Censorship review remit defeated

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32977, 25 July 1972, Page 3

Censorship review remit defeated

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, July 24.

A move to seek Government review and consolidation of censorship laws was defeated at the annual conference of the National Party in Wellington today.

Mr J. J. Watts (Karori), moving the remit, said no-one would doubt the need for some censorship, particularly for the immature, but it must be shown to work fairly.

The remit was not asking for liberalisation or restriction, but for the law to be examined and consolidated.

At present, different laws covered books, films and stage presentations, and the different bodies controlling them. The laws also worked from somewhat different criteria.

The general standard of what was indecent should be fairly uniform, said Mr Watts.

Speakers opposing the remit said that different media such as books, television and films could not fairly be controlled by a uniform test.

Mr Watts replied that what was being sought was consolidation of legislation, not a uniform system. The remit was lost. Legal aid

A proposal that legal counsel should be provided for all people accused of offences which could incur a term of imprisonment was referred to the party’s Dominion council for consideration.

The remit had been put forward by the Maori advisory committee from its meeting on Friday. Reporting from the committee, Mr H. K. Ngata thanked the conference for its support of a remit calling on the Government to encourage and help the establishment of maraes in main cities with a large Polynesian population. A remit asking that manufacturers in areas where growth was below the national average, or where industry was being lost, be able to claim outward freights as a tax deduction at a rate of 150 per cent was carried by the conference without dissent.

Mr R. F. Walsh (St Kilda) I said regional development . often related to new industry, but it was also important to keep established I industry inside the community. Youth ministry The conference urged the Government to appoint a minister of youth, who would act along the lines of the Minister for the Environment and have wide-ranging powers. The recommendation came in an amendment from Mr Watts (Karori) to a Clutha remit that the Government establish a ministry of youth. Mr Watts said that there was no need to go as far as setting up a “bureaucratic machine” but a minister could be the focal point for New Zealand youth. Miss G. G. Wily (Miramar) said that if youth felt it had a direct line to the Cabinet through the minister “it would not be so ready to take to the streets on everything.”

The conference envisaged that the minister would harness the goodwill of youth groups to the practical needs of young New Zealanders, formulate a policy which would co-ordinate and advise youth groups, assist and encourage voluntary organisations, and initiate research into the need for youth organisations, particularly in cities. Some delegates said the time was not right for the Government to take such a step and that facilities were already available through the Internal Affairs Department. Life companies The conference defeated a move which would have the Government put further pressure on life insurance companies to make more funds available for housing and farm development. The remit urged the Government to restrict the amount of land and buildings that the companies owned within the commercial heart of cities. Mr P. Hannah (Auckland Central) said that insurance

companies were putting more and more into commercial properties and less money was available for housing finance. Mr D. Stone (Grey Lynn) said that life insurance salesmen said that loan money would be available when they sold policies, but when application was made the companies blamed the policies of the Minister of Finance for lack of money. A closer look would show that the money was tied up in commercial property. Those opposed to the remit said the Minister of Finance had quite adequate powers to persuade companies on how to invest their funds. The companies were there to protect the interests of their policyholders. Mr C. A. Price (Manukau) said that policies were taken out for family protection and that mortgages could be obtained from other sources. Mr Hannah replied that family protection was only one reason for a policy — the other was the hope of obtaining a mortgage. He also said that mortgages from other sources, such as trustee accounts and building societies, were at higher interest rates and for lesser terms.

Benefit payments A remit asking that unemployment benefit be paid only to single persons aged 20 and over, and to married people aged 16 years and over, was amended by the conference. The amendment, which was carried, added the words “except where reasonable cause will justify the benefit.” Mr P. A. Smith (Remuera) said the amendment removed an unjust restriction in the remit in cases where there was real need. Mr P. H. Malone (Nelson) said that while the committee was concerned about “dropouts, layabouts and professional unemployed” the remit restricted the position where persons were in genuine need of the benefit but under the age of 20.