PAAAAAA2005), bado hatute to tube todo vite sa sesakan sålereichended Shahidahadatása táto sustaina, saaaakaiana, M. JAN__N_N_Aletakat nem
GUNFIDENTIAL
5
17.
By comparison there has been little consultation on the decision to incorporate the censorship system proposal and the guidelines proposal in the bill to establish the film classification system. That decision and the details of both proposals were determined by SASI in consultation with CTEL.
18.
The initial drafting instructions specified that the Bill should contain amendments to the Regulations requiring that censors "shall ensure that no film is approved for exhibition which contains any matter likely to cause public offence on grounds of morality, religion, education, public order or seditious intent". For the reasons stated in paragraph 12, this would not have been effective to validate the Regulations.
19.
•
Soon after these instructions were issued the draftsman advised SASI :
(a)
that, because of doubts as to the vires of the Regulations, the method of implementing the guidelines proposal, by amendment to the Regulations, was "inappropriate" and that the subject matter of the Regulations should be made part of the new Ordinance introducing the classification scheme; and
(b)
that the proposed test of 'likely to cause public offence' would place too high an onus upon censors; the expression "shall ensure" being mandatory. Instead, it was suggested that the test should be whether a film 'is or is not likely to be harmful to the public good'; a test adopted from the Films Act 1983 (NZ).
CONFIDENTIAL
/...6