Public Servants Silenced: Only One View Allowed

Can you picture the scene? It’s not really hard to imagine a ‘training’ session like this, given what we know about the public service in Wellington. 

Last week, Free Speech Union supporters employed by the Department of Internal Affairs contacted us about a full-day training session offered by Tangata Tiriti. They are an activist group (that’s the word the public servants used, not us!), who were brought in to train over 3 dozen public servants about the proper way of viewing the Treaty of Waitangi. 

Apparently, the first half of the day was fairly run of the mill history on how we’ve gotten to where we are today. The second half of the day was where the activism and ideology kicked in...and they didn’t go lightly! 

To me, it’s not so much a question of training on the Treaty itself. 

I know others may disagree, and that’s fine, but the issue to me is that you can be sure if anyone dared to present an alternative interpretation of history, or question current interpretations of the Treaty, many of the same people in that seminar would be the first to cry ‘hate speech’, ‘misinformation’, and claim it’s a waste of money to let public servants engage with something as ‘worthless’ as… free speech. 

Of course, there’s also the question of the cost of 3 dozen public servants spending a day in yet another seminar: I struggle to believe, in wages alone, that’d be less than $20,000 - buts that's another discussion. 

I contacted the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs myself today, putting an offer to him to prove us wrong. The Free Speech Union has fantastic training material, which other public servants have really valued (such as several local councils who have hosted us). 

I’m not holding my breath that we’ll get an invite from DIA, though, and that’s my point! 

How can the public service do its job (creating systems that serve and represent us all), if they’re only allowed to hear from one side of highly contested issues? As I said in my letter to DIA: 

“We have been approached by several DIA employees who expressed concern that their views on Treaty-related matters are considered illegitimate and that they feel constrained in voicing those views in the workplace. This has serious implications for the ability of public servants to offer free, frank, and full advice to the Government, a cornerstone of New Zealand’s democratic system.”

Ultimately, this situation illustrates the capture we’re facing across many of our institutions, which is why the Free Speech Union is leading the fight to take back our institutions and push these would-be-censors out. 

That’s part of what we’re trying to do through the legislation Parliament will be debating tomorrow on our universities. 

The Fight Continues for University’s Academic Freedom 💪

That’s right, the next Bill to be debated before Parliament is legislation the Free Speech Union was deeply involved in crafting, with the expressed goal of ensuring academics and staff are not suppressed and censored. We must enable their rights to speak out and challenge the status quo, otherwise our universities will become centers of indoctrination, not education. 

Central to the legislation is a requirement for Institutional Neutrality. You may or may not have heard this term before, but it’s crucial to whether or not we’ll be successful in shoring up free speech once again in New Zealand. 

Institutional neutrality means that universities take positions only on issues that matter to the university, nothing else. So they should absolutely have an opinion on the Government’s education policy - but as an institution they don’t need to take a position on whether the Government gives enough money to the media. 

It applies to other institutions as well, like local government. Local Council should absolutely have a position on how to get clear fresh water to their residents, but they don’t need to form an opinion on the war in Gaza (because, you know what, despite Whanganui Council condemning the war, surprisingly, their position didn’t seem to change much.) 

Now, you may say ‘but Jonathan, surely the universities, or the local council, or whatever institution, has the right to free speech!’ But I want to encourage you to consider: 

Is it the university that has free speech, or the people in the university? 

Imagine, the university takes a substantive position on, let’s say the war in Gaza, what impact do you think that’ll have on academics who maybe disagree?  

We rely on academics to be able to speak freely and challenge what we think we know. We rely on local councillors to speak up and represent our voices. We rely on a public service that is aware of arguments from across the spectrum, and is willing to listen to everyone. 

To make this possible, we need institutions that resist the urge to take substantive positions on every issue under the sun, particularly contested issues. They must rather focus on their core responsibilities, stick to their knitting, do their jobs really well, listen to others, and allow individuals - not institutions - to participate in debate as the way forward for our nation.

Come Along to Our Panel series on Institutional Neutrality

That's why next week, we’re hosting 3 panel discussions in Auckland, Christchurch, and Wellington on institutional neutrality, and the need for individuals to be the ones to retain the right to speak, not massive edifices imposing over them. 

We have great panels lined up, including individuals who totally disagree with us. 

Come on out and join the discussion, practice free speech, and help us push back against the capture of institutions around us that tell us they simply know better. 

Jonathan Ayling 

Chief Executive

Free Speech Union