Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

What we are debating today in taking note of answers is the forthcoming ABC drama on the waterfront dispute entitled Bastard Boys. They have got the title right to begin with, I suspect. It is a good way to start. We all know which group that title would be referring to—the union. I expect that would go directly to the heart of the union. In fact, I believe the union would wear that sort of title with honour. I do not think they would even object to the title. To that extent, I would suspect the ABC have already got their title right. But what Senator Lundy has not conceded in relation to this forthcoming drama is that the government encourage drama at the ABC. In fact, in our last budget we increased their funding for drama. The ABC would be incapable of making such a series, or one-off drama, without the extra government funding. Senator Lundy failed to give the government credit for that.

I will quote Senator Fierravanti-Wells extensively in a minute, but it is quite understandable for the likes of Senator Fierravanti-Wells, me and anyone in the public to question the ethics of the ABC before the drama is made. Why should we wait until it is made? We are simply sending out signals to an organisation that has form with such dramas to get the facts right. We do not object to such an issue being put down in drama form; in fact, we welcome it. We just want there to be a balanced approach. The producer has assured us that it will be a balanced approach. We want an honest assessment of the past because, if we get an honest assessment of the waterfront dispute, we will see who were the real bastard boys and who was trying to get it right. That is what the real assessment will find. Let us put that down on the record. The ABC cannot shirk the tag of having some form in the past—as recently as the disowning of the Jonestown book. If they are going to be honest, they ought to reflect the government’s role, Patrick’s role and the union’s role as they were. I am informed that the producer, Sue Smith, has gone around and interviewed each person; so she should be able to extract the truth of the matter and it should not be one-sided.

I see that Peter Reith will be playing himself in film footage and that they have actors for Bill Kelty and Jennie George. I want to know who is playing Kim Carr. Kim Carr was seen there more times than any of those players in this dispute. He lived and breathed down at the waterfront during that dispute. There are pictures and old film footage of him. I think he would be happy to play himself. In fact, is he part of this particular drama? There was no-one more disgracefully involved in the waterfront dispute, and he wears it as a badge of honour. He loves the tag anyway. He lived and slept there and linked arms down at the gates of the waterfront. It is an absurdity to say that that dispute—and history will show this—was not found in the courts to be illegal. The strike held out the front of the gates was deemed to be illegal.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells has sent out the signal that all she seeks is balance. She warned the ABC and so do all of us. Why shouldn’t we? We have been given assurances by the producer, Sue Smith, who also has on her CV The Brides of Christ and The Leaving of Liverpool. I did not see The Leaving of Liverpool; I saw extracts of The Brides of Christ. They were not bad shows. I think The Brides of Christ was slightly tilted towards an anti-Catholic position, but I do not think anyone need be precious about it. It was a very popular show. (Time expired)