Dr Susie Allanson

BA (Hons) MA (Clinical Psych) PhD MAPS

Member of the College of Clinical Psychologists

Reg Psychology Board Australia AHPRA

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST

Privacy and FOI Policy Branch
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
1 National Circuit, BARTON ACT 2600

Re: Commonwealth Government Issues Paper: A Commonwealth Statutory Cause of Action for Serious Invasion of Privacy.

Thank you for the opportunity to make comment on the above. As the clinical psychologist at an abortion providing clinic picketed daily by anti-abortion protesters, I respectfully request that any statutory cause of action for serious invasion of privacy be applicable to the daily invasions of privacy by anti-abortion protesters.

Anti-abortion picketers’ presence, posters, pamphlets, rhetoric and other behaviour including filming, photographing, and verbally and physically intruding upon women and staff, are regularly experienced as intimidating, offensive and an invasion of privacy. Picketers direct unwanted, demeaning and harmful attention towards women accessing a fully accredited health service to request a variety of legal and highly personal health services.

Recent rigorous research by a University of Melbourne Masters graduate, Alexander Humphries, supports ample anecdotal evidence of the adverse and stigmatising impact on women’s well-being of picketers invasion of women’s privacy. Women desire, need and deserve respect, privacy and confidentiality around their health care, and anti-abortion protesters violate all of these. A summary of Humphries’ research is attached as appendix A.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission’s (VLRC) Surveillance in Public Places Final Report ,18 May 2010, states that an offence should apply in two situations:

“First, where a surveillance device is used to intimidate, demean or harass a person of ordinary sensibilities. Secondly, where a surveillance device is used to prevent or hinder a person from performing an act they are lawfully entitled to do. This latter situation includes, for example, using a surveillance device to discourage people from entering places such as abortion clinics or gay bars.” (6.107)

“Using surveillance to intimidate or prevent people from doing something they are otherwise lawfully entitled to do, like attending an abortion clinic or drug treatment centre, would also be covered by the offence” (p.14)

The VLRC Report’s Glossary provides a definition of surveillance:

“Physical surveillance: Observing a person by being physically present at their location”

“Surveillance: Deliberate or purposive observation or monitoring of a person, object or place.” (p. 9)

Yours sincerely,

Dr Susie Allanson

APPENDIX A: Summary of Humphries, A (2011) Anxiety in women having an abortion: The role of stigma and secrecy. Masters Thesis, University of Melbourne

Participants were 158 pregnant women who attended the Fertility Control Clinic in East Melbourne in 2010 for an early (less than 12 weeks) pregnancy termination for psychosocial reasons. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 42 years with a mean age of 26.25 years.

Of the 158 women, 14.6% of women (n = 23) reported avoiding the picketers by entering through the FCC staff entrance at the rear. 85.4% (n = 135) reported having seen the picketers outside the front of the clinic, 55.1% (n = 87) reported that the picketers had said things to them, 74.7% (n = 118) reported that they had seen anti-abortion displays such as posters and props, 60.1% (n = 95) of women reported that the picketers had tried to hand them anti-abortion information, and 20.3% (n = 32) of women reported that the picketers had attempted to block their entry into the clinic. Of the 135 women who reported having been exposed to the picketers, 132 women reported experiencing two or more forms of exposure.

Psychological measures completed by the women indicated considerable distress in response to the picketers. The more guilt, shame, hostility and so on women felt in response to the picketers, the more anxious they felt as well. Greater exposure to the picketers was associated with higher anxiety. The table below indicates women perceived the greatest amount of abortion stigma coming from the picketers and from the picketers being allowed to protest outside the clinic.

Percentage Statistics for Sources of Perceived Abortion Stigma

Is abortion stigmatized by: / Very Much So (%) / Moderately So (%) / Somewhat (%) / Not At All (%)
The picketers / 77.8 / 3.8 / 5.1 / 13.3
Allowing protesting at the clinic / 70.9 / 10.8 / 10.1 / 8.2
Religious groups / 53.8 / 19.6 / 12 / 14.6
Society / 21.5 / 29.1 / 32.9 / 16.5
The media / 11.4 / 33.5 / 36.7 / 18.4
Your family / 20.9 / 18.4 / 29.7 / 31
The partner in the pregnancy / 5.1 / 10.1 / 24.7 / 60.1
Your friends / 5.7 / 17.1 / 39.2 / 38
The healthcare system / 5.1 / 17.1 / 32.9 / 44.9

% of n = 158

Perceiving more abortion stigma was associated with women thinking they should keep their abortion secret from others, which in turn was found to undermine women’s well being.

Fertility Control Clinic

118 Wellington Pde East Melbourne 3002 Australia

Ph: 9419 2922