Replace the current system by one where there is a clear separation of regulation and censorship.

This may seem obvious. And indeed, there is any number of more specific recommendations concerning procedures and content that have been discussed and could be made here, for instance mediation. But for all the complex debates over the nitty-gritty of standards and classification, for as long as regulation remains compromised by censorship, little will be changed, and even less achieved in developing the creative life of the nation. Conversely, a principled argument for the separation of regulation and censorship by the CRC would have some or all of the following consequences: 

• A process that is consistent, clear and transparent, which is conducted at arms-length from party political interests, whose outcomes are open to public scrutiny, and that enjoys the engagement of diverse stakeholders.

• A process that is ordinary, unexceptional and efficient, conducted by informed and impartial individuals whose decisions can inspire confidence across government, and who can explain and justify those decisions in public.

• A process that focuses on the education and empowerment of citizens, and grants the widest possible scope for expression and access to creative works to the greatest possible number of interested individuals. 

• A process that promotes a new tone, vocabulary and terms of reference for public discourse, and that both encourages and contributes to free and open debate about the complex issues inevitably arising from it.

• A process that avoids conflicts of interest by the agencies charged with executing it, and that is subject to periodic review by an independent body. 

... and in Conclusion