RESTRICTED
Briefing
PREVENTION OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM -
UPDATE
1982
To: Prime Minister, Minister for National Security and Intel igence (Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern)
CC: Minister Responsible for the NZSIS and GCSB, Minister of Justice (Hon Andrew Little)
Act
Minister of Police (Hon Stuart Nash)
Date
18/12/2018
Priority
Routine
Deadline 25/01/2019
Briefing Number
1819NSPD/065
Purpose
Information
1. This paper provides you with an update on work undertaken by officials in relation to the
prevention of violent extremism in New Zealand.
Recommendations
Official
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet recommends that you:
the
1.
Note that officials have undertaken a stocktake of our approach to the
prevention of violent extremism
- both at the strategic / community level and
in relation to specific individuals of concern.
2.
Note that this work on the prevention of violent extremism sits alongside
advice being prepared for Ministers on counter terrorism legislation and is
under
also relevant to policy work underway related to foreign terrorist fighters.
3.
Note the attached High Level Framework for the Prevention of Violent
Extremism (Attachment A).
Released
BRIEFING TITLE: PREVENTION OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM - UPDATE
Report No 1819/065.
DPMC: 4097814 [no version number]
Page 1
IN CONFIDENCE
RESTRICTED
4.
Note the intention to establish a new cross-agency programme to support
more coordinated, holistic case management of individuals of violent
extremism concern.
1982
Act
Howard Broad
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern
Deputy Chief Executive
Prime Minister
National Security Group
Minister for National Security and
DPMC
Intelligence
…../…../2018
…../…../2018
Information
Official
the
under
Released
BRIEFING TITLE: PREVENTION OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM - UPDATE
Report No 1819/065.
DPMC: 4097814 [no version number]
Page 2
IN CONFIDENCE
RESTRICTED
Contact for telephone discussion if required:
Name
Position
Telephone
1st
contact
Howard Broad
Deputy Chief Executive
DDI
Mobile
National Security Group
s9(2)(a)
s9(2)(a)
s9(2)(a)
Specialist Coordinator
DDI
Mobile
National Security Group
1982
s9(2)(a)
s9(2)(a)
Minister’s office comments:
Act
Noted
Seen
Approved
Needs change
Withdrawn
Not seen by Minister
Overtaken by events
Referred to
Information
Official
the
under
Released
BRIEFING TITLE: PREVENTION OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM - UPDATE
Report No. 1819/065
DPMC: 4097814 [no version number]
IN CONFIDENCE
RESTRICTED
Prevention of Violent Extremism
Prevention of Violent Extremism - Stocktake
2. Over the past few months, officials have undertaken a stocktake of New Zealand’s approach
to the prevention of violent extremism – that is, the approach taken to preventing the
emergence, and managing the presence, of violent extremist ideas, ideologies and activities.
3. The stocktake was not driven by a specific or immediate concern. Rather, it reflected the
1982
strategic importance of this aspect of our counter terrorism effort and a desire to test the
current approach. While consideration was given to approaches adopted in some other
countries, it was recognised that our approach needed to reflect the strengths of our current
Act
approach as well as the particular nature, scale and profile of the violent extremism problem
in New Zealand. The number of known individuals of violent extremist concern to New
Zealand agencies continues to be relatively small.
4. The stocktake involved a wide range of national security and social agencies, recognising
much of the effort relevant to the reduction of violent extremism risk is linked to wider efforts
to build an inclusive society, support communities and deliver social services.
5. This stocktake is part of a wider counter terrorism work programme, and it has particular
relevance to other work-streams concerned with counter terrorism legislation and the
Information
management of potential foreign terrorist fighters (see paragraphs 16-19 below).
High Level Framework and Strategic Approach
6. The outcome of the stocktake is captured in the High Level Framework for the Prevention of
Violent Extremism (
Attachment A), which can be summarised at two levels:
Official
• At the strategic / community level – continued cross-government investment in
proactive, broad-based community engagement and relationships, and the
promotion of social inclusion and diversity.
the
• At the tactical level, focused of specific individuals – a bespoke approach to case
management involving a wide range of security and social service oriented
agencies and community organisations.
s9(2)(g)(i)
under
Released
9. Instead, the preferred approach is to continue building strong relationships with communities
through broad-based engagement across a range of issues - ideally led by agencies with a
long-term community role and presence. These relationships can then be accessed to
BRIEFING TITLE: PREVENTION OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM - UPDATE
Report No 1819/065.
DPMC: 4097814 [no version number]
Page 3
IN CONFIDENCE
RESTRICTED
address specific violent extremist problems in a targeted way, if and where they arise. In this
regard, the attached High Level Framework is consistent with our current underlying
approach to violent extremism.
Enhanced Inter-agency Coordination
10. There was, however, one specific recommendation arising out of the stocktake -
establishment of a new Multi-Agency Coordination and Intervention Programme (MACIP) for
the case management of individuals of violent extremism concern.
1982
11. Inter-agency collaboration is a core feature of the current approach to dealing with
individuals of violent extremist concern. There are strong working relationships between key
agencies, including New Zealand Police, Corrections and the Ministry for Social Act
Development. However, the new programme wil add an additional layer of coordination
around current case-by-case engagement between agencies. It wil build on an existing
violent extremism coordination programme focused on young people (under 18s), the Young
Persons Intervention Programme (YPIP) – established in 2015.
12. In some cases, the primary focus of agencies wil need to be risk management rather than
rehabilitation (at least in the short term). However, in most cases, there wil be an
opportunity to consider interventions that wil support disengagement, rehabilitation and the
best long-term outcomes for the individual, family or community. This requires a holistic and
Information
multi-agency approach.
13. The proposed programme was recently endorsed by the Security and Intelligence Board of
Chief Executives, with support from social agencies (including the Ministry for Social
Development, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education and Oranga Tamariki) and the
Department of Internal Affairs.
Official
14. Guiding parameters for the new programme include:
• New Zealand Police in a lead coordination role;
the
• Multi-agency membership, including social sector agencies;
• A focus on violent extremism risk reduction and mitigation, but:
o recognising relationships between extremism and other complex problems;
o grounded in a bespoke, outcomes approach taking advantage the tools, services,
under
capabilities and external relationships held across government; and
• A scope that includes individuals of violent extremist concern of different ages and
profiles, including those within the community or corrections system and those that
could return from off-shore.
15. Agencies are currently working through the management, governance and resourcing
arrangements for the MACIP. An update wil be provided to all relevant Ministers once these
Released
are confirmed. The programme is expected to be operating from the second quarter of 2019.
BRIEFING TITLE: PREVENTION OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM - UPDATE
Report No 1819/065.
DPMC: 4097814 [no version number]
Page 4
IN CONFIDENCE
RESTRICTED
Other Counter Terrorism Work-streams
16. Counter Terrorism Legislation - Officials are currently developing advice and options on
potential changes to aspects of counter terrorism legislation for Ministers’ consideration. The
scope of issues being considered includes new terrorism-related offences and new control
orders to help with the management of violent extremists in the community.
1982
17. The MACIP wil play a role complementary to law enforcement and the justice system, and
in doing so should enhance the range of tools and interventions available to agencies in
addressing violent extremism.
Act
18. Foreign Terrorist Fighter Policy Framework - Officials are presently preparing advice on a
policy framework for the management of potential foreign terrorist fighters. Amongst
scenarios being considered is the possibility of New Zealand needing to manage an
individual that has returned to New Zealand from the conflict zone.
19. This scenario would present a significant, long-term risk management and rehabilitation
challenge, whether the individual was prosecuted and managed through the corrections
system or returned to the community. The MACIP would provide a mechanism for
Information
coordinating inter-agency activity over the medium to long term.
20. Terrorism Risk Management and Threat Assessment – The Security and Intelligence Board
also recently endorsed a number of proposed changes to our counter terrorism risk
management system, including significant changes to the way the national terrorism threat
Official
level assessment is undertaken. We intend to brief you on these proposals early next year
with a view to taking a paper to the External Relations and Security Committee (ERS) –
covering the proposed changes to the terrorism threat assessment system as well as
the
providing a wider update on the counter terrorism work programme.
Attachments under
Attachments:
Appendix A:
High Level Framework for the Prevention of Violent Extremism
Released
BRIEFING TITLE: PREVENTION OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM - UPDATE
Report No 1819/065.
DPMC: 4097814 [no version number]
Page 5
IN CONFIDENCE
RESTRICTED
Briefing
PROPOSED COUNTER-TERRORISM CABINET
PAPERS
1982
To: Prime Minister, Minister for National Security and Intel igence (Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern)
CC: Minister Responsible for the NZSIS and GCSB, Minister of Justice (Hon Andrew Little)
Act
Date
15/03/2019
Priority
Routine
Deadline 26/03/2019
Briefing Number
1819NSPD/094
Purpose
Information
1. This briefing note outlines two proposed Cabinet papers relating to counter-
terrorism. These two Cabinet papers are attached in draft form.
2. The first draft Cabinet paper provides an overview of the wider counter-terrorism
strategic work programme, to be submitted by you as the Minister for National
Security and Intelligence. You wil note this paper includes discussion of the work
Official
on counter-terrorism legislation.
s6(a)
the
3. The second draft Cabinet paper sets out changes to the national terrorism threat
assessment, to be jointly submitted by yourself as the Minister for National
Security and Intelligence and the Minister Responsible for the NZSIS.
under
4. It is proposed these two papers are submitted to the External Relations and
Security Committee of Cabinet (ERS) for its meeting on 30 April.
5. The draft papers have been consulted with a small group of key agencies. It
would be helpful to get your views on them by 26 March (including, if you wish, a
discussion at your National Security Briefing on 20 March). This will enable good
time for the necessary Ministerial-level consultation ahead of the 30 April meeting
of ERS.
Released
Recommendations
We recommend that you:
1.
Note the attached draft Cabinet papers:
BRIEFING TITLE: PREVENTION OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM - UPDATE
Report No. 1819NSPD/094
DPMC: 4097814
IN CONFIDENCE
RESTRICTED
1.1. Counter-Terrorism Strategic Work Programme
1.2. Proposed Changes to the National Terrorism Threat Assessment
2.
Note that it is proposed these papers are submitted to the meeting of
the External Relations and Security Committee of Cabinet scheduled
for 30 April
3.
Note that the papers have been consulted at officials level, but wider
(ministerial-level) consultation has yet to occur
4.
Note that of icials would welcome any views you have on these papers
by 26 March (including, if you wish, a discussion at your National
1982
Security Briefing on 20 March)
5.
Note that, amongst other issues, your views on the potential
Act
acceleration and/or broadening of the current work on counter-
terrorism legislation would be welcome
6.
Agree to forward this briefing note and the attached draft Cabinet
papers to the Minister Responsible for the NZSIS.
Information
Cecile Hillyer
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern
Acting Deputy Chief Executive
Prime Minister
National Security Group
Minister for National Security and
DPMC
Intelligence
Official
…../…../2019
…../…../2019
the
under
Released
BRIEFING TITLE: PREVENTION OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM - UPDATE
Report No 1819NSPD/094.
DPMC: 4097814
Page 1
IN CONFIDENCE
RESTRICTED
Contact for telephone discussion if required:
Name
Position
Telephone
1st
contact
Cecile Hillyer
Acting Deputy Chief
DDI
Mobile
Executive
s9(2)(a)
s9(2)(a)
National Security Group
s9(2)(a)
Specialist Coordinator
DDI
Mobile
National Security Group
1982
s9(2)(a)
s9(2)(a)
Minister’s office comments:
Act
Noted
Seen
Approved
Needs change
Withdrawn
Not seen by Minister
Overtaken by events
Referred to
Information
Official
the
under
Released
BRIEFING TITLE: PREVENTION OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM - UPDATE
Report No 1819NSPD/094.
DPMC: 4097814
Page 2
IN CONFIDENCE
RESTRICTED
PROPOSED COUNTER-TERRORISM CABINET
PAPERS
Paper 1 - National Terrorism Threat Assessment
1.
This paper sets out a number of proposed changes to the national terrorism
threat assessment, specifically:
1982
• Introduction of a regular, annual National Terrorism Threat Assessment (and
associated threat level) – linked to an annual, strategic terrorism risk
management cycle.
Act
• Publication of an annual statement concerning the terrorism threat environment
– based on the annual terrorism threat assessment.
• Development of a new analytical framework and criteria for the National
Terrorism Threat Assessment (and associated threat level).
• Elevation of decision-making responsibility for the National Terrorism Threat
Level to the Director-General NZSIS.
2.
Collectively, these proposed changes are intended to address three main issues:
Information
2.1
s6(a)
Official
2.2 Second, the national terrorism threat level was not designed as a public
the
communications tool. However, once disclosed in 2014 (by former Prime
Minister Key), there has been some expectation of disclosure of the national
terrorism threat level and any change in that level. It has become a point of
regular media inquiry.
under
s6(a)
2.3
Released
3.
We propose this paper is submitted jointly by yourself, as Minister for National
Security and Intelligence, along with the Minister Responsible for the NZSIS.
BRIEFING TITLE: PREVENTION OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM - UPDATE
Report No 1819NSPD/094.
DPMC: 4097814
Page 3
IN CONFIDENCE
RESTRICTED
Paper 2 - Counter-Terrorism Strategic Work Programme
4.
There are a number of counter-terrorism work-streams underway across
government. These include advice on foreign terrorist fighters, a review of
counter-terrorism legislation, a stocktake of our approach to countering violent
extremism, and proposed changes to the national terrorism threat assessment. 1982
5.
The purpose of the proposed Cabinet paper is to draw these work-streams
together to ensure greater ministerial visibility and to position them within a wider
Act
counter-terrorism strategic work programme. This paper is for the wider visibility
and information of your colleagues; any ministerial or Cabinet decisions on these
work-streams wil be sought separately. The paper also provides an overview of
the evolving terrorism threat environment as important context for the work
programme. The discussion of individual work-streams is largely confined to the
short descriptions provided in Appendix A. The two exceptions are the work-
stream concerned with the prevention of violent extremism and the work-stream
concerned with counter-terrorism legislation.
Information
6.
Strategically, these are two important work-streams. Collectively, they address a
broad range of the interventions available to government agencies in countering
violent extremism, ranging from earlier interventions intended to prevent the
emergence or growth of violent extremist behaviour to interventions necessary to
protect the public from an immediate threat. They are also relevant to current
Official
discussions about arrangements for managing individuals that return from Iraq /
Syria having travelled to fight with / support ISIS.
the
7.
You will recall that officials are developing advice on possible changes to
counter-terrorism legislation. The scope of that work - as agreed previously by
Ministers - is set out in the draft cabinet paper. It includes the case for new
offences and the case for new control powers to better manage and monitor
under
individuals in the community (which could include returned foreign terrorist
fighters). This work is being led by the Ministry of Justice. Advice is not expected
until mid-year.
s6(a)
8.
Released
9.
Your views on both accelerating the legislative work programme and/or extending
its scope would be welcome.
BRIEFING TITLE: PREVENTION OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM - UPDATE
Report No 1819NSPD/094.
DPMC: 4097814
Page 4
IN CONFIDENCE
RESTRICTED
Attachments
Attachments:
Appendix A:
National Terrorism Threat Assessment (draft Cabinet
1982
paper)
Appendix B
Example of Australian public version of Australian
terrorism threat statement
Act
Appendix C:
Counter-Terrorism Strategic Work Programme (draft
Cabinet paper) + Attachments
Information
Official
the
under
Released
BRIEFING TITLE: PREVENTION OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM - UPDATE
Report No 1819NSPD/094.
DPMC: 4097814
Page 5
IN CONFIDENCE
RESTRICTED
Memorandum
SOCIAL MEDIA AND HARMFUL ONLINE
CONTENT
1982
To: Prime Minister (Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern)
Act
Date
19/03/2019
Priority
High
Deadline N/A
Briefing Number
1819NSPD/107
Purpose
To provide advice on:
Information
a) the engagement officials have had with social media companies on issues related to
online hate speech,
b) the legislative framework for addressing hate speech, and
c) options for further consideration of these issues.
Official
Recommendations
the
DPMC recommends that you:
1.
Note the contents of this paper.
under
Paul Ash
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern
Acting Director, National Security
Prime Minister
Released
Policy Directorate, DPMC
Minister for National Security &
Intelligence
….. / ….. / 2018
….. / ….. / 2018
SOCIAL MEDIA AND HARMFUL ONLINE CONTENT
Report No. 107
DPMC: 4118840
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Contact for telephone discussion if required:
Name
Position
Telephone
1st
contact
Paul Ash
Acting Director, National
s9(2)(a)
s9(2)(a)
Security Policy Directorate
1982
Minister’s office comments:
Act
Noted
Seen
Approved
Needs change
Withdrawn
Not seen by Minister
Overtaken by events
Referred to
Information
Official
the
under
Released
SOCIAL MEDIA AND HARMFUL ONLINE CONTENT
Report No. 107
DPMC: 4118840
Page 2 of 10
RESTRICTED
link to page 15
RESTRICTED
SOCIAL MEDIA AND HARMFUL ONLINE
CONTENT
Context
1.
On 19 March 2019 your office requested advice on:
a)
Engagement officials have undertaken to date with Facebook,
1982
b)
The relevant rules and legislative framework for hate speech, and
c)
Options for further consideration of these issues.
Act
2.
This paper has been consulted with Ministry of Justice, Department of Internal Affairs,
and CERT NZ.
Engagement with social media companies
Facebook
Engagement with Facebook
Information
3.
Agencies regularly engage with Facebook on operational issues. A number have
engaged with Facebook on operational and/or policy issues relevant to their
responsibilities in the days following the Christchurch terrorist attack, including the
Department of Internal Affairs, Police, Ministry of Culture and Heritage, and Netsafe (a
largely government-funded NGO). CERT NZ also worked with DIA, Netsafe and New
Zealand’s large network operators to block access to harmful digital content arising from
the incident.
Official
4.
Officials from DPMC met with Facebook in early March 2019. At that meeting officials
discussed their concern at the proliferation of terrorist content on social media platforms,
the
and requested Facebook be more responsive to the legitimate safety and security
expectations of the governments of countries where it operates. Officials also signal ed
interest in disinformation and the role of social media companies in combatting it.
Facebook’s approach to harmful online content
under
5.
Facebook is one of the more popular platforms used to host hate speech, but hate
speech appears on a wide variety of other social media platforms such as Reddit, Twitter
and YouTube (Google), and within messaging services.
1
6.
Facebook defines hate speech as ‘anything that directly attacks people based on what
are known as their ‘protected characteristics’ – race, ethnicity, national origin, religious
affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, or serious disability or disease’.
Released
7.
Facebook, when considering hate speech, takes into account the following:
1 There are other websites with a free speech ethos where hate speech has been distributed (like 4chan, 8chan and Gab). Hate
speech can also be spread by torrenting and file-hosting, which are more difficult to block but lack the widespread reach that
sharing via social media provides.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND HARMFUL ONLINE CONTENT
Report No. 107
DPMC: 4118840
RESTRICTED
link to page 16 link to page 16
RESTRICTED
a)
Context – this includes the speaker and audience, consideration of the regional or
linguistic context, and the evolution of language or the words used.
b)
Intent – the intent of those “speaking” is important, because it could be argued that
some expressions could be said for “non-hateful reasons such as making a self-
deprecating joke or quoting lyrics from a song”. Included here is the use of satire
or comedy to make a point about hate speech, or the reclaiming of offensive terms
that were used to attack a particular group
c)
Mistakes – Facebook acknowledges that it gets things wrong. It notes that, in
addition to its own reviewers, it relies on communities to identify instances of hate
speech, and that it is not always easy to judge whether something qualifies as hate 1982
speech.
2
8.
Globally, on average Facebook deletes 66,000 posts per week that contravene its
Act
definition of hate speech.
3 Current reports indicate Facebook removed 1.5 mil ion
instances of the Christchurch mosque shootings video in the first 24 hours after the event.
9.
Facebook, like Twitter and Google, increasingly employs the use of computer algorithms
to detect harmful online content, using analysis of the content itself and patterns of user
engagement with it. Takedowns need to involve a mixture of human and artificial
intelligence components, neither of which are completely effective, given the speed at
which content is posted and the number of people who can post it.
10. Facebook also has a real-name policy, which is intended to deter the spread of harmful
Information
online content by forcing users to be transparent about their identity on the platform.
What legislation addresses hate speech and harmful online content?
11. New Zealand’s media content regulation regime seeks to prevent harm to consumers
and subjects of media content. It is designed to prevent harm from people viewing
Official
unwanted or unsuitable content. It ensures media content is held to a high standard while
stil protecting freedom of expression.
the
12. The current regime is enabled by the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act
1993 (the Classification Act) and the Broadcasting Act 1989 (the Broadcasting Act), with
the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) and the Broadcasting Standards
Authority (BSA) as regulators under their respective regimes. In addition, the New
Zealand Media Council (the Media Council), a self-regulatory body, operates a voluntary
code and plays a role in the current regime. The components of this framework are
under
outlined below and detailed in Annex One.
Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act
13. The Classification Act, administered by DIA, was designed to provide a framework for
classifying films, videos, and publications, restricting the availability of harmful content,
and creating offences related to objectionable material.
Released
2 Paul Spoonley, Hate speech in the age of the internet. May 2018.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lw6c3AxpfyGRAT4YeOhdhluW6Sl6Sucb/view
3 ibid
SOCIAL MEDIA AND HARMFUL ONLINE CONTENT
Report No. 107
DPMC: 4118840
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
14. The Chief Censor classified the Christchurch streaming video clip as an ‘objectionable
publication’ on 15 March. This makes it il egal to distribute or view the video clip in
New Zealand.
Broadcasting Act
15. The Broadcasting Act is administered by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. The
legislation provides a framework to regulate content traditionally broadcast on radio and
free-to-air and pay television. It covers content live-streamed through the internet. It does
not cover user-generated content or on-demand content. The Act sets out a process for
complaints to be made about content that breaches standards.
1982
New Zealand Media Council offers a voluntary code and relies on membership compliance
16. The Media Council is a self-regulatory body with voluntary membership. It was
Act
established in 1972 to provide the public with an independent forum for resolving
complaints involving newspapers, magazines, websites of such publications and other
digital media. It is funded by industry. The Media Council’s intention is to uphold high
ethical standards by applying 12 principles to its members. The principles include
accuracy, fairness, balance, privacy, discrimination and diversity. If a complaint is upheld,
the Media Council can order a correction or a retraction.
Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015
Information
17. The Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (HDCA) is intended to deter, prevent and
mitigate harm caused by digital communications and to provide victims (but not the wider
public – i.e. this is a private regime) of harmful digital communications with a quick and
efficient means of redress. At the heart of the Act are ten communications principles that
together describe a broad range of challenging online communications that people can
send and receive. Safe harbour provisions provide protection against liability for online
Official
content hosts if they remove content while complying with certain procedural steps. This
is a reactive mechanism and does not apply to proactively removing content.
the
Human Rights Act 1993
18. The Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) makes it unlawful to broadcast, publish or distribute
written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, or to use threatening, abusive
or insulting words in public places if such actions are likely to excite hostility against or
bring into contempt any group of per
under sons in New Zealand on the ground of colour, race
or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons.
19. Section 131 of the HRA also makes it a criminal offence to, with intent to excite hostility
or il wil against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any group of persons on the ground
of colour, race or ethnic and social origins of the group, publish or distribute written
matter, or use words in a public place, that are threatening, abusive or insulting and are
likely to excite il wil or hostility to that group.
Released
Sentencing Act 2002
20. The Sentencing Act 2002 includes provisions to make it an aggravating feature if the
offender committed the offence partly or wholly because of hostility towards a group of
persons who have an enduring common characteristic such as race, colour, nationality,
religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND HARMFUL ONLINE CONTENT
Report No. 107
DPMC: 4118840
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
21. Set alongside these protections is the New Zealand Bil of Rights Act 1990, which gives
everyone the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive and
impart information and opinions of any kind in any form, and provides for freedom from
discrimination and a range of other protections.
Future options for addressing hate speech and other harmful online
content
1982
22. Officials have identified a range of preliminary options to progress work on addressing
hate speech and other harmful online content, particularly where social media provides
a means of quickly disseminating this content widely. These preliminary options include
Act
(but are not limited to):
a)
Reviewing the adequacy of current legislation relating to hate speech
This work would particularly focus on the HRA and HDCA, and consider extending
the definition to include religion and other characteristics, strengthening the HRA’s
criminal provisions relating to hate speech, and looking at the operability of the
HDCA in practice.
In recent days the Minister of Justice and his Ministry have had initial discussions
Information
about:
• improving data collection of hate speech and similarly-motivated crime;
• gaps in the current law relating to hate speech; and
• the adequacy of levers in the system for responding when such behaviour
Official
occurs online and can proliferate quickly across national borders.
Further consideration is required about how to progress that work and in what
the
timeframe.
New Zealand’s media content regulation is outdated and does not cater to the ways
New Zealanders now use and interact with media content. DIA and MCH are
proposing work to consider reform of media content regulation in New Zealand.
under
The proposed scope may look at how we define media, and could involve a
consideration of whether user-generated content is included.
b)
Formalising and expanding the government’s engagement with social media
companies
This would include considering how we can improve and enhance engagement
with companies on a bilateral, plurilateral, and multilateral basis. This would require
a joined-up approach across government (including at Ministerial and
Released
policy/operational agency level) to push social media companies to address
carriage of hate speech and other related offensive content. It would also require
SOCIAL MEDIA AND HARMFUL ONLINE CONTENT
Report No. 107
DPMC: 4118840
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
an effective and well-coordinated agency structure to give substantive effect to
crisis response.
Consideration should also be given to extending any such approach to network
operators, given the significant role they have played in the current event, and more
traditional media outlets.
c)
Considering how to increase social media companies’ receptiveness to
issues arising from hate speech or harmful content on their platforms
s9(2)(f)(iv), s9(2)(g)(i)
1982
Act
23. Officials welcome the opportunity to discuss the range of issues available with you.
Information
Official
the
under
Released
SOCIAL MEDIA AND HARMFUL ONLINE CONTENT
Report No. 107
DPMC: 4118840
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
ANNEX ONE: LEGISLATION RELEVANT TO HATE SPEECH
AND OTHER HARMFUL ONLINE CONTENT
Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act
1. The Classification Act is administered by DIA and was designed to provide a framework for
classifying films, videos, and publications, and to restrict the availability of harmful content.
2. Under this Act, a publication is objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise
deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the
availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good, or promotes or
1982
encourages acts of terrorism. The Chief Censor classified the Christchurch streaming video
clip as an ‘objectionable publication’ on 15 March. Objectionable material is banned from
being distributed or viewed in New Zealand.
Act
3. The Act contains offences relating to objectionable material. There are two distinct levels
of offences, a strict liability offence, and an offence that requires the defendant to have
performed the action knowingly:
• Strict liability: someone has simply performed the criminalised action (ie imported an
objectionable publication), these carry a maximum penalty for an individual of a
$10,000 fine.
• Knowingly: these offences require a
mens rea element where the individual must
Information
have committed the prohibited action while knowing or having reasonable cause to
believe that the publication was objectionable. This additional culpability is reflected
in the much higher maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment.
4. DIA, NZ Police (OCEANZ team) and NZ Customs (CEOT) work collaboratively and have
differing roles to play in the investigation and prosecution of ‘objectionable material’ in New
Zealand.
Official
5. This Act does not currently cover online video on-demand content (VoD) produced by
subscription service providers like Netflix or TVNZ on Demand. On 11 March 2019, Cabinet
the
approved the Minister of Internal Af airs to undertake consultation on options to include
commercial VoDs in this legislation. This work is intended to address a discrete gap in the
current system within a shorter timeframe. User-generated streaming videos (which would
include the Facebook livestream of the Christchurch terrorist attack) were specifically
excluded from scope of this consultation.
under
Broadcasting Act
6. The Broadcasting Act is administered by Ministry for Culture and Heritage. The legislation
was designed to provide a framework that regulates content traditionally broadcast on radio
and free-to-air and pay television. It covers content live-streamed through the internet. For
example, TV One’s 6:00 pm news bulletin can be viewed either via traditional television or
accessed via TVNZ’s website at the time of broadcast. It does not cover user-generated
content or on-dem
Released and content. (Based on Crown Law Office advice prepared in 2015 [Ref
CUL161/107]).
7. The framework is founded on 11 broadcasting standards which are co-designed by the
Broadcasting Standards Authority and industry. The standards cover matters such as: good
taste and decency, violence, law and order, children’s interests, accuracy, privacy and
fairness and are set out broadcasting codes for radio, free-to-air and pay television. The
SOCIAL MEDIA AND HARMFUL ONLINE CONTENT
Report No. 107
DPMC: 4118840
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
codes ensure consistent standards are applied across broadcasting content, while
protecting the right to freedom of expression. Standards ensure that harm is avoided, and
community values are maintained while allowing flexibility for change where required.
8. Consumers can complain to a broadcaster if they believe one of the standards has been
breached. If the consumer is unsatisfied with the response, a complaint can be escalated
to the BSA. The BSA can receive complaints about privacy and election programmes
directly. If a compliant is upheld the BSA can may orders, the most common if which are:
require the broadcaster to issue a statement or apology, pay a fine up to $5,000.
9. Under s21(d) of the Act the BSA can also issue an advisory, which refers to broadcasting
standards and ethical conduct in broadcasting.
1982
New Zealand Media Council offers a voluntary code and relies on membership compliance
Act
10. The Media Council is a self-regulatory body with voluntary membership. It was established
in 1972 to provide the public with an independent forum for resolving complaints involving
newspapers, magazines, websites of such publications and other digital media. It is funded
by the industry. The Media Council’s intention is to uphold high ethical standards by
applying 12 principles to its members. The principles include accuracy, fairness, balance,
privacy, discrimination and diversity. If a complaint is upheld, the Media Council can order
a correction or a retraction.
Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015
Information
11. The Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (HDCA) is intended to deter, prevent and
mitigate harm caused by digital communications and to provide victims of harmful digital
communications with a quick and efficient means of redress. At the heart of the Act are ten
communications principles that together describe a broad range of challenging online
communications that people can send and receive.
Official
12. Principle 10 of the HDCA says that digital communication should not:
the
Denigrate a person’s colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual
orientation or disability.
13. This principle extends to a limited set of communications which could be considered hateful
in nature.
under
14. The HDCA provides that people who are subject to a harmful digital communication may
lodge a complaint with Netsafe, the approved agency under the HDCA. If Netsafe cannot
resolve the complaint, the complainant may bring proceedings in the District Court and
seek a range of orders, including removal of the digital communication in question and
cessation and restraint of the conduct of the person responsible for it.
15. Safe harbour provisions allow online content hosts to obtain protection against liability
under the HDCA if they remove content while complying with certain procedural steps, but
Released
this is a reactive mechanism and does not apply to proactively removing content.
Human Rights Act 1993
16. Section 61 of the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) makes it unlawful to broadcast, publish or
distribute written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, or to use threatening,
abusive or insulting words in public places if such actions are likely to excite hostility against
SOCIAL MEDIA AND HARMFUL ONLINE CONTENT
Report No. 107
DPMC: 4118840
RESTRICTED
link to page 22
RESTRICTED
or bring into contempt any group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of colour, race
or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons.
17. Section 131 of the HRA makes it a criminal offence to, with intent to excite hostility or il wil
against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any group of persons on the ground of colour,
race or ethnic and social origins of the group, publish or distribute written matter, or use
words in a public place, that are threatening, abusive or insulting and are likely to excite il
wil or hostility to that group.
18. The threshold for both these provisions are high.
4 The primary mechanism for dealing with
complaints about section 61 of the HRA is referral to mediation through the Human Rights
Commission. If mediation does not resolve the complaint the complainant can take a claim 1982
to the independent Human Rights Review Tribunal.
Sentencing Act 2002
Act
19. Section 9 of the Sentencing Act 2002 says that in the context of any offence, the sentencing
court must take into account as an aggravating feature if
the offender committed the offence partly or wholly because of hostility towards a group of
persons who have an enduring common characteristic such as race, colour, nationality,
religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability; and
i) the hostility is because of the common characteristic; and
ii) the offender believed that the victim has that characteristic.
Information
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
20. Set alongside these protections is the New Zealand Bil of Rights Act 1990, which gives
everyone the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive and impart
information and opinions of any kind in any form.
Official
the
under
Released
4 Human Rights Commission. Submission in relation to the twenty-first and twenty-second periodic review of New Zealand under
the Convention on the Elimination of Al Forms of Racial Discrimination. July 2017.
https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/5815/0171/9366/Submission_of_NZ_Human_Rights_Commission_-
_21st_and_22nd_Review_of_NZ_under_CERD.pdf
SOCIAL MEDIA AND HARMFUL ONLINE CONTENT
Report No. 107
DPMC: 4118840
RESTRICTED
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
s9(2)(a)
s9(2)(a)
s9(2)(a)
s9(2)(a)
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
s9(2)(g)(i)
under
Released
Document Outline
- Briefing
- Prevention of Violent Extremism - Update
- Purpose
- Recommendations
- Prevention of Violent Extremism
- Attachments
