NZFFS Conference 1975

The question of Censorship was raised again at the Annual Conference of the New Zealand Federation of Film Societies, held this year in Wellington from 24th to 26th of January. The guest speaker was the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Henry May.

"There was little doubt that the censorship provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act should be reconsidered," he said. "The censorship laws in the Act had not been fundamentally changed since 1916, despite great changes in society. I am sure that the fundamental orientation of the legislation should be that any film should be able to be seen unless there are strong reasons to the contrary. The criteria under which films could be rejected or cut should be laid down specifically, instead of the very general terms of the present Act."

But Mr May said he was not happy with the Cinematograph Films Amendment Bill - Jonathan Hunt's private Bill - which remained before the house up to the end of the last Parliamentary session. Although the Amendment Bill set out to specify criteria for censorship, it followed too closely the criteria laid down for the consideration of books and magazines by the Indecent Publications Tribunal. "To attempt to apply these same criteria to films, fails to take into account the inherent differences between the media and the different circumstances under which they are usually enjoyed," Mr May said.

A wider cross-section of opinion was needed in the censorship process and Mr May proposed that the old three-member Appeal Board should be increased to five members, with any particular appeal to be heard by three. He said he hoped a Government Bill revising the Act could be drafted and introduced this year. This Bill, together with the Private Member's Bill, would then be referred to a select committee to receive submissions.

"Such a public scrutiny is, I believe, very important for a Bill of this type where so many of the issues involved are so complex and contentious. Though I am keen to see changes made, my main concern is and must be to make sure that we achieve the best possible legislation for the future." Mr May added, however, that because the House had a heavy schedule of legislation before it this year, he could not see the Bill being passed into law this session. "I know that this time scale must be disappointing to many of you," he said, "but I would be less than frank with you if I led you to believe that anything could happen more quickly."

Following his address, Mr May left the Little Theatre and did not hear any of the reports from members of the working committee of the Federation.

The report from the Chairman of the working committee, Mr David Gascoigne, carried a sad but persistent refrain relating to censorship: "In each year there have been hopeful signs that the law and practice of film censorship would soon be accorded a long overdue revision. But each year the Chairman has had to record that the prospect has slipped away. This last year has been no exception. It was a year bright with expectation, but in the end the existing Cinematograph Films Act, creaking and anachronistic as it is, still prevails," he said.

"It is six years since the Federation was told that a review of the Act was under way. Six years is a long time to spend in preparation. The New Zealand Superannuation Act, a new and very complex statute, was drafted and enacted in two years. Why should the revision of a much less complicated piece of existing law take at least three times as long? Suspicions arise that successive Ministers of Internal Affairs and/or their Department may have been dragging their feet.

"At all events, there is really no excuse for having taken so long to have produced some results. During that six year period the Government had before it the very successful model of the Indecent Publications Act which, with only minor tinkering, can be adopted to the requirements of film censorship. And during the period there has been a growing public awareness that the existing system is both crude and unsatisfactory. The public opinion polls show that increasing awareness. So do the reported views of the people actually affected - a minority group - the cinema-goers themselves. So does the collective wisdom of both political parties: in the last two years both the Labour Party and the National Party Conferences have called for a revision and a relaxation of the law relating to film censorship. In fact very few people seem seriously to challenge the view that the law should become more balanced and more liberal than it is at present.

"I want to emphasise two points now because some people do not understand them and, in consequence, allow themselves to believe that film societies are extreme groups seeking special privileges. They are not and they don't.

"The first point is that, the fact that the Federation is foremost among those who press for reform, does not mean that film society members are avid pornographiles. The films chosen for and shown by film societies are selected purely on the basis of merit. That criterion in itself is enough to screen out prurient and trashy material. The Federation does not want the law changed so that film society members may, as the saying goes, wallow in this material. It wants the law changed because sensitive and intelligent films are sometimes mutilated through the application of a set of negative and oppressive legal rules which have lasted virtually unchanged since they were first introduced in 1916. A change in the law which will prevent the abuse of worthwhile films will satisfy the Federation.

"The second point - which arises from the first point - is that it is worth re-stating the Federation's position on the question of censorship." Mr Gascoigne then re-stated the three propositions:

- reprinted from Sequence, March 1975.