Film censorship

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34131, 19 April 1976, Page 12

Film censorship

Sir, — Recently my wife, myself and our five-month-old son were refused admission to an Rl6 film on the grounds that our child was younger than the designated 16 years. Although superficially appearing to be a ludicrous interpretation of the law, it is in fact a true assessment. Consequently unreasonable restrictions are placed on the types of entertainment a young family can choose. A patently absurd law such as this works either only to push the family apart or to force them to isolate. Both states are recognised by our society as potentially destructive to the family. In Australia a minimum age of five is stipulated in restricted films. Surely a similar approach could be adopted here without consequent moral de-

generation of the young of New Zealand. — Yours, etc., N. F. SENIOR. March 31, 1976. [Mr D. C. Mclntosh, Chief Censor and Registrar of Films, replies: “I am sorry your correspondent Mr N. F. Senior was unable to attend a restricted film because he and his wife had their 5-month-old son with them. As new legislation on censorship is at present under consideration by a select committee of the House of Representatives I suggest that he should make submissions to that committee on the matter which is of some concern to many parents.”]