THE FILMS BILL

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 19 September 1928, Page 6

THE FILMS BILL

PASSED BY THE HOUSE OBJECT OF THE MEASURE. I ' MUiOH OPPOSITION SHOWN. (By ‘ieiegraph—Press Association.) AVEDLJNIGTIOiN, Sep:. IS. TJie second reading of tlie Oiucmaitagraiph. Films Bill was moved in the House of Representatives to-day by the Prime Affinister. Mr (Coates said, it was designed to give greater encouragement to the. film industry an the British Empire. The object was to increase the knowledge and interest ot the young people ail British scenery and placets or historic interest. Before 'the war film-making was becoming an industry of consider able importance, but during the war the industry went out altogether. Tliis was an attempt to revive it, which was raised at the last Imperial. ■Conference, when it was felt that British people should get together and encourage film production within the Empire. Tq this end a Bill was introduced •last year, but was not proceeded with because considerable objection was raised in various quarters to the proposed quota of British films to be used. Now they had adopted the qudta provided for in the Bill passed by the House of Commons. It was a progressive quota rising in the case of renters from 7-} per cent, in 1929 to 20 per cent, in 1938. In‘the case of exhibitors it rose from 5 per cent, to 20 per cent, in 1938. In framing this quota they bad been most readily assisted by the exhibitors and film associations, which had voluntarily (agreed to accept the quota laid down in the Bill. In considering the Bill ‘the committee gave it very close attention, and be thought they had grasped its principles faihlv well', in spite of the smoke screens put up to prevent them •undertaking it. He thought everyone interested in the 'Bill had now admitted *U e wisdom of its principle. When the exbilbitotris (had accepted it voluiiitaraily tliat helped everybody greatly, and he believed the mind of ©he renters was that if there was going to be a quota it had better be accepted voluntarily, and that, he thought, would be the ultima):© position. ■Mr E. J. Howard said neather the renter® nor tihie exhibitors' wanted the Bill,' but it waist a matter brought lip at the Imperial Conference and to help the British film industry. The Prime Minister had entered into a gentleman’s agreement because the British film industry could not recover without some .such help ais that given under the Bill.' Britain had picture audiences of 40,000,000' people. In New Zealand they bad a picture audience of only onte million. It was therefore evident that we could not produce pictures of pur own, and it was estimated! that we were sending lannually £190,000 out of the country for the ulse of films. He was afraid the effect of this Bill would be t, a reduce the salaries of picture employees rather than to reduce the profits of picture producers. The jilm representatives appearing before the committee liad cut out all the clauses that hunt theiii until it could now hardly “be recognised’ as the Bill. It was originally proposed to tax films to the extent of £40,000, and the BffiLl came out with a possible revenue of £SOOO. It wais a bald-headed measure. That was because nt was an eleotion year and because the picture exhibitors threatened to use the power of the screen against the Government. From that moment the Bill underwent a change. Mr Howard did not see why the picture people should be punished by such, a measure any more than the motor people should he punished. However fill the sting had been taken out of it and that was because it was an election year. , Mr. A. Harris said the changes made in the Bill were not, made as a result of political propaganda, but as a result of meticulous investigation on the part of the committee, which had done most valuable work. The principle ol the BiH was sound, since it would teach our children to respect British interests and sentiments- rather than American. If the Bill did that it would be well worth while. Sir Joseph Ward said there was no demand in Britain for legislation such as this in recent years. He asserted that British films to-day were better than American films, and British films were being shown in America. _ Some years ago there was an agitation to protect the British film industry, hut that was not the position to-day. ; He was always ready to help the British film industry, but he did not think assistance was required at the present moment. He adversely criticised the taxation proposals of the Bill and what he called “miles” of regulations that might be .made by Order-in-Council, si proceeding one© so roundly condemned by the Reform Party when it was m Opposition. He did not suggest the Bill was not being introduced for a good purpose, but it was going to heap more taxation on the people. Already so far as sport and pleasure were concerned they were taxed up to the eyes. Mr. G. W. Forbes said the people should be permitted to see what films they wanted to see, and it would be just as logical to put a quota upon literature the people read. He did not doubt the Prime Minister was a wellmoaning mail, btrt ii> was a iact that a great deal of mischief was sometimes done by well-meaning persons. He could not see why compulsion should be used in connection with pictuies and 'he did not think the Bill would do wliat was desired. People would goto the pictures they wanted to see, and ii British films had the requisite merit the people would go to see them. Unit was the crux of the whole question. Mr. Forbes suggested that in preference to the provisions of the Bill. it would be better to pay a subsidy towards British films. He also strongly objected to the immense powers taken to make regulations by Order-in-Council.

Sir John Luke supported the Bill on account of its British basis. He saw no objection to the powers taken to make regulations, for ever since he had known Governments they had been saturated with regulations. Mr. T. M. Wilford complained that the preference formerly enjoyed by British films in the matter of income tax over American films had been taken away, as both films were now to be taxed at the rate of 121- per cent. The Minister of Finance said there was still preference to British films under the Customs Act.

Mr. Wilford said he Icnew that and appreciated it, but so far as the Bill was concerned the preference of 5 per cent, wlilcn previously existed had been taken away. He suggested that this preference' be restored. One of the greatest things in favour of British films would be the movie tone film, in which the actors had to speak as well as act, and unless American actors and actresses learned to speak properly they would empty the British theatres. The Leader of the Opposition objected tcf the power taken in the Bill to

suspend the operation of the Act it the law was not being broken. That was a most extraordinary power to I take, and it placed too large a discretion in the hands of the Government. He also objected to the taken to cancel contracts made. Cut down as it had been, he doubted it 'the Bill altered the position very much, because he understood more than the required quota of British pictures was now being shown. The Prime Minister replied, and the House went into committee on the Bui. After an hour’s discussion on the lines of the second reading debate, the Bill was reported, with only a fo , l i n - ia 1 amendment It was then read- a third time and passed. The House rose at 1 a.m.