‘profanity Still An Offence' (Press, 6 August 1981)

On 6 August 1981, a parliamentary select committee heard submissions regarding the Summary Offences Bill, during which Miss Patricia Bartlett, the secretary of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards, expressed concerns about the exclusion of “profane language” as a prosecutable offence. She argued that removing this clause would hinder the ability to bring charges against stage shows that utilise crude and offensive language. The current bill, as it stood, maintained that only “indecent” and “obscene” words could be prosecuted, meaning if language fell outside those categories, no legal action could be taken. Miss Bartlett highlighted the issue of how disorderly behaviour is defined in the bill, which encompasses language intended to threaten, alarm, insult, or offend an individual but does not apply to performances in which such language is merely presented as part of the script. She also commented on the penalties associated with indecent language. With a fine of $200 deemed insufficient for theatre companies, she proposed that the penalty be increased to $500. During the discussion, she was asked if laws should evolve with changing community standards. Miss Bartlett responded affirmatively, stating that having profanity designated as an offence remains significant. When questioned about the possibility of a playwright using profanity as a moral statement, she conceded that she had not contemplated that perspective. Additionally, the Society's submission urged the retention of the existing offence concerning fortune telling, especially when conducted with the intent to deceive. Miss Bartlett pointed out the need for strict oversight on health cures advertised and maintained that protections against deceitful fortune telling should remain in place. Moreover, she raised a concern about the bill's apparent bias, noting it was unjust that only males would face penalties for indecent exposure. This discussion in the select committee reflects the ongoing societal dialogue about language, performance, and legal definitions of decency, as well as the call for equitable treatment in legislation.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand