History of censorship law in New Zealand
The following information is based on Censored - a short history
of censorship in New Zealand by Paul Christoffel. If you would like to view the entire book click here to download a PDF: Department of Internal Affairs.
Published by the Research Unit, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington.
Monograph Series No. 12. 1989.
ISSN 0112-1502
ISBN 0-477-05633-4
The censorship of printed material and sound recordings
Customs was regulating the importation of indecent material into New Zealand as early as 1858, but the first censorship legislation was not enacted until 1892.
The Offensive Publications Act 1892 banned any picture or printed or written matter which was of an indecent, immoral, or obscene nature, which included advertisements relating to such matters as venereal disease. The Act laid down the criteria that magistrates should take into account when determining the indecency of material.
This Act was replaced by the Police Offences Act in 1908. After two years this system of censoring publications was again revised.
The Indecent Publications Act of 1910 introduced the principle that a publication could be recognised as having literary, scientific or artistic merit. This merit principle has continued, and expanded in subsequent legislation, and is still part of censorship law today. It now includes educational, social and cultural merit as well.
The 1910 Act remained in force until the Indecent Publications Act 1954. The 1954 Act incorporated new measures to deal with comics, which were a cause of some concern at the time. This Act extended the definition of indecency to include undue emphasis on matters of sex, horror, crime, cruelty or violence. In 1961 the Act was amended to include sound recordings.
A new system for censoring publications came into being with the passing of the Indecent Publications Act 1963. Earlier Acts were policed by a range of different government departments and committees. This Act established the Indecent Publications Tribunal (IPT) a single arbiter of indecency in books, magazines and sound recordings. Other documents, including photographs still fell under the jurisdiction of the Courts.
The IPT was made up of five members, all appointed for a limited term. The chairperson was required to be a judge or a lawyer with at least seven years experience. Two of the members were required to have special qualifications in literature or education.
One of the aims of setting up the IPT was to protect works of literature from public officials (who had previously made these decisions) who had few qualifications to assess their merits. However, over the years works of obvious literary merit all but disappeared from the Tribunal's workload. During the 1970's, sex magazines, particularly those with photographs, came to dominate the work of the Tribunal.
The Indecent Publications Act 1963 and the Indecent Publications Tribunal remained in force until they were replaced by the current Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 and the Office of Film and Literature Classification.
The censorship of films
Films became subject to state censorship in 1916 with the passing of the Cinematograph-Film Censorship Act. It was under this Act that New Zealand's first film censor was appointed.
The 1916 Act made it illegal to show any film, which had not first been approved by the government-appointed censor. The Act directed the censor not to approve any film that in the opinion of the censor, depicts any matter that is against public order and decency, or the exhibition of which for any other reason is, in the opinion of the censor, undesirable in the public interest.
The Department of Internal Affairs assumed responsibility for the film censorship system and retained this responsibility up until late 1994 when the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 took effect.
In the 1920s, a system of recommended classifications was introduced. A U classification indicated universal the film was suitable for everyone to see. An A classification indicated the film was suitable for adults. Although films could be restricted to particular audiences, age restrictions were rarely used until the 1950s.
The Cinematograph Film Censorship Act 1916 was replaced by the Cinematograph Films Act in 1928. The new Act extended the scope of legislation to deal with aspects of the film industry not directly related to censorship; for example, it introduced a picture theatre licensing system.
In 1934, Parliament set up a Committee to enquire into the Cinema Industry. It looked briefly at censorship. A consequent amendment to the Cinematograph Films Act allowed the Minister of Internal Affairs to appeal against censorship decisions, and introduced a special R classification that enabled the censor to limit films to film societies only.
The Cinematograph Films Act 1976 shifted the focus of censorship away from public order and decency and introduced a new test. The censor was now required to determine whether a film is or is not likely to be injurious to the public good. The Act listed several criteria that the censor should take into account in determining this. The successor to this Act, the Films Act 1983, retained this test.
Apart from an amendment in 1990, the Films Act 1983 and the post of
Chief Censor of Films remained in force until the current Films, Videos,
and Publications Classification Act 1993 and the Office of Film and
Literature Classification replaced them.
The censorship of video recordings
The use of video recordings increased in the 1980s, and debate arose
as to whether these should be subject to some form of classification.
In response to public concerns, the Video Recordings Act was passed in 1987. The Act established the Video Recordings Authority (VRA), the decision-making equivalent of the film censor, which it charged with classifying videos of a restricted nature. The Video Recordings Authority was administered by the Department of Internal Affairs.
The Act required all videos for sale or hire to carry rating or classification labels. Rating decisions, which were recommendations as to the likely suitable audience for the video, were made by a labelling body, on the basis of classifications by the New Zealand film censor, overseas film censors, or on occasions by viewing it themselves. Any video that was a candidate for restriction, cutting or being banned, was required to be referred to the VRA.
Apart from an amendment in 1990, the Video Recordings Act 1987 and the Video Recordings Authority remained in force until the current Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 and the Office of Film and Literature Classification replaced them.
The Committee of Inquiry into Pornography
The Government set up a committee of inquiry - The Committee of Inquiry
into Pornography - in July 1987 in response to public concern about
the classification system.
One of the concerns was that the split in jurisdiction between the film censor on the one hand (who continued to classify films intended for public exhibition), and the VRA on the other (which classified videos intended for private use) resulted in inconsistent decisions. Adding to this issue, some distributors exploited the split and marketed videos classified by the apparently more liberal film censor on the pretext that they were intended for public exhibition.
The Committee released its report, based on extensive consultation and investigation, in February 1989. Two of its central recommendations were for the censorship of films, videos and publications to be dealt with by one comprehensive Act of Parliament and that decisions be made by one administering government department.
The Office of Film and Literature Classification
The current censorship legislation, the Films, Videos, and Publications
Act, was passed in 1993. This Act implemented some of the Committee's
recommendations. The Act established the Office of Film and Literature
Classification to replace the other censorship bodies mentioned above.
The Office opened in October 1994.
The Act was amended in 2005. These amendments included adding self harm and highly offensive language to the criteria under which a publication could be restricted. The penalties for possession of an objectionable publication rose to a term of up to 5 years imprisonment for an individual, and for distribution up to 10 years imprisonment.
For more information on the history of censorship you can download the NCEA resource booklet (PDF V 7.0, 771kb).