By Mary Merkenich
MELBOURNE — On August 8, as part of the Melbourne International Film Festival, a panel debated the High Court's May ruling to allow New Zealand television programs to be included in the Australian content standard.
The panel members were Lesley Osborne, manager of the standards section at the Australian Broadcasting Authority; Anne Britton, a member of True Blue and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance; Patricia Edgar from the Australian Children's Television Foundation; Mara Bun from the Australian Consumers Association; and Jo Tyndall from the Screen-producers and Directors Association of NZ and Project Blue Sky.
The discussion, which reflected the strong feelings and criticism the court decision has unleashed among industry groups, raised questions about cultural sovereignty, national identity and self-esteem.
The main argument put by members and supporters of True Blue was that apart from the immediate "threat" from NZ programs, the decision enables the US to swamp the Australian television market with its programs.
Britton forecast the breaking down of any protection of the Australian industry. She stated that, outside of the US, no country has reasonable local content without government assistance, adding that the decision gave the networks a free kick to use cheaper NZ products, a case of "business versus culture".
Bun argued that open markets lead to a monoculture and that "our" national culture should never be compromised.
Edgar said Australians were embarrassed about being Australian, and make up an emasculated nation in a cultural vacuum. She added that we aren't aware of the power of mass media on self-esteem and our self-image, media which are overwhelmingly dominated by North American content.
Tyndall disputed that treating NZ products equally would pose a threat to Australian jobs and products because NZ has few saleable products. She said that the NZ industry is about one-fifth the size of Australia's.
She also argued that Australian products will continue to have an advantage in Australia, because of their appeal to Australian audiences.
The most emotive argument raised was that there is a threat to "Australian culture".
While it is true that the artistic and social development of nations or groups of people is important to their sense of self-worth, and that the destruction of a culture can mean the psychological death of a "nation" (e.g. the "stolen generations" of indigenous Australians), is it true that "our" Australian culture is under threat?
What is Australian culture after all? Is it Water Rats, Blue Heelers and Children of the Revolution, as Britton seemed to suggest?
I can't remember many Aborigines in Australian television programs. I also can't remember many true reflections of the multicultural society that Australia is. As a feminist, I'm also not too impressed with the portrayal of women, or the number of stories about them.
We must be very careful about arguing that Australian television and films are "better" just because they are Australian produced.
The Australia film and television industry has produced some wonderful work, but the industry must reflect a culture that is progressive and all-inclusive.
We should be fighting for this sort of industry, not some vague "Australian culture" that is actually just as foreign to the majority of Australians as the majority of Hollywood movies.