Hearing Of Indecency Petition Opposed (Press, 10 September 1970)

On 9 September 1970, the New Zealand Parliamentary Petitions Committee began public hearings to assess four petitions advocating for stricter legal definitions of indecency, specifically concerning nudity, bare female breasts, and depictions of sexual intercourse, under the Crimes Act and the Cinematograph Films Act. The petitions were organised by Miss P. M. Bartlett from Wellington. During the hearings, the Justice Department expressed opposition to the petitions, arguing that there is inconclusive evidence linking nudity and explicit content in media to increases in crime or social issues in New Zealand. Mr. B. J. Cameron from the Justice Department highlighted that sexual crime rates have not risen and suggested that the societal changes reflected in these phenomena are more connected to broader Western societal trends than to the content of films or publications. He argued that legislation as proposed would necessitate significant cuts to documentaries and would struggle to clearly define what constitutes indecency. Cameron pointed out the arbitrary nature of applying rigid standards in a fluid cultural context, stating that public opinions about decency vary over time. Cameron also emphasised that the current law functions effectively by allowing flexibility to accommodate changes in societal values. He contended that individuals in a free society should be free to engage with various forms of expression, which means the burden of proof should lie with those advocating for restrictions. He tentatively outlined three scenarios where law might appropriately intervene in cases of indecency: if something offends ordinary public sensibilities, if content appeals purely to prurient interests, or if it causes significant social harm. Supporting the opposition to the petitions, the Department of Internal Affairs noted that defining indecency in the manner suggested could inadvertently promote sexual innuendo and would be unattainable given the wide spectrum of what may be deemed indecent. Their Secretary, Mr. P. J. O’Dea, questioned the feasibility of establishing a universally accepted definition of indecency, citing the complexities of human expression and behaviour. Miss Bartlett argued in favour of the petitions, linking the rise in sexually explicit content to increased incidents of venereal diseases and extramarital births. She expressed concern over societal double standards regarding decency and how they might influence youth attitudes towards sexuality and morality. She was particularly worried about the potential for an erosion of standards, warning of the emergence of exploitative content similar to that found in some overseas markets. Various groups presented their views during the hearings. While the Auckland Festival Society and the Auckland Film Society warned against imposing further limitations, citing these existing censorship laws as adequate, some individuals, like an Auckland housewife, pleaded for higher standards in media content, citing concerns about the moral future of New Zealand’s youth. The hearings were scheduled to continue on the following Tuesday and Wednesday, with members of the committee including both opposition and government representatives. The debate highlighted the tension between freedom of expression and concerns over morality in media, reflecting ongoing societal struggles regarding attitudes towards nudity and sexual content.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand