Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (4.24 p.m.)—The opposition support the Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 and the Film Licensed Investment Company (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2005. It is non-controversial legislation. But, while it is non-controversial, it is nonetheless important. There is a history in modern Australia of, in particular, federal government intervention in, and assistance to, the film industry. That has been very important to the success of our film industry. Certainly it is recognised that the Whitlam government made some tremendous inroads in the film industry. Speaking on my own behalf, when my father was minister for the media he took particular pride in it. But he refers to the contribution made to the film industry by, in particular, John Gorton in the Fraser government. There is certainly a history of the Australian government contributing to, and assisting in, the development of Australia’s film industry. So, in that context, today we can contribute to the further development of our unfortunately now lagging industry and get it back to the industry that we all had pride in.
Regrettably, the Australian film industry is currently suffering from a low level of local production, while private investment in the sector is also languishing. The share of the Australian box office patronage enjoyed by Australian films is also falling; whereas, paradoxically, foreign films in which Australian actors feature or star are doing exceptionally well in the box office. So clearly ample talent is available to the Australian film industry. What we need to do as a parliament is to encourage that local investment.
Concern about the future viability of the industry as it is currently funded has been expressed in many quarters, but it has received particular attention since the Academy award-winning actress, Cate Blanchett, at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards in London earlier this year, publicly rebuked the government for its inactivity. She said:
It’s such a shame about funding in Australia ...
We recognise that, and we also recognise that this legislation is at least a step in the right direction—
Mr McGauran—New funding from you?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Minister, restrain yourself.
Mr McCLELLAND—It is in terms of encouraging the minister for this step in the right direction, but perhaps it is too modest a step in the right direction. Under the current government, the film industry has endured a period of steep decline and the engineering of the Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 reflects the current problems and uncertainties of an industry suffering from government neglect. The bill is something of a bandaid but, as I have said, we acknowledge it as being a step in the right direction. It is essentially a modest proposal that, if fully successful, will result in an injection of approximately $20 million into the Australian film industry over the next two years. That is not going to produce blockbusters, but there have been successes even with modest production budgets in the Australian film industry. Given the current investment malaise in the industry, that is certainly a modest target.
The bill seeks to promote further private investment in the film industry by allowing a 100 per cent up-front tax deduction for taxpayers investing funds in the company licensed to raise the proposed $20 million. While such shares are tradeable, the up-front deduction will be available only to the original investor. These funds will be raised by June 2007 and must be invested by June 2008.
The bill contains a number of welcome provisions that seek to encourage a broader, more diverse film industry. These include limitations on the level of share ownership available to any individual as well on the level of possible foreign ownership, and there are requirements that films funded under the scheme portray Australian perspectives and Australia’s cultural diversity. That criterion is strongly supported by the opposition.
The bill also ensures the use of a competitive process for the allocation of the licence to raise the funding. Criteria have been established to ensure Australian management and direction of the successful company, which again focuses on creating what is essentially an Australian product, reflecting Australia’s culture and cultural diversity. That is a goal and an outcome that the government have proposed and, again I note, is supported strongly by the opposition. But there is a long way to go before the Australian film industry is restored to health. Most immediate, perhaps, is the need to complete a review of the tax act in regard to film investment and to ensure that tax rulings do not undermine promises held out to potential investors in Australian films. The Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 2005 is a modest proposal but, as I have said on several occasions, we recognise it as a step in the right direction. For that reason, Labor supports these measures.
It is generally accepted, as all members would recognise, that going to the movies or hiring a video are very much traditions in themselves and part of the Australian culture. It is relatively cheap and accessible entertainment and certainly something that we all enjoy—either going as a couple or taking the children along to a film that may interest them. However, it is incumbent upon us that we do not take Australia’s place in this industry for granted, for in doing this we put at risk not just a pastime that is cherished and enjoyed by Australian families but also Australian jobs and the opportunity to promote Australian culture throughout the world. While we all cherish the Australian culture—it is a particularly balanced and desirable culture—I think promoting it throughout our region would assist in taming, if you like, some of the more obsessive and fundamentalist views that tend to be emerging in some countries in our region.
I reiterate two of the very welcome provisions of the bill: that films funded under this scheme ‘portray Australian perspectives and Australia’s cultural diversity’; and that the scheme places limitations on the level of share ownership available to any individual, as well as on the level of possible foreign ownership. It is important to recognise the need to protect the diversity of our industry. Diversity in our mass media is integral to the Australian public’s ability to communicate with one another and has been recognised over many years by all governments as being fundamental to our democratic system. While the film industry may not necessarily raise political issues, I think its ability to raise and promote issues in various forms in an entertaining way but nonetheless in a thought-provoking way can be important for the stimulation of debate in our community and to enliven interest in various issues among those who go to the movies. Certainly in terms of diversity, we as an Australian culture are a combination of many cultures. In that combination we are uniquely Australian, and this is a particular feature of our community that can be promoted through our film industry.
Unquestionably, media diversity fundamentally enhances the quality of what we consume as publicly available information each day. I think we all have to recognise that globalisation and the forces of economic rationalisation have seen and will continue to see our mass media undergo centralising phenomena. Indeed, the potential is there for our media to be overtaken by foreign interests. It is therefore much more important than ever that government finds the balance between free market forces and the prerogative to assert our own national identity in the media marketplace. In that context, we think the bill strikes the appropriate balance.
Australia has a proud tradition in film-making, and the continuation of this tradition must be assured in the fiercely competitive 21st century global environment to which I have referred. Investment capital has never been more globally mobile. Hence, there is an onus on government to encourage Australian investors to focus on their own backyard. Great Australian films are many, they are unique and they are award winning. Some truly great Australian films go back to the initiatives of the Whitlam government—for example, Wake in Fright, which I recall featured Harry Secombe as a teacher in outback Australia. I think the movie Squeeze a Flower, Squeeze a Grape featured an Italian migrant making his way in Australia. The movie The Adventures of Barry McKenzie—
Mr McGauran—What about Chips Rafferty? How far back are you going?
Mr McCLELLAND—I am going back to the 1970s at this stage, but I would recognise the minister going back even earlier than that. At that stage, to give that movie a kick along, I recall that the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, and his wife, Margaret, featured in the return of Barry McKenzie to Australia. In 1978, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith was a provocative movie regarding what was unquestionably a violent act. It was based on the book by Thomas Keneally, which many children have studied at high school in recent years. In 1981, Gallipoli, while a source of national pride, showed the horror of the historic assault on The Neck in Gallipoli and the loss of literally hundreds of lives in a very short space of time. In less than half an hour, so many Australian lives were lost in that fruitless attack. Then there is Muriel’s Wedding, written by PJ Hogan—indeed, it launched him to international fame. We are talking about not only actors, producers and directors but also writers obtaining benefit from assistance from the Australian film industry and then going on to benefit Australia as well. In 1990 Flirting and in 1994 The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert were movies with a more entertaining perspective. In 1999 Two Hands was a wry look at the seamier side of some of our capital cities. In 2003 we saw Japanese Story. Naming these films is like thanking people at an official function. We have had a vast range of very successful, very entertaining and tremendously creative Australian movies. More recently, we saw The Castle and The Dish—and the list goes on. Those movies all added in their own way to our understanding, interpretation and promotion of some aspects of Australian culture, if not—in the case of The Adventures of Barry McKenzie—perhaps mocking an Australian characteristic.
These examples of Australian films recognise the benefits that have been achieved and can be achieved through government assistance. It is often forgotten that the Australian film culture is almost as old as Federation. I take the point of the minister in leading me down here, but The Story of the Kelly Gang had its world premiere on 26 December 1906, at Melbourne’s Athenaeum Hall. With a running length of just over an hour, it was, at the time, the longest narrative film made in Australia, and possibly the longest in the world. It was only Australia’s second full-length film and came out six years after Soldiers of the Cross, widely regarded as the world’s first feature film.
As for the actor chosen to play Ned in the film, apparently there were several actors. This came about when the stage actor originally cast to play Ned Kelly complained about his low wages after completing the first few scenes and just walked off the set. Obviously Actors Equity was not around in those days. Unable to afford another professional actor, the producers frantically hauled in some of the extras on the set and shot them either disguised in the traditional Ned Kelly armour or on horseback using long and wide camera shots. With careful editing, the face of the original actor was entirely eliminated. His name did not appear on the credits, and to this day, despite exhaustive research, his identity is a mystery. When the film was reviewed by the Bulletin on 24 January 1907, it was treated very badly. The Bulletin said:
Those splendid bushrangers never come within a hundred yards of a woman without taking off their hats and on occasion they remove their hats as often as nine times to one woman.
Today we should not fail to take our hats off to what the Australian film industry has offered Australians and what it has achieved for Australia in promoting our culture over what has been an interesting and enjoyable history in the last 100 years.
In that context, it is wholly appropriate—indeed, it is timely—that the government recognises the Australian film industry. I am delighted that the government is doing just a bit more than it has done in the past to ensure that Australia’s national identity continues to be celebrated in feature films. Appropriately implemented and managed, the provisions of the Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 2005 will encourage greater investment in our own film industry; and that is wholeheartedly welcomed by our side of politics. The industry contributes to our entertainment, to the development of talent in Australia, and to the appreciation and understanding of the Australian culture internationally.