Books bill change ‘not needed’

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33051, 19 October 1972, Page 3

Books bill change ‘not needed’

fN.Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON, Oct. 18. The Opposition’s spokesman on justice, Dr A. M. Finlay (Henderson), is not convinced of the need to amend the Indecent Publications Act. , Dr Finlay told Parliament Hast night that some of the I more vocal advocates for •change seemed unaware of

the Indecent Publications Tribunal’s past activities. He was speaking during the second reading debate on the Indecent Publications Amend, ment Bill, which makes changes in the procedure, administration, and enforcement of the 1963 act.

The bill provides for the tribunal’s chairman to issue interim orders restricting the sale of any material submitted to the tribunal. Dr Finlay said there was a danger of the chairman acting as a rubber stamp to departmental submissions that a restriction order be applied

to publications placed before it. He said that had a restriction order been placed on the “Little Red School Book” only about 10,000 of the 81,000 copies sold would have been affected. He also referred to the “Patricia Bartlett Cookbook,” which, he said, should be condemned as obscene in the sense that the Vietnam war or despoliation of natural resources were obscene. There was not one good word which could be said about the book. Mr T. J. Young (Lab., Hutt), said he believed that

the provision for interim restriction was justified. If the law was to have force there had to be this restriction. If literature found to be indecent had been allowed to circulate the purpose of the legislation would have been undermined.

The public had rights on what was published as well as the publishers, and if the public reacted, Parliament was entitled to take notice, Mr Young said. The public was right to be concerned about some of the types of publications, and the illustrations in them.