Professional regulators were set up to ensure consumer protection and competence. Guarding against bad medical practice, dodgy legal advice, dishonesty, and unsafe work.
But increasingly, these bodies are policing what professionals say in their private lives - and the effect spreads well beyond the people sanctioned creating a culture of silence, self censorship and compliance.
Colleagues watch. They learn what not to say.
Honest disagreement becomes risky, and the everyday mechanisms of error correction within a profession - testing ideas, catching mistakes, arguing things out - get quieter and quieter.
Free speech inside a profession is how the public finds out when something has gone wrong - the nurse flagging an unsafe practice, the teacher questioning a curriculum, the public servant telling a journalist what their agency is hiding.
This matters, because regulators can take away your livelihood – and you shouldn’t lose your career for sharing an opinion or be regulated into silence.
Our Council Chair Stephen Franks – who faced his own 15 month ordeal from the Law Society before being vindicated in full - has drafted the Regulated Professions Neutrality Bill to stop regulators sanctioning their members over private expression or contested political views.
We support the Bill - it is a necessary step in the right direction.
But the Bill is only one part of our response to address this issue.
We also need to expose the scale of the problem – and illustrate that this runs far deeper than a few isolated cases. We know they’re just the tip of the iceberg.
Regulators often weaponise confidentiality agreements, preventing people from going public with stories, or even confiding in their workmates.
If any of this has happened to you – we want to hear from you. Use the form on this page.
We'll use what you tell us to continue to build the public and political case that this is a widespread problem, not a series of one-offs.
New Zealand's professional codes of conduct are becoming increasingly vague with each revision:
Vague rules invite weaponisation, with complaints coming from people who politically disagree, rather than patients or clients.
Worse, codes are increasingly compelling speech - requiring professionals to affirm particular positions on contested political topics.
We're supporting Cath Simpson, a nurse now before a Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal over X posts.
There was also Robert Laroche, another nurse who faced a Nursing Council complaint over Facebook reposts.
And then there was “Matthew”, a councillor who faced disciplinary complaints for his legitimate views on gender ideology.
We've made submissions to the Nursing, Medical, Architects, Teaching, and Veterinary Councils, written letters, run campaigns, and drafted the Real Estate Agents (Political Neutrality) Amendment Bill.
Earlier this year, Stephen Franks himself spent 15 months under a Law Society misconduct complaint for writing a lawyer's letter on his client's instructions.
None of the recipients complained; six unconnected outsiders did. The Legal Complaints Review Officer overturned the finding, ruling the complainants had no proper interest to bring a complaint at all.
Every submission is read by someone on our team. We won't publish your name, your employer, or any identifying details without your written permission.
Follow us at:
