Senator CHRIS EVANS (12:03 PM) —I move:

That regulation 15 of the Migration Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 104 and made under the Migration Act 1958 , be disallowed.

I want to explain what this regulation does. Statutory rule No. 104 amending the migration regulations would remove the requirement that producers of motion pictures filmed in Australia with offshore funds give Australian performers a reasonable opportunity to participate in all levels of production and remove the requirement for consultation with a union. At present, the migration regulations allow the minister to grant temporary visas for foreign actors to work on such productions, provided:

(c) the application is supported by a certificate given by the Arts Minister . . . confirming that:

(i) citizens or residents of Australia have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to participate in all levels of production; and

(ii) the foreign investment or the private investment guaranteed against the foreign returns by a distributor, in the production, is greater than the amount to be expended on entertainers sponsored for entry.

Statutory rule 104 would allow the minister simply to certify that:

(ii) . . . the production is fully funded offshore.

And the producer would no longer have to have `consulted with the relevant Australian unions'. So what we have here is an attempt by the government, by regulation, firstly, to remove the requirement that they consult with the media alliance regarding the foreign funded film or production and, secondly, to remove the requirement that some opportunity be given for Australian actors and production crews to be involved in the production. It seems to me that this can only mean one thing—that the emphasis this regulation imposes to encourage the employment of Australian actors and production crews will be removed.

As I understand it, what happens in practice is that the union is consulted about applications and, generally, in consultation with the producer of the overseas production, it arranges for a casting process to ensure that Australian acting talent has the opportunity to be reviewed by the producers with a view to their taking acting parts in the production. This is mainly for smaller parts. Often foreign funded films come with their own major lead parts already allocated, but the idea is to give the opportunity for Australian actors to get smaller parts in these productions.

I think that that in itself is a very useful thing. There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that this is not working well in its current form. There has been no evidence produced to prove problems exist with the current system. As I say, this is a question of encouraging use of Australian talent and about protection of Australian jobs. It is not about union power; it is about protecting Australian jobs—giving opportunities to Australian actors and production crews to participate in foreign funded films. So I think the key word is one of opportunity. The current provisions are not a crude quota system. Producers are not forced to take a certain proportion of Australian actors. Rather, all they are required to do is to go through a process which allows them to cast Australian actors and encourages them to have a look at the Australian talent.

The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, which is the relevant union, has no right of veto in the regulations, only the right to be consulted. They take their role of encouraging the use of Australian actors very seriously. They have a keen interest in promoting Australian talent and in gaining opportunities for work for their members. So they get consulted but they have no role of veto. As I understand it, in the last decade, the alliance has never once recommended against granting any visa for foreign performers in a foreign funded production. The union is given a maximum of 10 days to comment. On aver age, the process only takes four or five days and, sometimes, the turnaround is even quicker.

Since 1994, the value of offshore funded productions in Australia has doubled from $97 million to $194 million. So it is not an insubstantial amount of investment. The history of this matter under the current regulations is that the value of offshore funded productions has doubled since 1994. These are based on figures provided by the Australian Film Commission's national survey of feature film and independent TV drama production for 1996-97. So, far from seeing any suggestion that foreigners are not prepared to invest in productions in Australia, we have seen a doubling of that investment since 1994, and since 1991 every major US film studio and television network has filmed in Australia. There is no evidence of people being unwilling to invest substantial sums of money in productions in this country.

There is a minority of American and some other producers who are unwilling to participate in countries like Australia. They do not like some of the regulations involved. They might include this regulation, but I understand they also include things such as safety requirements, the need to pay extras for appearing in the films, the requirement to secure a bond against payment of wages—all the normal sorts of security and industrial issues that we take for granted in this country. There is no doubt some producers do not want to come to countries like Australia where those sorts of regulations are imposed.

But I am afraid my view is that we do not want them if they are not prepared to take the proper precautions to protect the actors, to ensure they are properly paid and to ensure the production is professional. As I understand it, they tend to go to places like Mexico where those requirements are not necessarily enforced. But, as I say, the major production houses—the people we are interested in getting to this country—have shown no sign of being deterred.

I do not understand what the government's motivation for this is. I will be interested to hear the explanation given by the Minister for Justice (Senator Vanstone) because, on the evidence I have seen, I have no understanding of what motivates the government other than my concern that maybe it is again a question of the government punishing its critics. All I can detect from the evidence I have reviewed is that there may be a problem with the government's attitude to involving the media and arts alliance in this consultation process.

I have seen what the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) has had to say on the subject. His concentration seems to have been on the question of union consultation, but he has not paid much attention to the question which is at the heart of this issue, and that is the protection and encouragement of Australian jobs. That is what concerns me about the regulation proposed by the government, and that is why I am moving this disallowance motion.

I understand that many of the American producers who have come to this country have been pleasantly surprised by the suitability of local talent, and they have taken the opportunity to cast local talent in many of these productions. I think Australians are all very proud of the success of Australian actors both here and abroad in recent years. The current regulations have allowed a win-win situation to occur in that actors have secured work and foreign producers have been spared the expense and logistics of bringing actors to this country. This has helped underpin the development of expertise among Australian actors, the development of their skills, which has allowed them to contribute to the growth and development of the Australian film industry.

It is important that we look at the plight of actors in this country, because it is vital that we provide some encouragement for them. They are not generally very well paid or very secure in their employment. I know people tend to concentrate on the major stars and the sort of money they make, but the reality of life for most actors is one of continuing long periods of unemployment and very poor wages.

I understand that the average unemployment rate for actors is around the 85 per cent mark and their annual income, according to the Australia Council, is in the order of $12,500. So we are not talking about the Mel Gibsons or whatever of the world; we are talking about local acting talent who go long periods without work and who work for quite low wages in trying to develop their skills, gain experience and develop their careers. It is these people who will be affected by the removal of this regulation, not the big name stars.

In case someone was concerned that this was somehow some sort of unique Australian phenomenon, I want to point out that similar approaches are applied in both the United States, and the UK and other sections of Europe where the local actors are protected by similar regulations. The regulations for Australian actors trying to get work in somewhere like Hollywood are far more restrictive and far harder to crack than for those American actors seeking to get work in Australia. We are not a leading protectionist nation when it comes to this issue. We have a very modest system to encourage the promotion of local talent and to encourage the use of local actors.

The regimes that exist in the United States and Britain are far more stringent. They reflect the concern of those countries to protect their local talent and to encourage their industry. Anything we can do to encourage our film industry is a good thing.

Senator Sherry —And their culture.

Senator CHRIS EVANS —Senator Sherry quite rightly interjects to raise the issue of culture, the protection of Australian culture. This is also an issue. When we look at encouraging Australian performance and Australian talent, it is an important contributor to promoting our unique Australian culture.

There are a number of good reasons why this regulation ought to remain in existence. The onus is clearly on the government to justify changing the rules. At this stage, I have heard no convincing argument as to why we should not leave the regulations as they are. The government has to make out its case. My main concern with the government's approach is that it might have a bit more to do with politics and the punishment of their critics rather than the central issue which is promoting jobs in the film industry.

When Minister Alston announced this change in November 1997, he referred to `perceived barriers to offshore funded productions'. I do not know what these perceived barriers are. I do not know what evidence is around to support that assertion. As far as I know, there has not been one single example of a production that was prevented from coming to Australia because of these rules. As I have already stressed, the evidence is that investment has doubled since 1994. All the major studios in America have had some productions involving filming in Australia. In my view there is no evidence to support the removal of these regulations.

I understand the minister relies, in part, on the Gonski report into Commonwealth assistance to the film industry, which recommended that union consultation should no longer be mandatory. I think it is important to note, if the government is going to rely on that report, that that report did not include the issue of whether Australian performers should be given a reasonable opportunity to participate in offshore funded productions. That was not one of its terms of reference. Most of the parties, if not all, who made submissions to that report did not canvass this issue because it was not raised with them. I do not think the government can rely on the Gonski report in defending this action; there has not been any debate that would warrant it. Even the conclusion of the Gonski report does not go nearly as far as the government is proposing with this measure.

I am not sure if the government just want to punish the Media Alliance. This regulation will not harm the union officials; it will harm the ordinary actors that they represent. It will harm the Australian film industry as a whole by reducing the valuable experience which locals gain when participating in offshore funded productions. No-one will be harmed if the government's amendment to this regulation is disallowed. Who could object to a requirement that local entertainers be given a reasonable opportunity to work on an offshore funded production? This is not a trade barrier. This is saying that we ought to allow Austral ian actors—citizens of this country—a reasonable opportunity to participate in foreign funded films that are filmed in this country. It is a most reasonable requirement. The move by the government to remove the regulation is unreasonable and is not supportive of creating jobs in Australia. I do not think they have any case to support their proposition.

If the government succeeds in removing this requirement, hardship will be inflicted on the many people struggling to earn a living in the film industry in this country. There is no good reason to allow the government's statutory rule No. 104 and every reason for the Senate to take steps to continue to protect the livelihood of Australian actors.