You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Reports >>
2021 >>
[2021] NZBORARp 17
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill (Inconsistent) (Section 14) [2021] NZBORARp 17 (17 February 2021)
Last Updated: 7 May 2021
J.4
![2021_1700.jpg](2021_1700.jpg)
Report of the
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Contraception,
Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill
Presented to the House of Representatives pursuant to
Section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Standing Order 269
of
the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives
- I
have considered whether the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe
Areas) Amendment Bill (‘the Bill’) is consistent
with the rights and
freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (‘the Bill of
Rights Act’).
- I
have concluded that clause 5 of the Bill appears to be inconsistent with the
right to freedom of expression as affirmed in section
14 of the Bill of Rights
Act.
- As
required by section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act, I draw this apparent
inconsistency to the attention of the House of Representatives.
Summary
- Clause
5 inserts new ss 13A-13C into the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act
1977 to provide for the declaration of safe
areas around providers of abortion
services, and the criminalisation of certain conduct (“prohibited
behaviour”) within
those safe areas.
- I
have concluded that clause 5 is inconsistent with the right to freedom of
expression, insofar as it criminalises “communicating”
in a manner
that is objectively emotionally distressing. The Bill is otherwise consistent
with the rights and freedoms of the Bill
of Rights Act.
Background
- The
safe area proposal contained in the Bill replicates, with amendments, the scheme
in the Abortion Legislation Bill, as reported
back to the House by the Abortion
Legislation Committee.1 The three clauses making up the
“safe areas” proposal were removed from the Abortion Legislation
Bill by the Committee
of the whole House, voting on Supplementary Order Paper
number 464.
- The
version of the safe area proposal reported to the House by the select committee
has not yet been subject to scrutiny under s 7
of the Bill of Rights Act. The
safe area proposal carried at the first reading of the Abortion Legislation
Bill2 was earlier vetted and found to be consistent
with the Bill of Rights Act, in that limits on freedom of expression created by
declaration
of a safe area were capable of
justification.3
- The
prohibited behaviour criminalised in a safe area is reflected in new s 13A(3)
inserted by cl 5, which would provide that:
1 See Abortion Legislation Bill
(164-2).
2 See Abortion Legislation Bill (164-1).
- Crown
Law “Abortion Legislation Bill – consistency with New Zealand Bill
of Rights Act 1990” (1 August 2019, h ttps://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/bora-abortion-legislation-bill.pdf).
prohibited behaviour means—
(a) intimidating, interfering with, or obstructing a protected
person—
- (i) with the
intention of frustrating the purpose for which the protected person is in the
safe area; or
- (ii) in a
manner that an ordinary reasonable person would know would cause emotional
distress to a protected person:
(b) communicating with, or visually recording, a person in a manner that an
ordinary reasonable person would know would cause emotional
distress to a
protected person
- I
agree with the previous vetting advice about the safe area proposal, but it is
necessary to revisit that advice because the Bill
would substantively change the
“prohibited behaviour” in a safe area in two ways:
- 9.1 The
prohibited behaviour of intimidation, interference or obstruction with the
intention of preventing access or provision of
abortion services is carried
forward into the new proposal, but such behaviour would also be criminalised
where it would objectively
cause emotional distress to a protected person
accessing or providing such services.
- 9.2 The
prohibited behaviour of communicating or visually recording would no longer
require any intention to cause emotional distress;
instead, the offence would be
complete if the behaviour is objectively distressing to a protected person
accessing or providing abortion
services.
- The
Abortion Legislation Committee considered that, as drafted in the Abortion
Legislation Bill, the safe area offence provision was
underinclusive because it
would be difficult to prove a particular intention to cause emotional harm
through anti- abortion activism
within a safe area. I consider that the revised
offence goes too far in the opposite direction, being overinclusive of
expressive
conduct unrelated to the policy intention. The Bill is inconsistent
with s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act because it is not minimally
infringing of
the right to freedom of expression.
- I
suggest below a way in which the proposal might be drawn more narrowly in order
to properly focus on the upsetting conduct of anti-abortion
activists within
safe zones, without capturing other forms of communication or having an
unjustified chilling effect on freedom of
expression within a safe area.
Intimidation, interference or obstruction
- The
addition of an objective emotional distress ground would expand paragraph (a) of
the “prohibited behaviour” definition
beyond that proposed in the
original Abortion Legislation Bill. However, I do not consider that it raises
any new Bill of Rights
Act issue beyond those considered by officials in the
previous vetting advice.
- The
proposed offence does not require an intention to cause emotional distress, but
would require an intentional act of intimidation,
interference or obstruction,
directed
towards a protected person.4 The requirement for an
intentional act means that despite there being no need to intend to distress a
protected person, this offence
does not appear to be capable of being committed
by accident.
Visual recording
- Breach
of new s 13A by “visual recording” would require an intentional act
with a tolerably clear ambit, and so much like
the acts of intimidation,
interference or obstruction, it is unlikely to occur inadvertently. In
situations where visual recording
has occurred inadvertently, for example by
fixed security cameras within a safe area, it is unlikely a court would consider
that
a reasonable person would be emotionally harmed by such a recording.
Accordingly I do not consider that this raises any fresh issue
under the Bill of
Rights Act.
Communication
- I
have concluded that para (b) of the definition of “prohibited
behaviour” in new s 13A(3) is overly broad and not
a justifiable
limit on s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act.
- While
the courts are likely to distinguish between emotionally distressing conduct and
merely annoying or irritating conduct, limiting
the scope of the objective
“emotional harm” element of the offence, the term
“communicating” has an apparently
broad scope because:
- 16.1 this term
appears to cover any speech or behaviour with a communicative element, rather
than focusing on the forms of communication
common to anti-abortion
activism;
- 16.2 the
subject matter of the prohibited communication is not limited to abortion or
related matters; and
- 16.3 it is
doubtful there is any need to intentionally direct communication towards a
protected person knowing that they are a protected
person, rather it appears to
be sufficient that the person’s speech or behaviour is communicative.
- The
term “communicating” is inherently vague and broad. It is not
possible to predict in advance whether and how courts
will seek to limit the
scope of relevant communication. In the absence of a clear understanding of the
forms of communication which
would be criminalised by new s 13A, creation of the
proposed offence is likely to have a chilling effect on all forms of
communication
within a safe area.
- The
policy rationale for the safe area proposal is to protect the safety, wellbeing,
privacy and dignity of protected persons. But
this rationale does not support a
broad criminalisation of emotionally harmful communication within a safe area
(for example, a discussion
about the pros and cons of abortion between family
members,
- Defined
in new s 13A(3) to include those people in a safe area for the purpose of
accessing or providing abortion services, or seeking
or providing advice or
information about abortion services.
a clinician delivering bad news about the health of a foetus, or a person
getting into an emotive argument with a protected person
in a hospital carpark).
And the lack of any intention to cause emotional harm is likely to lead to a
broader range of communicative
activity being criminalised, such as distant
silent protest.
- The
original safe areas proposal ameliorated such impacts by requiring an intention
to cause emotional harm to a protected person,
but the proposal in this Bill
does not. If requiring an intention to cause emotional harm would make the
proposed offence difficult
to enforce, it may be that the scope of prohibited
conduct can be narrowed in another way.
- For
example, this could be done by deleting paragraph (b) of the proposed definition
of “prohibited behaviour” and substituting
an extended definition of
“intimidation” which attempts to include the communicative acts
typically engaged in by anti-
abortion activists (such as sign-waving or the
practice of seeking to dissuade people from obtaining abortions through
“sidewalk
counselling”) as well as other intimidating acts such as
visual recording.
- In
terms of an analysis of justified limitations under s 5 of the Bill of Rights
Act, while there is a sufficiently important reason
to limit s 14 and a rational
link between the proposed measure and the policy goal, the measure is not
minimally impairing of the
s 14 right and is therefore not proportionate.
Conclusion
- I
have concluded that clause 5 of the Bill appears to be inconsistent with the
right to freedom of expression affirmed in section
14 of the Bill of Rights
Act.
- I
consider that if the Bill substituted a narrower definition of the
“prohibited behaviour” rather than all “communicating”,
or if the offence of committing prohibited behaviour in a safe area required an
intention to cause harm (as the original safe area
proposal would have
provided), clause 5 is likely to be consistent with the rights and freedoms
affirmed by the Bill of Rights Act.
![2021_1701.jpg](2021_1701.jpg)
Hon David Parker
Attorney-General
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZBORARp/2021/17.html