Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1954—Cancellation
of Registration of Industrial Union

Pursuant to section 85 of the Industrial Conciliation and
Arbitration Act 1954, it is hereby notified that the registration
of the Eastbourne Passenger Transport Drivers Industrial Union
of Workers, Registered No. 2068, situated at Flat 1 , Bus
Garage, Muritai Road, Eastbourne, is hereby cancelled as
from the date of the publication of this notice in the Gazette.

Dated at Wellington this 28th day of March 1972.
A. C. RUFFELL, Registrar of Industrial Unions,
Department of Labour.

Law Practitioners Act 1955

Pursuant to the Law Practitioners Act 1955, notice is hereby
given that the Disciplinary Committee of the New Zealand
Law Society, on the 17th day of February 1972, ordered that
the name of Joseph Patrick Hall be struck off the rolls of
barristers and solicitors of the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

Dated at Wellington this 29th day of March 1972.
D. JENKIN, Registrar of the Supreme Court.

Consenting to Raising of Loans by Certain Local Authorities

Pursuant to section 3 of the Local Authorities Loans Act 1956
(as amended by section 3 (1) of the Local Authorities Loans
Amendment Act 1967), the undersigned Assistant Secretary to
the Treasury, acting under powers delegated to the Secretary
to the Treasury by the Minister of Finance, hereby consents to
the borrowing by the local authorities mentioned in the
Schedule hereto of the whole or any part of the respective
amounts specified in that Schedule.

SCHEDULE
Amount
Local Authority and Name of Loan Consented to
$
Ashley County Council: Rural Housing Loan 1971 24,000
Christchurch Drainage Board:
Drainage Loan No. 1, 1972 160,000
Drainage Loan No. 2, 1972 90,000
Gisborne City Council: Renewal Loan No. 1, 1972 11,000
Invercargill City Council: Renewal Loan No. 15,
1972 78,700
Manukau City Council: Otara Pensioner Housing
Supplementary Loan 1972 5,060
Matamata Borough Council: Waterworks Improvement Redemption Loan 1972 24,800
Mount Roskill Borough Council: Roads Reconstruction Redemption Loan 1972 10,000
Nelson Harbour Board: Redemption Loan No. 2,
1972 62,500
One Tree Hill Borough Council: Sanitary Sewer
Reticulation Redemption Loan No. 5, 1972 8,000
Oamaru Borough Council: Gasworks Redemption
Loan 1972 35,000
Palmerston North City Council: Forestry Encouragement Loan 1972 27,120
Papatoetoe City Council:
Staff Housing Redemption Loan No. 11, 1972 6,000
Stormwater Drainage Redemption Loan No. 13,
1972 28,000
Piako County Council: Springdale Hall Loan 1972 30,000
Poverty Bay Catchment Board: Waioeka-Otara
Flood Control Scheme Supplementary Loan 1972 8,100
Timaru Harbour Board: Dredge Renewal Loan
1972 90,000
Westport Borough Council: Abattoir Improvements
and Manager’s House Supplementary Loan 1972 10,700
Wellington City Council: Wellington Airport
Extension Additional Loan 1972 215,000

Dated at Wellington this 30th day of March 1972.
S. A. MCLEOD, Assistant Secretary to the Treasury.
(T. 40/416/6)

No. 470
Decision of the Indecent Publications Tribunal

In the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and in
the matter of an application by the Secretary for Justice for a
decision in respect of the book The Little Red School-book by
Soren Hansen and Jesper Jensen, published by Alister Taylor.
The Tribunal comprised: Mr R. S. V. Simpson (Chairman),
Mrs Joan Cochran, Mr S. F. W. Johnston, Mr D. M. Wylie,
and Mr L. M. Graham.

Hearing: 13 and 20 March 1972. Mr B. J. Cameron appeared
for the Secretary for Justice and Mr H. C. MacNeill, counsel
for the publisher.

Decision: 28 March 1972.

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

The Little Red School-book by the Danish writers Soren
Hansen and Jesper Jensen was translated into English by
Berit Thornberry, and from this translation a British version
was produced. The New Zealand edition submitted to the
Tribunal by the Secretary for Justice was based on this British
version which was the subject of a prosecution in the British
Courts last year. As a result of the prosecution, a revised
British edition was published and is now on sale. It was
accepted by all parties that the prosecution of the British
edition was not relevant in New Zealand because of the
differences in the law.

It was stated, in evidence, that the New Zealand book was
edited and revised by a group comprising a teacher, an editor,
a journalist, a university student, and a secondary school
student—a rough draft then being referred to a diverse number
of people, amongst them doctors, government departmental
officials, teachers, and a lawyer for their comments, criticisms,
and suggestions. In the light of their remarks the text was
settled and published as the New Zealand edition.

The book is a paperback of pocket-size and retails at $1.50.
It has been on sale in many bookshops throughout New Zealand and we have been advised that the sales have been heavy.

The book has basically four sections; the educational section,
which falls at the front and the back of the book and which
is by far the largest section; the sex section, which covers about
10 percent of the book; the drugs section; and lastly, the
appendices, which list organisations able to assist young people.

The stated purpose of the book is that it should be a reference
book used by young people when needed, and the hope is
expressed by the authors that it will help to solve problems
which they claim are much the same for schoolchildren everywhere, and to show some of them how they can influence their
own lives. It suggests that young people should think things
out for themselves and base their judgment on what they really believe.

At the hearing, Mr B. J. Cameron appeared for the Secretary
for Justice and addressed the Tribunal on the written submission of the Secretary, but did not offer evidence. Mr
Cameron drew attention to the opening paragraph of the
submission in which the Secretary states that “this book is
submitted to the Tribunal because it is considered to present an
issue of public interest and importance . . .”. During the course
of the proceedings, Mr Peter Robert Wilkinson, a schoolteacher, applied to be joined as a party to the proceedings
under section 14 (6). The application was declined but, at
the suggestion of the Tribunal, Mr Cameron agreed to call him
as a witness and to put in his written submission.

Mr H. C. MacNeill, counsel for the publisher Mr Alister
Taylor, made lengthy submissions on his behalf, called him in
support of the submissions and also eight other witnesses. The
Tribunal does not consider it necessary to traverse this
evidence.

As this decision will be of considerable public interest and
read by many people who are not conversant with the workings of the Tribunal, the members think that it would be
appropriate to outline briefly the functions and obligations
conferred on the Tribunal by the Act.

The functions of the Tribunal are given in section 10 of
the Act and the parts relevant to these proceedings read as
follows:

“(a) To determine the character of any book . . . submitted
to it for classification:
“(b) To classify books . . . submitted to it as indecent
or not indecent or as indecent in the hands of
persons under a specified age or as indecent unless
their circulation is restricted to specified persons or
classes of persons or unless used for a particular
purpose, as the case may be.”