Censorship of Books

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26095, 24 April 1950, Page 6

Censorship of Books

The Dunedin branch of the Associated Booksellers of New Zealand has been wise to ask the new Government to review the system—or lack of system—under which books are censored in this country. Many similar requests were made to the last Government without success. They came mainly from booksellers and library organisations; there was no easily discernible demand for reform from the reading public. The Government, therefore, was able to reply that as the system seemed to work tolerably well it needed no amendment. This is not a good defence. It is fair to say that the great majority of the public do not realise there is a literary censorship; and they have no reason, therefore, to be either satisfied or dissatisfied with the way their reading is overseen and restricted. That those who are most closely in touch with the working' of the system are thoroughly dissatisfied with it, however, establishes at least a prima facie case for reform. Librarians have described the censorship as casual, arbitrary, and ill-informed. The little that is known about how the system works certainly does not commend it. The censors, in the first place, are officials of the Customs Department, who are charged by section 46 of the Customs Act with the responsibility of prohibiting the importation of anything indecent within the meaning of the Indecent Publications Act, 1910. This is objectionable in principle, because the original legislation contemplated that only the Courts would decide what publications are indecent. Few will argue that the officers of a fiscal department are the best qualified persons to decide a question of moral censorship; and the System is not justified by the practice of referring doubtful cases to “ advis- “ ers ”, the identity of whom is not known to the public. It is important that where the liberties of the public have to be curtailed, for the public good, everyone affected should know how the system works and who operates it. The Government would do well to give careful consideration to the proposals, put forward by a committee under Dr. G. H; Scholefield in 1946, for a board of three qualified persons to carry out the functions of censorship. Although the committee described this as an “ advisory ” board, it clearly intended that the board’s decisions should be effective, because it proposed that there should be a right of appeal against them to “ a legal person of “high standing ”. Few will doubt the need for a form of censorship. But the power to prohibit the sale of books should be used sparingly, intelligently, and consistently; and ft must be wielded by an authority in which the public has confidence.