Vision Statement of the OFLC (Annual Report 2003)
“A society which fairly balances the need to protect and encourage freedom of expression and the need to limit any social harm caused by the availability of material which is injurious to the public good.”

1. Purpose of this Submission

The express aim of this submission is to bring the Government’s attention to the fact that the film and video industry in needlessly over-regulated when considered in the context of the prevailing media environment.

The simple fact is that too much material is currently obliged by law to pass through the OFLC. In the areas we’ve highlighted, the process of classification is costly, superfluous, ineffectual, and ultimately disadvantages the consumer.

This submission proposes initiatives that we believe will restore commonsense to the Regulations without jeopardizing or compromising the above “Vision Statement” of the OFLC.

2. Questioning the Impartiality of the Chief Censor

We respect the Chief Censor’s integrity and his rigorous administration of the law as written. However, certain aspects of the legislation are faulty.

That they are faulty is not necessarily a cause for concern for the Chief Censor if it does not affect his operation. In his annual report he goes to some length to raise issues which are of concern to his office and its operation. Many of the changes he suggests are understandable and have our endorsement.

As evidenced by the Amendment Bill before us, he has the authority and influence to ensure that these issues are accommodated in any changes made to the legislation.

It is perhaps understandable that the Report of the Government Administration Committee was dominated by the voice of the Chief Censor and the OFLC, however, it was symptomatic of an acute bias that our extensive submission to the Committee was entirely ignored.

Our trade in the intervening years has found it very difficult to work with rigid legislation that does not consider the profoundly altered media and cultural landscape. We have found it even more difficult for our voice to be heard in its consistent call for change.

As retailers, we regularly have had to explain to customers why they cannot access certain films locally because of anomalies in the law. We are in direct service to the public of New Zealand, and wish to ensure change in their interest as well as our own.

By contrast, we would assert that the OFLC are accountable chiefly to the edicts of the Government of New Zealand and not directly to the public of New Zealand.

It is clear that the “purpose of this submission” (Section B.1) challenges the operational scope of the OFLC. We feel aware that it is not ‘politically correct’ to do so and it must be said that, historically, legislative change that has come from the industry ‘coal face’ has traditionally met with the approval of the establishment (ie. the Chief Censor of the time) in order to be sanctioned by policy makers.

We sincerely trust that this time round, our relatively small but authoritative voice is afforded comparable weight to the views of the Chief Censor.

3. Cultural Context: Public Opinion of Restricted Films on Television

The clearest indicator available of general public opinion with regard to contemporary ‘standards’ is surely through the complaints mechanism operated by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The mechanism functions as a reasonable gauge of the temperament of the New Zealand viewing public.

Though specifically governed by the Broadcasting Act, it is prudent to consider this information for the purposes of the Film, Videos and Publications Act, as feature films are now customarily broadcast as identical (ie. unexpurgated) versions to those released theatrically and on video. Hence, we are for the first time in the evolution of electronic media able to compare ‘apples’ with ‘apples’.

We have been informed by TVNZ programming that they aired approximately 700 feature films on TV2 alone for the period of July 2002 to June 2003. While the figures were not available across the other three channels, we could safely double that figure for a total. An estimated 30% of those films are classified by the OFLC as restricted.

For the same period, there were a mere six complaints laid with the Broadcasting Standards Authority(1).

None of the complaints pertained to the content per se, but were instead based on what the complainants felt were inappropriate screening times that may expose the films to an unsuitably young audience.

None of the complaints were upheld by the BSA, except in respect of one criterion for the film, “Scream”(2).

The TV3 network did confirm for us that their office received two complaints pertaining to feature films (incl. “Scream”) in 2002, and none at all in 2003!

This evidence would seem to support the idea that most people are not phased by sexually frank, violent or profane material if it is marked appropriately for adult audiences. They clearly do not see this level of material as being “injurious to the public good”. And yet in many cases the exposure of such material well exceeds the exposure gained via the tightly regulated theatrical and home video platforms.

A significant number of the broadcasted films were subject to full censorship compliance costs at the OFLC. Whether or not their classifications were imposed by the OFLC or the BBFC or the FCBA, and whether their classification was an M, or R16, or R18 becomes all but irrelevant in the context of broadcasting and in the minds of the general public.

This information is telling and key to the principle of this submission. It gives us a clear cultural context from which to assess the appropriateness of the function of the OFLC.

4. The Purpose of Censorship

Given the profound technological and cultural changes that have occurred in the decade since the Act was last revised, it was unfortunate that the Government Administration Committee did not take the opportunity to inquire into the fundamental purpose of censorship.

We can presume that this is because it was not considered necessary, and therefore not raised, by the main benefactor of the inquiry, the OFLC.

Can we remind the Committee that the mandate of the Act, and thence the function of the OFLC should be reflect the will of Government, which in turn should reflect the society to which it serves. Therefore the interests of the OFLC should reflect, and not preside over, the will of the people.

The average New Zealander would probably concur that censorship in the modern age is principally imposed to:

      a) protect minors from unsuitable material
      b) to protect society from “objectionable” material
      c) to provide consumer guidance.

Serving the purpose: The Labelling Body and the OFLC

The legislation clearly sets up two bodies, The Office of Film and Literature Classification and the Film and Video Labelling Body for the governance of these objectives. However, we believe that there is a prevailing imbalance in the designated roles of the FVLB and the OFLC.

While the OFLC is instrumental in meeting objective (b), and shares its capacity with the FVLB for objective (c), it is the Labelling Body that emerges as the more suitable body to ensure that objective (a) is carried out.

In most cases it is a mere formality to protect minors from unsuitable material. If it is treated as anything more than a formality, it inevitably impinges on the viewing rights of adults. The law should provide for the protection of minors without the effect of treating adults like children.

Evidence contained in this submission (Section B3) qualify the preposition that New Zealanders are not concerned about ‘adult’ content if it is marked appropriately for adult audiences. The Labelling Body are in the business of ‘marking appropriately’. What follows deserves to be left up to the consumer.