NO REGULATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION ?

It is now some months since the report of the Mazengarb Committee was released. At that time, we pointed out to members that the report was of much interest to anyone interested in films. It was also (quite apart from any comments which one might make about the usefuleness of its statements on other matters) a fairly useful document on the subject of films.

One of the chief features of its comments on films was the clear and unequivocal recommendation that the regulations under the 1953 Amendment Act be proceeded with and gazetted without delay. The day after the report was released, the papers carried a statement saying that discussions were then going on over the regulations, between the Department of Internal Affairs, and the trade representatives. These had, in fact, then been going on for some time, and there was no suggestion that they had been hastily called together because of the report.

The weeks have become months; but the regulations have not become law.

The situation can only be regarded as extremely disturbing. It is hard to imagine that the Department of Internal Affairs did not have a clear idea of what it wished the regulations to be. It was, of course, more or less stated at various times that draft regulations were prepared, and it would be astonishing if they had not been. But, if this is so, and if the Department did know what it wanted, then there can be only one reason  for the delay. This is, of course., that the trade have been opposed to the draft which the Department has put forward. No other explanation appears possible.

The Censor, Mr Mirams, has publicly stated his belief that the formulation of regulations badly needs to be done. He said so, for instance, in the radio discussion on films recorded with Miss Mary Field while she was here and broadcast on November 5th. He also stated at least some matters which exercised his mind, and we assume that regulations correcting these would be, in his opinion, desirable. There does not seem much likelihood, then, that the delay is caused because the Departrient hasna't yet made up its mind. The opposition by the trade seems the ony explanation.

This is serious. It is serious, because those who, like the Censor, have, thought much about films come to fairly obvious
conclusions about the necessary measures. Yet the trade can, presumably, by its opposition hold up the putting into effect of regulations which are greatly needed.

It is serious because the Censor in New Zealand has an onerous job, and he has been carrying it out for too long now without being able to act under sensible and practical regulations. Once again, the plain facts, openly known and stated, point to a far too inadequate support for the Censor on the part of the Internal Affairs Department and the Minister.

It is serious because, while it must be concluded that some measure of opposition from the trade is holding up the overhaul of the Censorship regulations, there has been no indication that anyone, or any organisation, other than the trade is to be allowed' to have a voice in what is going on.

Filmgoers are the "consumers" in this business. Has there been any request to such organisations as, the NZ Film Institute - or to any other organisation of parents, or interested in children — to pass an opinion on the draft  regulations which must be in existence? There has not.

Why on earth should the trade be allowed the final opinion (and so far it looks more like a veto than an opinion) on what should be in the regulations? The trade has shown, recently over the visit of Miss Field, that it can be most helpful and co-operative. We acknowledged this publicly, and will do so again. But with the most disinterested and co-operative trade in the world, the principle is still the same - it is utterly wrong if regulations vitally affecting all of us as ordinary filmgoers can be discussed fully with the trade and not at all with anyone else.

Now, if the regulations are issued, they may be as the Department of Internal Affairs drafted them in the first place. If so, then the opposition must have served no purpose than to cause unecessary delays. Or they may be amended. If so, in what way? We can only assume that it will be towards the interests of the trade. But is this always the same as that of the consumers?

The facts, unfortunately, say: N0. If the trade had wished to consider the interests of consumers, it could have done so before now. The showing of horror trailers at children's matinees, for instance, has been quoted many times as a grave error of judgment. The trade has not so far stopped the practice; so presumably only regulations can meet the situation.   Many theatres have become lamentably lax about screening the Censor's certificate (Your Editor at three successive trips to different theatres saw the certifjcate twice on the curtain, illegibly, and once not at all!) Such breaches as these must be made harder to commit.

The trade, very rightly and justifiably, must consider first the financial aspect of its operations. None of us would deny their right to do so. But the situation to date surely shows that the interest of the trade and of the consumers is different.

When the Mazengarb report was released, there seemed to be pretty general public support for it. The public does't want, within a couple of months, to see one of the important recommendations of the committee ignored, least of all when it seems that no-one is stopping to ask whether the ordinary people will like what may be going on. A motto of "No regulation without representation" seems to be called for!

Then what do we want to correct the situation?

First, we want the NZ Film Institute, and other bodies, who may be interested. (those who were asked to give their opinions to the Mazengarb committee, for example) to be given the opportunity to see, and comment upon, the regulations. Second, we want to see evidence (lacking in the facts which emerged from the report, and lacking in the history of events since the he passing of the Amendment Act a year ago) that the Department of Internal Affairs realises the extreme importance of the Censor's work, realises his difficulties, and is willing to get  machinery set up so that his work can be easier, and more effectively supervised.

Third, we want more appreciation that while the trade is undoubtedly entitled to an opinion, it is not entitled to the sole opinion - and far from entitled to any influence over the regulations which will make them less in the public interest. Fourth, we want no patchwork approach. It has taken long enough. Issuing of part of the promised revision, or regulations with inadequate strength, will not be easily taken at this stage by the public. And, fifth,, we want some rather rapid action on the matter. It shouldn't take a year and more to get regulations of this sort framed and issued.

Matters like this must be of concern to members of our Society. Our constitution lays down as one of our aims, a general interest in furthering the conditions under which films are shown. We are all interested enough to join the Society, which means we take more than an average interest in films. If we don't take a live interest in the machinery of Censorship, then we cannot pass the buck if it is unsatisfactory - and cannot blame the public, with less specific interest in films - for failing to demand something better. We do not apologise, then, for statlng frankly, and at some length, our concern.