”The game presents still images and text that legitimises sexual violation and rape in a manner that is intended to sexually arouse the player who takes on the role of a rapist who preys primarily on school girls… Sexual violation and rape are essential to complete the game in its entirety”.

The Society considers it important that the public be made aware of the nature of the objectionable corrupting publications that are being produced for the commercial market by hard core pornographers and others bent on profiteering by the exploitation of people with addictions to moral vices etc.

 The public needs to learn about the vital role played by our Classification Office  to  ensure that such morally corrupting material that injures the “public good” is banned. For this reason it has sought over the last ten years to recommend quality, well-qualified people for nomination to the Film and Literature Board of Review that deals with appeals against classification decisions issued by the OFLC.

Wellington lawyer Dr Mathieson is well qualified for this role. He is Queen’s Counsel and a former lecturer who currently works as a part-time Special Counsel to the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

“Mr Caisley is a founding partner of law firm Kiely Thomson Caisley. He has longstanding experience in theatre and arts organisations having served on the Council of Creative New Zealand, the Silo Theatre Board and as the founding Chair of New Theatre Initiative.

“Dr Simmons is Deputy Head of the Film, Television and Media department at the University of Auckland. He is fluent in Italian and is the author of many books, articles and other publications. Dr Simmons was awarded a Senior Fulbright Fellowship in 2002.

“All new members have been appointed for terms of three years.”

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new+appointments+film+and+literature+board+review

The Board is an independent statutory appeal body with the role of reviewing classifications made by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. This includes films, video recordings, DVDs, books, magazines and computer material. 

More information on the Film and Literature Board of Review is available at www.dia.govt.nz

Source of Media Release:

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new+appointments+film+and+literature+board+review

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=31670

Dr Josephine Baddeley, Judy Callingham and Louise Carroll have been appointed to the Film and Literature Board of Review, Internal Affairs Minister, Rick Barker announced today. [They replace three Board members whose terms of office expired on 31 March 2007: Peter Cartwright, Dr Lalita Rajasingham and Stephen Stelhin]

Dr Josephine Baddeley is a barrister and solicitor and a senior member of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. Dr Baddeley has worked for eight years on legal aid subcommittees at the Auckland District Court.

Judy Callingham is the Managing Director of Callingham and Edwards Limited. Ms Callingham has extensive experience in radio, television, film and the performing arts. Within these industries she has had numerous successes as a writer, producer, editor, presenter and journalist. Ms Callingham has served on a number of governance boards and is currently Deputy Chair of the New Zealand Broadcasting Commission Board.

Louise Carroll is currently the Youth Development Project Manager for the Turn Your Life Around Trust and has an extensive career in the development, management and delivery of social services, within both the public and not for profit sectors. Ms Carroll has received a Queen’s Service Order award for her services to the community and is a Justice of the Peace.

Administered by the Department of Internal Affairs the Board is an independent body appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister of Internal Affairs.

The Board is a statutory appeal body established under section 91 of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 (the Act). The function of the Board is to review the classification of publications referred to it under the Act, after the Office of Film and Literature Classification (the Office) has classified that publication.

The Board examines the publications according to the criteria in the Act, without regard to the Office’s initial classification. The definition of a publication under the Act includes films, video recordings, DVDs, books, magazines and computer based material. The Board does not comment on its decisions or its decision-making process.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=31670

The Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon. Rick Barker, has failed to replace three members of the nine-member Film and Literature Board of Review (“the Board”), whose positions expired on 31 March 2007, almost seven months ago. The Society, which has raised numerous concerns with the Minister and his predecessor, the Hon. George Hawkins, over their respective failures to comply with their statutory duties regarding Board appointments; says that these three lame- duck members – Peter Cartwright, Dr Lalita Rajasingham and Stephen Stehlin – have played no active role in Board proceedings since 27 April 2007. However, it points out that the Board is required by law to have NINE fully-functioning members (not just six), each fully capable of participating in all review processes, who reflect the breadth of cultural, ethical and standards-based concerns found in New Zealand Society in the area of censorship (safeguarding the “public good”) [1].

The Board has continued this year to convene hearings, deliberate on critical reviews and issue decisions, but has done so since the end of April without any input from the three lame-duck members concerned. While it is true that the Board can operate with full authority and carry out its functions in law as a quorum of five [2], the non-participation of three members due to their positions having expired, is not sanctioned in law, says the Society. The quorum provision is only there for pragmatic reasons – to overcome genuine unavailability (sickness, family commitments, work conflicts etc) of members. It is not a provision put in place to assist a tardy Minister, unable or refusing to carry out his statutory duties.In early November 2005 the Society wrote to Mr Barker requesting that he replace seven of the current board members whose terms of Office had expired 15 months earlier, on 31 May 2004. It set out its reasons for the request in detail. The Minister did nothing. It was not until May the following year that he finally did something – he reappointed the entire Board, much to the disgust of the Society, even though he had received a large number of quality nominations for the seven Board vacancies.

The Minister’s seeming inability to comply with his statutory duties over a range of his portfolios has led to speculation that he will be ousted from Cabinet in next week’s Cabinet reshuffle. The Minister’s predecessor, the Hon. George Hawkins, had a much worse track record relating to Board of Review appointments. He allowed the term of Office of the Deputy Chief Censor, to remain vacant for almost two years before dealing with the problem. He only acted after the Society filed a writ of mandamus against him in the High Court in 2002, for his failure to apply the law. He lost the case. Many say that Hawkins is another lame-duck who should leave politics and “get a life!”

Cartwright, Rajasingham and Stehlin, were all first appointed to the Board on 12 June 2001 and their positions all expired on 31 May 2004. Then on the 8^th of May 2006 they were all reappointed, effective from 20 April 2006 until 31 March 2007. All three have been Board members for a total of six years and four months. However, the law states that a Board member can only be appointed for two successive 3-year terms and no more. All three are well and truly passed their used-by-date and the Minister has allowed the spirit of the law to be flouted through his apparent indolence. (Meanwhile he has allowed the Board President, Claudia Elliott and her Deputy, Greg Presland, to hold office for 8 years and 7 years respectively [1]).

One Board member in particular must be urgently put out to pasture – Peter Cartwright, husband of the former Governor-General, Dame Silvia Cartwright. He has been involved in censorship for over 20 years. He was formerly Chair of the Indecent Publications Tribunal and Chair of the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), and has demonstrated a consistently liberal approach to the censorship of publications containing degrading sexually explicit content and extreme graphic violence involving women. He served on the Tribunal with the current Chief Censor, Bill Hastings, from 1990-1994. The morally corrosive and toxic impact of their liberal decisions on New Zealand Society will be one of the sad and enduring legacies of both men. Under Cartwright’s leadership of the Tribunal, the authority set about radically liberalising magazine censorship in the 1990s allowing degrading hardcore porn to be widely available legally for sale in New Zealand – in local bookshops, corner dairies etc and via mail order catalogues.

Cartwright’s liberal mindset on pornography was well known before he ever got involved in any statutory roles in censoring hard-core pornography in the 1990s. As chairman and member of the executive committee of the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties, he stood for strong opposition to any form of censorship. For him, any pictorial representations of non-violent, consensual, sexual intimacy between adult models – including all forms of hard-core – could not be indecent – “indecent” meaning, in the Indecent Publications Act. Dealt with in a way injurious to the public good [3].

Desensitisation of mind through over-exposure to hard-core porn, lack of moral discernment and inability to function with the concerns of young persons and children in mind, continue to prevent Board members like Cartwright, as well as the Chief Censor and his deputy, from playing any further useful role in censorship decisions. How could a men like Cartwright and Hastings, answerable to the Governor-General, the Minister and the public, approve the public screening of films like Baise-Moi, Visitor Q and Irreversible in New Zealand cinemas – featuring explicit, gratuitous and incendiary scenes of brutal rape, sodomy, necrophilia, corpse mutilation for sexual gratification, sex involving human faeces and incest etc. – for adult entertainment (sexual titillation)?

By law the Film and Literature Board of Review must consist of NINE independent members, part-time members of the community appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister of Internal Affairs with the concurrence of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Women’s Affairs. At present there are effectively only six members. Only five members attended the Board hearing on 20 August to consider the important classification decision on the horror film Hostel II II. The Minister has failed to fulfil his statutory obligations in dealing with the current vacancies.

References: [1] Details on current Board members and their terms of appointment.

http://www.spcs.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/newsletters/spcs%20newsletter%20sept%2006.pdf

[2] Section 100(2) of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 states: “…every review shall be conducted by the President and at least 4 other members of the Board.”

[3] A Stand for Decency: Patricia Bartlett & the Society for Promotion of Community Standards 1970-1995 by Carolyn Moynihan (1995) pp. 160, 174-175, 185, 188, 197.

Official Information Request: 14 Questions

Attention:
Minister of Internal Affairs, Hon. Rick Barker
and the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs, Mr Christopher Blake
Re: Appointment process involving eight vacancies on the Film and Literature Board of Review
Dear Sirs,
The Society’s national executive is seeking urgent answers to the following questions:
1. Why did it take the Minister 18 months before calling for nominations for the eight statutory positions on the Film and Literature Board of Review that became vacant on 31 May 2004?

More Questions (2-14)

2. In the light of the expiry date noted in Q.1: Why has it taken the Minister four months following the closing date of nominations for these eight positions, 21 December 2005, to make a decision to reappoint all eight members of the board, a decision first notified to the public by way of his press released dated 8 May 2006?
3. How many nominations were received by the Minister for these eight positions and how many of the the nominees were suitably qualified for consideration for the positions.
4. What was the nature and scope of the appointment process undertaken by the Department of Internal Affairs and the Minister in the consideration of those applicants nominated?  

5. How many meetings were held by the Department of Internal Affairs officials to seriously consider the suitability of those persons nominated for board positions and did the Minister attend any of these meetings – if so how many?
6. Were any of the persons nominated formally contacted by the Department and/or the Minister in order to acknowledge that their application/nomination were being considered, or for any other reason, and if so, how many and when?
7. Was a short list ever drawn up by Department officials and/or Minister of the most suitably qualified nominees and were any meetings held by the Department and/or Minister to discuss the persons on any short list created?
8. What was the nature and number of the meetings held between Mr Barker and the Ministers of Justice and Minister of Women’s Affairs over the applications involving nominated persons?
9. Does the Minister take the view that his statutory duties to apply the law (re the appointment process) are suspended during the period a select committee considers a bill that proposes changes to that law, and if so, why and on what legal basis?
10. Does the Minister take seriously his statutory duties under the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 to ensure that vacancies in the executive of the Office of Film and Literature Classification are filled, and if so why?
11. Why has the Minister not done anything about the fact that there has been a vacancy in the Office of Film and and Literature Classification since late September/October 2005, namely the position of Deputy Chief Censor of Film and Literature.?
12. On what, if any, legal basis, does the current Deputy Chief Censor Ms Nicola McCully, still hold office following the expiry of her term of office?
13. When does the Minister envision calling for nominations for the position of Chief Censor, currently held by Mr Bill Hastings, which becomes vacant later this year?
14. Does the law allow the Minister to reappoint eight board members so that they are able to hold the postion for a continuous period exceeding six years, as has been done with respect to five of the board members reappointed?
Yours sincerely
David Lane
(Secretary)
Mike Petrus (President)
Graham Fox (Vice President) 

Hon Rick Barker

8/05/06

Internal Affairs Minister Rick Barker has announced appointments to the Film and Literature Board of Review.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=25672

The Film and Literature Board of Review is a statutory appeal body. It examines publications already classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification (the Chief Censor’s Office). Each publication is examined without regard to the initial classification.

“On 31 May 2004 the terms of eight members of the Film and Literature Board of Review expired. Changes to relevant legislation and the 2005 General Election caused considerable delays in the appointment process for these positions. The eight members agreed to remain in office until such time as the appointment process could be completed.

The process is now complete and I am happy to announce the reappointment the eight incumbent members of the Board.

The terms of appointment will be varied, so that in future years all eight vacancies will not arise at the same time.

Claudia Elliott has been reappointed as President, and Mark Andersen as member for terms commencing on 20 April 2006 and concluding on 31 March 2009.

Greg Presland has been reappointed as Deputy President, Dr Brian McDonnell and Marion Orme as members for terms commencing on 20 April 2006 and concluding on 31 March 2008.

Peter Cartwright, Dr Lalita Rajasingham and Stephen Stehlin have been reappointed as members for terms commencing on 20 April 2006 and concluding on 31 March 2007.

All members bring valuable experience and expertise in a range of areas such as law, science, education, media, communications and information technology,” said Mr Barker.

“Each member has a high level of integrity and is experienced in dealing with the publications of the sensitive nature likely to come before the Board”.

Mr Barker thanked all organisations that nominated people for the roles, and thanked the individuals who had made themselves available.

“There is sometimes controversy about decisions of the Board and those who put themselves forward as willing to serve the public in this way deserve gratitude and respect for their willingness to carry out a task requiring judgment, discernment and an understanding of public attitudes.”

Media Release 22/03/06

The terms of office of eight members of the Film and Literature Board of Review expired almost 22 months ago and yet the Minister of Internal Affairs, Hon. Rick Barker, has failed to either reappoint them or replace them. They include Rotorua-based barrister Claudia Elliott (President), Greg Presland (Deputy President), Mark Anderson, Peter Cartwright (the Governor-General’s husband), Dr Brian McDonnell, Marion Orme, Dr Lalita Rajasinghe and Stephen Stehlin.

They have all continued to meet regularly as a board, issue highly controversial classification decisions and have been paid fees and allowances since 31 May 2004 when their terms of office expired. The Minister has claimed that all these Board members, who were first appointed on 1 June 2001, have remained in office despite the expiry date having passed, because the former Minister, the Hon. George Hawkins, requested that they remain in office.

The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards president Mike Petrus asks: “If Mr Hawkins truly had confidence in the eight board members, why did he not reappoint them in June 2004 and why has Mr Barker allowed the vacancies to remain unfilled? Why should the public not conclude that the Minister and his departments have failed in their statutory duties?” (The term of office of the ninth member of the Board, former Maori Television’s Acting Chief Executive, Ani Walker, expires on 31 August 2006).

In response to a parliamentary written question Mr Barker has indicated that “the process [filling the eight vacancies] should be completed by April 2006” (Q 11043). Following concerns raised with the Minister by the Society that were reported in the media, he called for nominations for the eight “vacant” board positions in December 2005, setting a deadline for receipt of nominations of 21 December 2005.

Petrus says: “The Society strongly opposes the reappointment of any of the current Board members, whose classification decisions reflect an extremely liberal mindset. For example, this board unanimously approved the following films for adult viewing for the purpose of “entertainment” in cinemas and/or for home viewing and/or study by students in tertiary film and media courses, following reviews: the brutal and sexually explicit rape films “Baise-Moi” and “Irreversible”; the sexually explicit film “9 Songs”, the sexually degrading film “Anatomy of Hell” and video “Sinners No Doctor, Yes Doctor”, and the gratuitous Japanese sex-violence film “Visitor Q”, depicting necrophilia, sex acts involving human excrement, incest and corpse mutilation. The board issued these decisions well aware that it is parliament’s intentions, as embodied in section 3 of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993, that such obscene content matter should be strictly off limits for the public (e.g. lengthy explicit depictions of rape and necrophilia).”

In the year ended 30 June 2005, the Board issued 11 decisions. The Society obtained the Secretary of Internal Affairs’ leave to bring five of these reviews. The Board that reviews decisions issued by the Classification Office, has never issued a classification decision that significantly tightens viewing restrictions. It has always just ‘rubber stamped’ decisions issued by the Office or relaxed viewing restrictions imposed by the Office.

The current Board and Chief Censor Bill Hastings, will be remembered as responsible for allowing for the dissemination the most brutal sexually violent films ever screened in New Zealand cinemas and tertiary institutions (“Baise-Moi” and “Irreversible”). Board members like Peter Cartwright who, like the Chief Censor, has been issuing liberal decisions on indecent publications for years, appears to have become thoroughly dessentised to the real effect of hard core porn and depictions of sexual violence and obscenity, on viewers. Sadly, the injury to the public good created by their decisions will leave a nasty and pernicious legacy for which decent-minded New Zealanders will remember them.

Wednesday, 22 March 2006

Response from Department of Internal Affairs
To Information Request from National Secretary
Society for the Promotion of Community Standards Inc

Mr David Lane
National Secretary
Society for the Promotion of Community Standards Inc

21 March 2006

Dear Mr Lane

Appointments process

I received from you by phone on 15 March 2006 a request seeking to know “what is the process in place, and what stage has the process reached, in relation to the appointments to be made to the Board of Film and Literature Review”?.

The process of making appointments to the Board of Film and Literature Review is well advanced, and Ministers will be in a position to consider possible appointments soon. This process is run by the Department in accordance with the State Services Commission Board Appointment and Induction Guidelines.

Where information in addition to that provided in CVs and nominations is required, it is sought by the Department prior to consideration by Ministers or may be sought by Ministers at any point in the process. Such additional information is not always needed. Details of the appointments made will be released by Ministers after decisions are made.

A news release will be made when the appointments process is completed. Prior to that release, the Department will not be providing any information about any individuals who may have been considered as part of the process.

I regret that other information cannot be made available at this stage.

It would assist the Department if in future your approaches were made through a single point of contact, except in relation to statutory processes in which you are a directly affected party (such as applications to the Board of Film and Literature Review). For convenience, please contact me directly in the first instance for all matters. This should
help us respond as soon as possible.

Thank you for your patience, and please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Colin Feslier
Manager, Strategic Communications
The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua

The Society is calling on the new Minister of Internal Affairs, Hon. Rick Barker, to replace all nine members of the Film & Literature Board of Review ["the Board”], including the Governor-General’s husband Peter Cartwright. Mr Cartwright’s term of office, along with those of seven other board members, expired 15 months ago on 31 May 2004. Their re-appointment can only be made by his wife, Governor-General, Dame Sylvia Cartwright, on the recommendation of the Minister.

The Society points out that in the case of the appointment or reappointment of husband Peter, this involves obvious conflict of interests on the part of his wife. The former Minister of Internal Affairs, Hon. George Hawkins, chose not to reappoint eight of the Board members while he held the ministerial warrant, despite issuing public statements that he had full confidence in them following complaints raised by the Society.

The conflict of interest involving the governor-general has been publicly acknowledged with respect to another statutory appointment involving the Governor-General’s husband. It has been suggested that in this case Rt. Hon. Dame Sian Elias, GNZM, Chief Justice, appointed him to the position, so the government could avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

If Mr Cartwright ever needs to be removed from any statutory office by the governor-general on the recommendation of a Minister for his inability to perform the duties of office, bankruptcy, neglect of duty, or misconduct, proved to the satisfaction of the Governor-General; the conflict of interest will become obvious to the general public.

Mr Cartwright, formerly Chair of the Indecent Publications Tribunal and Chair of the Broadcasting Standards Authority, has demonstrated a consistently liberal approach to the censorship of publications containing sexually explicit content and extreme violence. This liberal mindset among Board members has led to a desensitisation of mind, lack of moral discernment and inability to function with the concerns of young persons and children in mind. How could a man answerable to the governor-general, the minister and the NZ public, approve films like “Baise-Moi”, “Visitor Q” and “Irreversible” featuring explicit incendiary scenes of brutal rape, necrophilia, corpse mutilation for sexual gratification, incest etc. for adult entertainment?

The Society challenges the Minister of Internal Affairs or any other MP to publicly defend the Board’s actions in the light of the restrictions established in law under s. 3(2) and s. 3(3) of the Films, Videos and Publications Act 1993 (“the Act”) pertaining to the depiction of sexual violence, necrophilia, incest etc.

Set out below (Appendix) is a copy of letter sent to Mr Rick Barker, Minister of Internal Affairs, Mrs Sandra Goudie, National Party spokesperson for Internal Affairs, Mr Peter Brown, Deputy Leader of NZ First Party, Mr Gordon Copeland, United Future Party, Mr Rodney Hide, Act Party Leader and Mrs Heather Roy, Act Party. It calls for the replacement of every member of the Board by persons of integrity who reflect mainstream New Zealand family values rather than the extremely irresponsible liberal agenda held by the members who have passed their ‘used-by-date’.

APPENDIX

THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville

http://www.spcs.org.nz spcs.org@gmail.com This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Attention

Mr Rick Barker

Minister of Internal Affairs

Parliament Buildings

Wellington

31 October 2005

Re: Appointments to nine member Film & Literature Board of Review ["the Board']

Re: Sections 91-102. Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act (1993) ["the Act"]

Note: A copy of a 2-page letter received by SPCS from Andrew Secker, Deputy Secretary of Internal Affairs, (26/10) is referred to below (faxed separately).

Dear Mr Barker

I am writing on behalf of the Society to raise serious concerns about the Labour-led government’s inability to fulfil its statutory obligations to ensure that the proper appointment process is adhered to with respect to the nine member Film and Literature Board of Review. The terms of office of eight members of the Board expired on 31 May 2004. While it is true that their continuation in office after their terms expire is allowed for under s.95 of the Act, it is now 15 months since these terms of office expired. The Society has written a number of times to the (former) Minister of Internal Affairs, Hon. George Hawkins, since this expiry date, setting out the reasons and the grounds for the reasons why all eight members should be replaced. If the Minister truly had confidence in them, surely he would have ensured that they all be reappointed for another term. S. 94(1) states that “every member of the Board may be appointed for any period not exceeding 3 years, and may be reappointed for one further period not exceeding 3 years.”

You may recall that the Society had to take the former Minister to the High Court in 2002 to force him and his government to appoint a deputy chief censor, after this statutory position had been left vacant for well over two and a half years. Our lawyers were convinced that had the Society not sought and obtained a judicial review of the Minister’s actions, which it won, the government would have disestablished this position by amending the Act which states that the Minister “shall” ensure that a deputy chief censor is appointed. This is the same Minister whose competency opposition parties called into question in his role as Minister of Police.

The names of the eight Board members whose term of office expired on 31 May 2004 are:

Claudia Elliott (President); Greg Presland (Deputy President); Mark Anderson, Peter Cartwright; Dr Brian McDonnell; Marion Orme; Dr Lalita Rajasingham and Stephen Stehlin.

The expiry date for the ninth member, Ani Waaka [former Acting CEO of Maori Television], is 31 August 2006.

Society concerns:

1. The Board has demonstrated an extremely liberal approach to censorship. Rather than acting as a vigilant and competent “gate-keeper,” it has given its stamp of approval for the release of films, videos and DVDs for public adult cinema containing: extended, explicit and gratuitous depictions of brutal rape (mainstream release of “Baise-Moi” [transl. "Fu** Me"], Irreversible”, “Twenty-Nine Palms”), necrophilia, graphic violence involving sexual mutilation (“Visitor Q”) and the degradation, demeaning and dehumanising of women (e.g. “Sinners No Doctor”) etc. Hundreds of such explicit videos, DVDs and films depicting men ejaculating onto the faces of women, multiple penetration (anal and vaginal), oral sex, “anal mania”, sadomasochism (S & M), incest, homosexual and lesbian sex, prostitution, young people masturbating, “how-to-do” drug-taking, obscene language etc. are approved every year by the Office of Film and Literature Classification headed by Chief Censor Mr Bill Hastings. The Board gets to review only a tiny fraction of this toxic material approved by Mr Hastings and his team. Publications are generally only referred to it following applications under the Act by concerned groups such as the Society (which has a public “watchdog role”) or by film distributors seeking to get the film’s rating downgraded for commercial reasons (so it can reach a wider audience). In the last 12 months since 1 October 2005, the Board has only issued ten decisions. The Society was the applicant for four of these publications (“Irreversible”, “9 Songs”, “Playboy: The Mansion” and “Visitor Q”).
2. The Board has demonstrated its unwillingness to safeguard the interests of children and young persons accessing computer games that teach kids how to promote and succeed in the pornography trade (“Playboy: The Mansion”). It has demonstrated its incompetence by approving films for young people that teach them how to indulge in illicit drugs, indulge in promiscuous sex, carry out gang rape etc.
3. The Board members are not representative of mainstream New Zealanders, the majority of whom oppose the dissemination of “objectionable” content found in films like “Baise-Moi” which was banned in Australia. The Board decisions are almost always unanimous in support of a downgrading of a classification restriction (e.g. “Closer”) or more often unanimous in opposition to any tightening to the existing OFLC classification rating so that the public good can be safeguarded. The liberal “mindset” appears to be so dominant and entrenched in this Board that any dissent by a member reflecting a more conservative viewpoint is squashed.
4. A number of the important decisions issued by the Board president against granting relief to the Society, have been shown to be wrong in law when tested in the High Court (e.g. “Irreversible” and “Ken Park”). A number of the Board’s decisions have been found to be wrong in law when tested in the High Court and Court of Appeal (e.g. “Baise-Moi” and “Visitor Q”). The Courts have strongly criticised the Board in a number of decisions that span four years of its deliberations.
5. The presence of Mr Peter Cartwright on the Board involves a conflict of interests. His appointment was made by his wife – Governor-General Dame Sylvia Cartwright. If he is reappointed for a further term, this would involve a conflict of interest. This conflict of interest has been publicly acknowledged with respect to another statutory position he currently holds and where his appointment by the Governor-General – his wife – was deemed to be inappropriate. In this case the Rt. Hon. Dame Sian Elias, GNZM, Chief Justice, appointed him so the government could avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest. [The Chief Justice can act for the governor-general in certain circumstances. During the absence overseas of the governor-general from 5 to 11 May 2005, the Chief Justice, Dame Sian Elias, acted as Administrator of Government].
6. If Mr Cartwright needs to be removed from office by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister for inability to perform the duties of office, bankruptcy, neglect of duty, or misconduct, proved to the satisfaction of the Governor-General; his relationship with the Governor-General involves a conflict of interests. Mr Cartwright, formerly Chair of the Indecent Publications Tribunal, has demonstrated a consistently liberal approach to censorship for decades. This has led to a desensitisation of mind, lack of moral discernment and inability to function with the concerns of young persons and children in mind. How could a man answerable to the Governor-General, his wife, the Minister and the NZ public, approve films like “Baise-Moi”, “Visitor Q” and “Irreversible” for adult viewing? No MP would publicly defend his actions.
7. The Society has made a number of submissions to the Government Administration Committee calling for the Board’s composition to be more representative of the conservative “family values” held by New Zealanders. The Board in its decisions has been known to defend graphic and explicit content such as sodomy and necrophilia on the basis that its members consider the publication to be a “morality tale” (e.g. “Baise-Moi”). The Society is at a loss to understand why the Board so vehemently opposes every submission it makes that even hints at moral concerns about content and its detrimental effect on some members of the public, especially young persons and children. It concludes that the Board is dominated by a misguided conviction that concerns over the moral corruption of minds and injury to “the public good”, are inconsequential to the more important and lofty issues of “freedom of expression” etc. The Society upholds “freedom of expression” too, but certainly not in the morally bankrupt way the Board chooses to interpret this principle.
8. Board members have become so desensitised to the “objectionable” content they have viewed over four years, that their flawed reasoning and liberal pronouncements have made them a liability to the community and they are well past their “used-by-date”.

The Official Response of the Department of Internal Affairs to the issue:

Expiry Dates for members of the Film and Literature Board of Review.

Mr Andrew Secker, Deputy Secretary for Internal Affairs has stated in his letter to the Society dated 26 October 2005, that was a response to our Official Information request of 13 October 2005:

“Although the terms of office of eight of the nine Board members expired on 31 May 2004, the previous Government asked the affected members to remain in office (in accordance with the Films, Videos, and Publication Act 1993) until the passage of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Amendment Bill, because there was a provision in the Bill as introduced dealing with the membership of the Board. Once the Bill was enacted earlier this year, there was then insufficient time to carry through the appointments process before the commencement of the three-month period of restraint on significant appointments preceding any General Election. This process is being recommended now that the new Government is in place.”

The FVPC Amendment Bill did have a provision in it that recommended the number of Board members be reduced from nine to six. There was no support for this amendment either during the select committee stages of the bill, or during parliamentary debating in the second and third reading stages. The bill came into force on 22 February 2005, the day after the Royal Assent was given to it. There was never any real suggestion that MPs would support the number of Board members being reduced. Therefore it would appear very strange, if it were indeed true, that “the previous Government asked the affected members [all eight of them] to remain in office (in accordance with the …. Act 1993) until the passage of the ….. Amendment Bill…” The Society will be seeking through the Official Information Act copies of all correspondence between the Minister and Board members on this matter to verify Mr Secker’s statement.

The Government announced earlier this year that the 2005 election was to be held on 17 September 2005. The “three-month period of restraint” Mr Secker refers to would therefore run from 17 June until 17 September 2005. Even if we accept all of his explanations for why the government had reason to not make the eight appointments to the Board (after 31 May 2004), there was still a four month period in which he could and SHOULD have acted – 22 February 2005 to 17 June 2005.

The Society is calling on the National Party, United First Party, NZ First Party, ACT and the Maori Party, to strongly oppose the reappointment of the present eight members of the Film and Literature Board of Review. We believe you must recommend new appointments to the Board: including community-minded persons of the highest integrity who hold to conservative family values and whose track record in community and family life demonstrate commitment to the welfare and care of children and young persons. If any MP remains in doubt as to the suitability of the present Board members they only need to view a film like “Baise-Moi”, “Visitor Q” or “Irreversible” (all passed for R18 viewing by the Board and OFLC) to recognise how detrimental it is for NZ society for such members to continue in office. Alternatively they need only talk to an MP who had the misfortune of viewing “Baise-Moi” as part of the consultative process leading to its classification review (e.g. Peter Brown MP, Deputy Leader NZ First).

We look forward to your response to the issues raised. We would like the opportunity to meet with you asap to discuss these matters if it can be arranged.

Yours sincerely

Mike Petrus (President)

Graham Fox (Vice-President)

David Lane (Secretary & spokesperson)

APPENDIX

Relevant sections of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993

93 (2) The members of the Board shall be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister acting with the concurrence of the Minister of Women’s Affairs and the Minister of Justice

93. (6) No act or proceeding of the Board, or of any person acting as a member of the Board, shall be invalidated because there was a vacancy in the membership of the Board at the time of the act or proceeding, or because of the subsequent discovery that there was a defect in the appointment of a person so acting, or that the person was incapable of being, or had ceased to be, a member.

94. Term of Office

(1) Subject to section 96 of this Act, every member of the Board may be appointed for any period not exceeding 3 years, and may be reappointed for one further period not exceeding 3 years.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section prevents the appointment under section 93 of this Act of any person who has previously held office under that section, but no such person shall be so appointed unless at least 3 years have elapsed since that person last held office under that section.

95. Continuation in office after term expires— Notwithstanding section 94 of this Act, every member of the Board whose term of office has expired shall, unless he or she sooner dies or vacates office under section 96 of this Act, continue to hold office, by virtue of the appointment for the term that has expired, until— (a) That member is reappointed; or (b)A successor to that member is [appointed]; or (c)That member is informed in writing by the Minister that the member is not to be reappointed and is not to hold office until a successor is appointed.

96. Extraordinary vacancies — (1) Any member of the Board may at any time be removed from office by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister for inability to perform the duties of office, bankruptcy, neglect of duty, or misconduct, proved to the satisfaction of the Governor-General, (2) Any member of the Board may at any time resign his or her office by giving written notice to that effect to the Minister, (3) If a member dies, resigns, or is removed from office, the vacancy so created shall be filled in the same manner as the appointment of the member vacating office.