the animation sector of the film industry in Australia and has been lucky enough to work on animation in movies like the Mad Max series.
Many recognise the tremendous contribution that Australians have made to the development of the international film industry, and all would want to ensure that that contribution continues. But that demands that we all work together—the Commonwealth Government, the State Government and people in the industry—and not play these silly games of blaming people, when no-one is to blame. The Carr Government, if it got real on this issue, would provide adequate funding to enable organisations like the New South Wales Film Office to get on with the job. The Federal Government has done much to secure a solid future for the Australian film industry. A 12.5 per cent film tax offset has been allowed for qualifying large-budget film productions—an initiative that brought producers to Australia to make films such as The Matrix sequels, Peter Pan, Star Wars 3 and Stealth—big budget films that are strengthening our film industry's infrastructure. If the Premier were genuinely concerned about negotiations in relation to the free trade agreement he would take note of the comments made by the Australian trade Minister, the Hon. Mark Vaile, and the Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard. Mark Vaile was reported by the Australian Financial Review of 21 November this year to have said:
The US has been very clear that they are not seeking substantive changes in the laws Australia has in place to ensure Australian viewers continue to see Australian stories told in Australian voices. The government's direct support for Australian culture—including for film production—will not be affected in any way by these negotiations.
The Prime Minister, when interviewed on radio 3AW in Melbourne on 21 November, said:
We're not willing to give up the existing local content rules. we think they're worth preserving.
Finally, I quote Senator Rod Kemp, who said, when interviewed on ABC on 24 November:
The Government simply will not allow the outcomes in the United States Free Trade Agreement to undermine our capacities to deliver on fundamental cultural objectives, and quite clearly one of our fundamental cultural objectives is to have a healthy and vibrant film sector.
On this matter, which we had to discuss urgently, there is absolute agreement: there is no risk to Australia's film industry, because the Commonwealth Government gave guarantees that there will be no such risk. It is distressing that the House is using its time debating this subject when we could have been debating an urgent matter affecting the lives of the people of New South Wales—nurse shortages and the maladministration of the health system. That matter has an immediate impact on people's lives. I am sure some Government members, because they have no flair and insufficient ability to speak without prepared speeches, will read from prepared material. They will not mention the fact that there is no risk to the Australian film industry. This House could have been discussing an urgent motion proposed by the Leader of the Liberal Party about nurse shortages, the maladministration of the New South Wales health system and the circumstances in which patients are dying in this State. [Time expired.]
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [4.13 p.m.]: I share the very real concern expressed by the Premier that the Federal Government may sacrifice our film and television industry as it continues to negotiate a free trade agreement. The New South Wales Government has supported the efforts of the Federal Government to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States of America. On 12 November this year I met with senior Australian negotiators to discuss the progress on this agreement. I sought and received assurances that Australia would not surrender the right to support and promote our culture in films, television and new media. On that basis, on the same day I outlined in this Chamber the Government's support for the free trade negotiations. Frankly, I was shocked when only nine days later, on 21 November, the Federal Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, did a backflip on this key issue. On that day Australian Associated Press reported that Mr Vaile now believed that local content may be sacrificed for economic benefits. Mr Vaile said:
Australia may be willing to settle for less local film and television content ...
I am not sure which Australians Mark Vaile claimed to be speaking for, because I do not know any Australian who would support a sell-out of Australian culture in the way he suggested in those quotations. I note that the honourable member who spoke for the Opposition is of the same view that I have just expressed. Leading lights of the Australian film and television industry have eloquently expressed their fears for the future of our culture if Prime Minister Howard and Federal trade Minister Vaile use it as a bargaining chip. I find it particularly ironic that Mr Vaile has said this is an issue where we need to be creative. The Federal Government seems prepared to stomp on the ability of others to be creative to ensure Australians can watch their own stories on television and the big screen in their own country. It is also ironic that part of this argument is about the future of great Aussie actors—the next Nicole Kidman, Heath Ledger, Mel Gibson or Geoffrey Rush. Where would Hollywood be without them? Australia has been a breeding ground of great talent—talent that has been gleefully grabbed by the United States of America, talent that has generated vast sums for the United States economy.
Mark Vaile is the Deputy Leader of the Federal Nationals. Recently the Leader of The Nationals in New South Wales joined with me in this place to sing the praises of the film and television industry as an economic boon for regional New South Wales. At that time I told honourable members how feature and documentary production had injected more than $10 million into regional New South Wales in the past five years. That spending created more than 3,000 country jobs. In reply, the Leader of The Nationals spoke enthusiastically about the importance of the film industry to New South Wales. I must ask the question: What is he doing to make sure his Federal counterparts support this industry, instead of selling it out?
In the past few months I have been fortunate enough to join two tours of film-makers and location scouts through regional New South Wales. This Carr Government project introduced more than 20 film and television industry experts to the Northern Rivers, the Illawarra, the South Coast and the Southern Highlands. A previous tour to the Hunter and Broken Hill resulted in the production of six projects, injecting about $600,000 into the local economies. The most recent tours received rave reviews from the participants. Some had never been to those regions before and were impressed by the quality of information they received, and the warm welcome. There is every indication the tours will result in substantial spending in those regional areas, spending that regional New South Wales cannot afford to lose.
The Federal Government must be firm with the American negotiators to ensure the Australian audiovisual industry as we know it today and might imagine it in the future can reach its full potential. Our film and television industry is minnow-like compared to America's. Just two weekends ago Phillip Adams wrote in thee Australian that the United States of America takes about $92 of every $100 that Australians spend at the box office. Our future audiovisual industry will be much more than television and movies. It is possible to negotiate a free trade deal that caters for a changing industry. The agreement that Australia signed with Singapore earlier this year contained these words:
Australia reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure relating to:
• the creative arts, cultural heritage and other cultural industries, including audiovisual services, entertainment services and libraries, archives, museums and other cultural services
• broadcasting and audiovisual services, including measures relating to planning, licensing and spectrum management, and including:
1. Services offered in Australia
2. International services originating in Australia.
As I have said, it is possible to negotiate an agreement that will protect these vital cultural industries. I urge the Federal Government to replicate this in our agreement with the United State of America.
Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield) [4.18 p.m.]: I would like to read a short film script. It is based on a potentially true scenario. The working title is John Howard Trades Off Australia's Film Industry for Daffy Duck.
SCENE 1. INTERIOR – DUSK
Set in the near future. A suburban lounge room. A family watch TV.
Daughter: Cowabunga! Dad. Can we go to Disneyland?
Dad: Sorry, honey, Disneyland's in Los Angeles. That's a very long way to go.
Daughter: Hey! Can we go to Neverland?
Dad: How about we go to Sydney Aquarium in the holidays?
Daughter: Dad, where's Sydney?
Dad: Struth! It's the capital of New South Wales.
Daughter: Hel-lo! Dad! Washington is the capital.
Dad: No, dear; that's in America.
Daughter: Whatever. Do the fish talk at the aquarium?
Dad: No, fish don't talk. They just swim around and blow bubbles.
Daughter: All the animals talk on TV, Dad—Ninja Turtles, Donald Duck, Big Bird.
Dad: Struth! Is there anything decent to watch on TV tonight, luv, except all these reruns?
Dad picks up TV remote. Cut to close-up of a television screen flicking through channels: baseball league, commercial, Temptation Island 15, commercial, Donald Duck, American evangelist, commercial, Bad Boys 6. Cut to dad: throws the remote on the lounge. Door opens, son enters limping, wearing baseball cap and carrying the usual skateboard.
Mum, to son: Honey, what happened to your leg?
Son: I busted out, did a super fast hard flip, popped up high, then my shoe slipped and I racked my butt. The whole crew laughed. Man, it burned me. Dad, I gotta get some shoes.
Mum: Sorry, honey, we can't afford new shoes. Your dad lost his job at the film studio today.
Son: I'll see you on Wednesday, unless you catch a spray, that went astray, from my A-K.
Son limps out of the door.
Dad, staring wide-eyed at mum: What the hell did he say?
Mum: Said he will be home for dinner, Wednesday.
FADE OUT.
That fictional scene could be closer to reality if Mark Vaile uses our film and television industries as a bargaining chip in the up-coming free trade negotiations with the United States. The Australian audiovisual industries play a vital role, not only in affecting our culture, dreams, aspirations and anxieties but also in forming them. If we run our industries purely on globalised market principles we might have world industries, but will they provide content that relates specifically to Australian audiences and talks specifically about Australian themes? The United States of America already has a major share of the Australian feature film and television market. Some 75 per cent of new television programs launched from September 2002 to April 2003 were foreign to Australia, compared to 4 per cent in the US. Australian audiences are already seeing the world through an American lens. We do not want our market share to decline; we want it to grow.
We are not the only ones with this problem. Many countries around the globe believe they are under siege in a cultural sense. The strength of our community lies in its diversity: our differences make us who we are. Television content and cultural representation go to the heart of Australia's national identity. We do not want to become just another satellite State of America. Our cultural production maps our lives and offers a mirror into which to gaze, a place where we can recognise ourselves with all our faults and strengths. We cannot allow this to be treated as an economic issue because framing the debate in such a way is like selling Australia's very soul. Recently I spoke with Richard Harris from the Australian Screen Directors Association, who emphasised the need to differentiate our cultural industries from others affected by the negotiations. The impact of any deregulation on our culture may be difficult to measure, but it has the potential to be devastating.
I also spoke to Jonathan Mills, New South Wales Branch Secretary of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. Like Jonathan, I believe passionately that the standstill option is unacceptable. If these negotiations had taken place 50 years ago how could negotiators have anticipated the introduction of television, pay TV and FM radio? It is simply too difficult to predict how audiovisual technology will develop. We should retain the right to determine, author and potentially strengthen cultural regulation. If we cannot determine future local content provisions and provide focused strategic financial support, Australian stories will not be told. Productions like Kath and Kim, Mad Max, Neighbours, The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert and Babe will not be possible. Our extraordinarily talented actors will have no audience, our inspirational writers will have no-one to produce their plays and our outstanding musicians will have no listeners.
We need a Prime Minister who will not roll over to the Americans. The Howard Government should exclude cultural content from any free trade agreement with the United States, consistent with the free trade agreement negotiated recently with Singapore. With the greatest respect to the honourable member for North Shore, she must be living in "Neverland". It is obvious from her comments that she does not understand what the negotiations are all about.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [4.23 p.m.], in reply by leave: The seriousness with which the Opposition regards the film industry is demonstrated by the fact that it could find only one member to speak to the motion. That is disappointing. The single Opposition speaker supported the motion, but one would have thought that more than one member of the Opposition would be interested in the creative arts and would have taken the opportunity to speak to the motion. The Government knows the importance of the film industry to the economy of the State generally and to regional areas particularly. Indeed, films, television shows and commercials have been made on the North Coast and in the Far West.
The Government has made a commitment to encourage film scouts and production houses to look at opportunities in the regions. I note that the honourable member for South Coast is in the Chamber. Only a few weeks ago film scouts examined locations in her area. The Government has established the Regional Film Fund to support filming in regional locations. During free trade negotiations with the United States we must ensure that the cultural industries of our State, particularly the film industry, are given the opportunity to continue to thrive. It is important for this Chamber to support this urgent motion, particularly the paragraph that calls on the Federal Government to protect the Australian film and television industry during the current United States-Australian free trade negotiations. Apparently, comments have been made that that may not be so.
Mrs Jillian Skinner: The Federal Government agrees. What is the problem?
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: It is important to have on record that the honourable member for North Shore is giving an absolute commitment, by way of interjection, on behalf of the Federal Government, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade that that will be the case. As recently as 21 November Australian Associated Press reported that protection for our industry may be traded away. That is why the motion was moved. A week or so ago I made a ministerial statement about the $50 million production Stealth which is currently in preproduction and will start production at Fox Studios early next year. Sets have been constructed at Alexandria. Many times the Premier has spoken about the importance of the film industry to the State. We will continue to put in place initiatives like the Regional Film Fund to ensure that movies like Danny Deckchair, which was made in Bellingen, can continue to be made in regional centres. [Time expired.]
Motion agreed to.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:33:20 : Update this page