The Press WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1963. Indecent Publications Bill

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30179, 10 July 1963, Page 14

The Press WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1963. Indecent Publications Bill

Revisions in the original draft of the Indecent Publications Bill testify to the earnest endeavours of the Attorney-General (Mr Hanan) and his advisers to remedy the unsatisfactory methods of controlling books. The bill is an attempt to devise procedures for a tribunal for which there are no precedents, and to define, where definition is practicable, principles by which the tribunal will be guided. A control of this type deals with conceptions that are largely subjective. There can be no rule of thumb for all books; laws to suppress or curb certain tendencies are bound to be to some extent arbitrary and vague; and here censorship presents serious difficulties. Everywhere it has been found difficult to protect serious literature from laws designed to curb obscenity. New Zealanders may with reason be apprehensive about an administrative censorship of publications; but it should certainly be an improvement on the present system, which suffers from both the uncertainties of judicial decision and practice and arbitrary and unpublished decisions by police and customs officers. The principles to be followed in determining the character of “any book or * sound recording ” are liberal enough; but the inclusion of “sound record“ing” (which does not appear to be clearly defined in the bill) may complicate the tribunal's deliberations. It is jhe written word that is enduring and which is vital to intellectual progress and artistic development. Different standards might well be appropriate for the more transitory medium. The tribunal will be required to apply the test recommended by Mr Justice Stable in the High Court of England in the Martin Secker-Warburg case: a book should be judged as a whole and not by isolated passages. The revised draft seeks to clarify this principle, perhaps unnecessarily, by .adding a sub-clause requiring the tribunal to decide whether the author of a book was pursuing an honest purpose and an honest thread of thought or whether the content of the

book is merely camouflage designed to render acceptable any indecent parts of the book. Another sub-

clause requires that books devoted to the interests of art, literature, science, or learning, which would have a limited circulation, should not be classified as indecent if the tribunal judged them to be “ for the public good ”. This is a monumentally difficult phrase to interpret. A possible standard for interpreting it appears in recent United Kingdom legislation; it is part of a judgment of the English Court of Criminal Appeal in 1934 which held it to be a good defence that the " publication of matter “prima facie obscene was “ for the public good, as “being necessary or advan“tageousto religion, science, “ literature or art, provided “ that the manner and “extent of the publication “does not exceed what the “public requires”. The difficult question of publicity for the tribunal’s proceedings, or proceedings that may go from the tribunal to the Court of Appeal, is dealt with more extensively in the revision than in the original draft, the Attorney-General having gone some way towards meeting earlier criticism. By and large, the tribunal’s powers to prevent publicity that might advertise undesirable literature are preserved in the revision, but with useful safeguards against secret censorship. Where it is decided that in the interest of public morality, “ all or any “ persons ” should be excluded from proceedings, this power will not be exercised to exclude any party to the proceedings, any barrister or solicitor, or any accredited newspaper reporter. Anyone, official or private person, will be permitted to submit a book or sound recording to the tribunal. This should be of great advantage to booksellers who have no means of discovering in advance whether a book is regarded as decent or indecent. A tribunal whose members will hold office for five years should at least set consistent standards by which booksellers may reasonably conduct their businesses. Mr Hanan’s bill is certain to receive the very close examination of Parliament. It is to be hoped that the House will bring to the subject the same liberal, progressive approach of the author of the bill.