Inhibitions “necessary For A Healthy Society” (Press, 17 September 1970)

On 16 September 1970, the Parliamentary Petitions Committee in Wellington heard submissions regarding the definition of indecency in relation to nudity, sexual content, and film censorship. The discussion was prompted by a petition from Mrs E. S. Ramsay, a Christchurch housewife, along with three other women, advocating for the legal classification of nudity, bare female breasts, and depictions of sexual acts as indecent under the Crimes Act and the Cinematograph Films Act. This petition garnered nearly 50,000 signatures and was organised by Miss P. M. Bartlett. Rev. C. W. Haskell, a former headmaster in India and Pakistan, spoke before the committee, asserting that a healthy society requires inhibitions and a sense of guilt and shame. He contended that permitting public entertainments which trivialise chastity could have disastrous long-term consequences for the State. Miss Bartlett highlighted concerns about the influence of indecent films and advertising on moral standards, suggesting that the public may benefit from ordinary married couples serving as film censors rather than current censoring practices which might lead to desensitisation. Bartlett also expressed concern over the potential for nudity in films to lead to greater sexual exploitation. She pointed to a growing acceptance of nudity in films, including adaptations of classic literature, and stated that the acceptance of nudity would inevitably lead to further concessions in film content. Mrs E. McLennan, representing the Wellington Housewives’ Association, supported the call for tighter regulations, claiming a unanimous condemnation of sex and horror films. She stated that the rise in illegitimacy, venereal diseases, and sexual crimes in New Zealand was influenced by inappropriate media content. Heavily emphasising the detrimental effects of suggestive films on young audiences, she suggested that film importers should be legally required to provide more suitable content. The issue of public performances featuring nudity, such as the rock musical "Hair," and establishments like topless-waitress restaurants and striptease cabarets also came under scrutiny. Bartlett and McLennan urged for legislation to ban such exhibitions, expressing that they negatively impacted societal morals. Mrs F. I. Turnbull's submission, communicated by Mrs M. R. Hodder, reiterated the point that young audiences were predominantly consuming media that glamorises sex and violence, and thus required protection. The discussion touched on the changing landscape of Hollywood film ethics, which had loosened codes to revive dwindling box office returns. Mrs Ramsay warned that if the Legislature did not define indecency, entertainment would likely become increasingly provocative over time. She requested that government involvement was necessary to protect public morals and suggested a need for stronger policing of restricted films to keep them away from children. In response, Mr N. F. Fisher, president of the Motion Picture Exhibitors’ Association, defended the current legislation as adequate in protecting public interests. He reflected concerns about the inconsistency in the enforcement of existing film restrictions, particularly regarding the screening of restricted films on television. The committee concluded its hearings for the day, with plans to resume discussions the following Wednesday.

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