For as far back as I can remember, censorship has been both the opening topic and the chief topic of the Chairman's report. Today, at last and thank goodness, we can give the topic of censorship, as the opening batsman, a fairly speedy dismissal.

The new Cinematograph Films Act 1976 (why not simply the Films Act, by the way) came into force on April Fool's Day 1977. And it has been working well, and not at all foolishly, since then. As I've said before it just had to be better than the previously load of oppressive junk which we'd inherited from 1916. The new Act brings a sense of balance. The Censor now considers "the dominant effect of the film as a whole". He balances the good features against the bad features. And he considers "the likely effect on the audience likely to view the film". Good sensible stuff. I hope that our moral guardians, in their quieter moments, may acknowledge that the screens of our land have not, since April Fool's Day, been wholly flooded by porn and purience such as to wreck us all.

The new Act is, in fact, a modest document. The censorship provisions at least are an example of good political reform - a liberalising within the perceived limits of public tolerance. From the film-goers point of view, the new Act is not altogether ideal. It has its defects and I mentioned some of these at this time last year. But it will, I think, serve us all fairly satisfactorily for some time to come.

CENSORSHIP: THE PRACTICE

An immediate consequence of the passing of the new Act was a reduction in the number of cuts that were made (and a film may not now be cut without the distributor's approval) and in the number of films that were banned. The films that have been banned since the new Act took effect are, on the whole, sexploitation films or ultra-violence films. Not too many people will mourn them. There were a few films that, I think, could have been spared. Borowczyk's Immoral Tales and Tobe Hooper's Texas Chainsaw Massacre could, I suggest, have been shown to limited audiences. (There is an appeal decision pending about the first of those).

One satisfactory feature of the new censorship regime is that some films, previously banned under the old law, are now permitted under the new law. The most noteable of these was, of course, Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris. Having at last been able to see it, I thought it a powerful and excellent film. It is a great pity that for 4 years it was booted around, in absentia, in public controversy. Another example is Vilgot Sjoman's I am Curious Yellow. That film was banned under the old Act, but now along with I am Curious Blue has been approved for film society audiences in 1978.

We have had no trouble at all about film society films since the new Act came into force. The only real problem we encountered was an administrative one. The Federation is a licensed distributor for all film societies and acts as distributor in respect of many of the films screened at the Wellington and Auckland Film Festivals. Some of the films for those festivals actually arrive in the country within a few days - or even on the very day that they are due to be screened. That makes life hard for a busy Censor. And what if we decide that we need to appeal against one of his decisions? It just wouldn't work. There is an answer to this. I'd like to see the Censor given a discretionary power to exempt films for the two major festivals, when those films are of known purity and innocence.

CENSORSHIP: THE MAN HIMSELF

We get on well with Mr Bernie Tunnicliffe. He is, in my view, administering the new Act both sensibly and fairly. He is proving a worthy successor to Doug McIntosh, whose sad death a year ago denied him the opportunity of giving shape and direction to the new Act from its inception.

CENSORSHIP: THE BOARD OF REVIEW

I said this time last year that the Board of Review system was unwieldy and unfair in certain respects. I still believe that, but I must say that I was impressed with the calibre and range of experience of the members appointed to the Board on the Minister's recommendation. So far the Board has only considered two films. That is partly because fewer worthwhile films are being cut and banned. And it is also, I suspect, because it now costs $300 in fees to get a film before the Board of Review. At all events, the Board has so far said that Ken Russell's Tommy's R18 certificate will have to stay an R18 certificate. And its decision on Borowczyk's Immoral Tales is still pending. The new Board has not, therefore, had much of an opportunity to express its views publicly and thus suggest some guidelines. But that doesn't worry me. I won't be concerned if the Board of Review languishes for lack of work. If the Board became really busy, then that would only denote dissatisfaction with the Censor and/or the law.