“Slug” For Industry

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 352, 12 May 1928, Page 23

“Slug” For Industry

AUSTRALIAN COMMISSION'S REPORT

“Not Based On Evidence”

Another “ slug ” for the industry is lww the Sydney "Film Weekly' 1 refers to the findings of the Royal Commission. . .. . .. An outstanding fact in connection with the report, it says, is that the recommendations were not based upon evidence given before the commission.

Summarised, the points were: Additional duty slug of n halfpenny j a foot, which will total approximately i an additional £50,000 a year. Proposed appointment o£ a woman on the Censorship Board and the ap-; pointment of an appeal board of three, j with Professor Wallace as chairman. Refusal of committee to recommend the appointment of a member of the industry on the board of appeal. Provision for a 5 per cent, rejection clause in all contracts; no contract to j be made for more than 12 months. A sum of £IO.OOO to be awarded yearly by the Government for three years for the best Australian scenario. Principal prizes are £5,000 for first, j £2*500 for second, and £1.500 for ; third. Compulsory quota of British film. (As there is some legal doubt as to the powers of the Commonwealth in j this respect, it may not operate for ; some time to come.) A. and U- certificates. Film to be j graded for children only and others j for universal exhibition. “Amazed at Recommerct-atjor.sl” “Those who followed the evidence j of the commission closely will be j amazed at these recommendations. I Not only at this commission, but at j the previous Tariff Board inquiry, practically every witness—whether i distributor, exhibitor, local film manufacturer or employee, v>as unanimous in the opinion that any increase in duty would not I>enefit any section of the business.

“Moreover, in regard to the quota, i Victorian exhibitors are now realising in full what an iniquitous proposal the I quota is. It has materially added to the exhibitors’ problems, and is indeed a harsh and restrictive legislative I act. So far as the Censor Board is I concerned, very few witnesses at the j commission, particularly those who : know anything of the business, had a word in favour of a woman being | appointed to the Board of Censors.

Whether any or all of these recommendations will be adopted aud incorporated in the laws of the Commonwealth remains to be seen. “But one thing does emerge, and that despite the fact that the industry was put to the trouble of spending thousands of pounds in the preparation of evidence, calling of witnesses, and giving every assistance to the commission, the findings are extremely damaging to the business.

“It is apparently clear to your commissioners,” says a report, “from the I evidence deduced, that there is no : American combine in existence in Australia, exercising a stranglehold over the motion-picture industry.*’ In discussing the report, the Minister of Customs, the late Mr. Prat ten. told Parliament that as the co-opera-tion of both State and Federal Governments was needed, he had asked Mr. Walter Marks, M.HJEL (chairman of the commission), to negotiate in j certain directions for the State Gov- • ernment to endeavour to secure unij form legislation.