Some fights take a little longer than others. 

While the FSU team has been confronting the NZ Police, professional bodies, Immigration NZ, high schools, media outlets, and other would-be-censors, we've also been working away in the background on another case. As a member of the Union, I know this is an issue you'll care about. 

Back in March, we told the story of Hutt City Council censoring the work of a respected Māori leader, Sir Āpirana Ngata, calling it misinformation.

When we hear of acts of censorship, our first step is to give the benefit of the doubt: does the censor know what they were doing?

After all, censorship can be a natural impulse to ideas people in authority don't like. Often, we get a peaceful resolution by just explaining the law. 

But not this time. 

Hutt City Council has had plenty of time to back down. But they haven’t budged. That's why today, we are suing them in the High Court for breaching the Bill of Rights Act, and abusing Kiwis' freedom of expression.

___________________________

The backstory: An insert of ‘Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation’ by Sir Āpirana Ngata was published in 31 NZME and Stuff newspapers by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research (NZCPR) in February this year.

Hutt City Council banned the insert from its premises on the basis that it “spread a very particular political viewpoint” and was “viewed as spreading misinformation.”

They claimed that in order for the insert to be published, there needed to be a counter perspective. But, that's not how advertising works. 

If the Council disagreed with the insert that much, they could have published a counter perspective themselves. Instead, they took matters into their own hands and chose to remove all copies of Sir Āpirana Ngata's Treaty explanation from the newspapers available at the Hutt sites under their control. ('No no, McDonalds, you can only advertise the Big Mac if you also let consumers know KFC also has a burger...') 🤦

In reality, the Hutt City Council has a responsibility to uphold free speech under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Simply put, their censorship is unlawful. 

We got in contact with the CEO, Jo Miller, at the time, expressing our concern and asking for an explanation. But she doubled down, refusing to meet with anyone from FSU and referring all correspondence to the Council's Chief Legal Officer. 

We typically see this with people in power who want to censor unwelcome views; they claim that it is in the interests of those they serve, then hold their hands over their ears when told they are abusing their power.

Well, it's time to hold her accountable.

We're suing not only Hutt City Council, but Jo Miller, too, personally, with Jack Hodder KC, one of New Zealand great lawyers, representing us. (You might remember him from our case before the Supreme Court). 

If you think it's unusual to sue the Chief Executive of a Council, you’re right. But we’re sick of seeing people abuse council power.

They’re funded by the ratepayer. They’re there to serve the interests of all, impartially, not just those who share their political views. The law says they must uphold your rights to free speech, which includes your right to receive information.

Too often, they get their councils into pointless legal battles, comfortable that the cost will fall on ratepayers and expecting the other side to be crushed by the cost - so it doesn’t matter if the council position is wrong.

We think things could change dramatically if high-handed council officers face personal liability.

You may ask whether local councils under the sway of political bias would just meet the legal costs of their officers anyway, so what’s the difference?

We will look closely at how the Council handles this. Councils have a conflict of interest with their officers in these kinds of situations. If an officer has acted unlawfully, and advised the Council to act similarly, then it should be outside their employment.

They cannot be engaged to act unlawfully. There has to be accountability. 

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act needs to be taken seriously, which is exactly what we're doing. We cannot sit by while bureaucrats think they get to call the shots, cherry-picking what you do and don't hear. If we don't fight this, we'll continue to see this again and again.

Taking legal cases to court isn't cheap, and our team endeavours to resolve situations without reaching that point. However, in this situation, we've exhausted our other options, and it's now worth a battle in Court.  

We can't have local Councils dictating what information ratepayers can and can't see in their newspapers. It's really as simple as that. 

Succeeding against Hutt City Council and Jo Miller will set a precedent for other councils and their bureaucrats across the country.

We'll only win this important fight if you stand with us.

Will you chip in today to ensure we win this battle?

Stephen Franks Council Member Free Speech Union

PS. We're suing the Hutt City Council and their CEO, Jo Miller. Councils assume they can censor ordinary Kiwis, who will never have enough money to fight the “City Hall’s” control of the ratepayer credit card. This time, they're wrong. 

Will you back us in the fight?