Temporary-ban Power Sought For Tribunal (Press, 5 August 1972)

On 5 August 1972, news emerged from Wellington regarding the introduction of the Indecent Publications Amendment Bill in New Zealand Parliament. The bill grants the chairman of the Indecent Publications Tribunal the authority to issue interim restriction orders on books or sound recordings submitted to the tribunal. This order would temporarily prohibit the distribution, sale, or any dealings with the publication while the tribunal deliberates. Such an order would initially last for one month but could be extended for an additional two months, providing the tribunal adequate time to reach a decision. During the introduction of the bill, the Minister of Justice, Sir Roy Jack, acknowledged that the proposed measure did not fully satisfy some critics, as it does not automatically ban the sale of publications before a tribunal ruling. Instead, it enables the Comptroller of Customs or the Secretary of Justice to petition for an interim order once a publication is submitted. Sir Roy Jack emphasised that this process interposes judicial authority between the Executive and the public, ensuring appropriate safeguards for individual freedoms regarding publication distribution. Another significant change introduced in the bill is a clause stipulating that if the tribunal identifies at least three editions of a periodical as indecent within a twelve-month period, it may implement an order effective for up to two years on all subsequent issues. Future editions would be presumed indecent unless explicitly cleared by the tribunal. The bill also aligns the tribunal's procedures more closely with those of the courts concerning decision announcements, removing the obligation to disclose every decision in open court while maintaining the overall publicity of the decisions. New offences of strict liability are introduced, making it illegal to sell or distribute indecent documents or sound recordings, exhibit such documents in public view, or send unsolicited indecent materials for payment. The maximum fine for these offences is raised from NZ$200 to NZ$500, while penalties for knowledge-based offences increase similarly, with maximum fines rising from NZ$400 to NZ$500 for individuals and from NZ$1,000 to NZ$2,000 for corporate entities. Additionally, the period for initiating proceedings is extended from six months to two years, addressing challenges in prosecuting distributors as opposed to immediate sellers. The amendments stem from recommendations made by the Petitions Committee after receiving petitions from individuals such as Miss Patricia Bartlett and others concerned about indecency issues. The police also contributed suggestions to address weaknesses within the primary act, which had not been amended since its enactment in 1963. Opposition reactions included those of Dr A. M. Finlay, who expressed initial reservations about the bill, particularly regarding the presumption of future guilt established by one of its clauses. Leader of the Opposition Mr Kirk raised concerns that a restricted publication list could inadvertently serve as a guide to pornography. In response, Sir Roy Jack assured that the maximum three-month duration of restriction orders would protect the public effectively. The bill has been scheduled for a first reading and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee for further consideration.

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