Cinema delicensing but no drive-ins

Press, 13 August 1980, Page 6

Cinema delicensing but no drive-ins

Parliamentary reporter , Drive-in cinemas will not; be permitted under the Cine-i matograph Films Amendment I Bill introduced in Parliament; yesterday. The intention of the bill is to delicense the cinema in- 1 dustry to allow free and] open competition by film ex- 1 hibitors and renters. ■ Drive-in cinemas, however,] are specifically exempted,] keeping Masters Independent,' Theatres’ plans for one at: New Brighton as far away as' ever. '

The bill was referred to] the Commerce and Energy; Select Committee. In Christchurch last even-' ing, Mr H. L. Masters, of] Masters Independent Theat-i res., said the new legislation! might eventually change the' Government’s position against drive-in theatres. The bill did not change the rules on such theatres, but it set the stage for such, change, he said. /

“If you are free on licensing.] it frees everything to a certain extent.” Mr Masters runs six theatres and plans a joint drive-in! venture with Amalgamated Theatres. - . A year ago,. the Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Highet) said that drive-in theatres would not come. Be-] cause of energy problems, the Government could not! permit the introduction of an] entertainment form that!

would encourage the use oi motor-vehicles. In Parliament, the membet for St Albans (Mr D. F. Cay gill) said that the bill did not protect the small independent cinema exhibitor, 'particularly in rural areas. “Kerridge is an arm oi E.M.1.. and Amalgamated h linked with Twentieth Cen-tury-Fox. These chains iny port most major films seen in New Zealand. What guarantee is there that the small operator will get films brought in by these chains? Mr Caygill asked. Mr Highet (who introduced the bill): What guarantee is there now? There were adequate potvers under the Commerce Act, 1975. to deal with restrictive trade practices and monopolies not in the public interest, he said. In an unusual move, z Government member. Mr P I. Wilkinson (Kaipara), questioned the bill’s lack of protection of the small exhibitor. He would be subject tc uncontrolled competition from service organisations, hotels, and schools. Mr Highet said he hac consulted all interested parties, but had been unable to produce an acceptable formula. This might come in select committee stages. Mr. E. E. Isbey (Lab., Papatoetoe) said the bill allowec “ooen slather” against established exhibitors who had loyally served small communities. “It means movies in gar-

. ages," said the Labour memiber for Timaru. Sir Basil i Arthur. Mr Highet said it was not I the-Government’s belief that I the main chains — Kerridge lOdeon, and Amalgamated — I should receive protection from competition. ' "At present, the Films I Licensing Authority will not l grant additional licences I where existing exhibitors are | meeting localities’ needs. ! “In other words, the auth- ; ority protects one small ! group of the community from ! competitors who may provide • better films and facilities, [and also from the efforts of I community-based organisai tions, such as church groups, ; parent-teacher associations ; and schools.” said Mr Highet. i Schools were responsible | for half of all present applica- • tions to the -Films Licensing 'Authority, Mr Highet said, (but under present legislation received only restricted •licences. j The bill also gives the chief censor power to i exempt an organisation from ■I submitting films for examinaitibn. At present the Chief Censor can exempt only certain films falling into cateIgories specified .’ in' the ; Cinematograph Films; RegulaI tions. I- Another change in the bill ] allows. the Minister for the ] Arts to withdraw from, exhi- ’ bition a-film “injurious to-the j public good,” and refer it to i the Film Censorship Board, of i Review only. At present any | re-examination is by the i Chief Censor or the Review {Board.