The results were set out in a media statement which said:
New Zealanders overwhelmingly believe professional regulators should stay out of practitioners’ politics, according to new polling released today by the Free Speech Union.
The Curia poll of 1,000 voters found 54% believe regulators such as the Medical and Nursing Councils should only discipline doctors and nurses for incompetence or negligence. Only 18% believe regulators should also discipline practitioners for views expressed on social media – a margin of three to one.
This affirms there is strong public disapproval of professional organisations disciplining members for causing some ideological offence or obliging them to venerate the Treaty of Waitangi, embrace co-governance, and approve of discrimination when it benefits Maori.
A poll on what people think of Whanganui Hospital’s racist requirements before they hire a sterile services technician would be fascinating.
The press statement goes on:
When asked if they would support or oppose Parliament limiting regulators to disciplining practitioners only for matters affecting clinical competence, patient safety, or how patients are actually treated, 48% supported the change and 20% opposed it.
The support isn’t confined to one side of politics. Among voters of every main party, more supported the change than opposed it – by +61 points among ACT voters, +38 among National, +20 among Labour, +16 among Greens, +15 among NZ First, and +1 among Te Pāti Māori.
Jillaine Heather, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union points out that the numbers prove this isn’t a left-right issue.
“Voters of every party have reached the same conclusion: a nurse’s personal views are none of the Nursing Council’s business.
“Regulators exist to protect patients from incompetent or dishonest practice, not to protect the public from opinions. New Zealanders can tell the difference, even if some regulators can’t.”
The poll also tested the standard justification for policing practitioners’ private views – that public confidence in the profession demands it.
The public disagrees: only 22% said a doctor or nurse who had treated them competently and respectfully, but expressed a political view they disagreed with on social media, would make them want to change practitioner. 57% said it would not.
“The ‘public confidence’ argument fails its own test,” says Heather.
“Patients care whether their doctor is good at the job. Regulators who launch disciplinary proceedings over lawful speech aren’t defending public confidence – they’re spending it.”
The Free Speech Union is calling on MPs of all parties to support the draft Regulated Professions Neutrality Bill.
PoO was keen to see how the media had treated the statement.
We drew a blank.
Google said:
Your search – nz poll professional regulators – did not match any news results.
We tried a few other word combinations without success.
There are some things (we suspect) which the broadcasters and major newspapers would rather you did not know.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
The Curia poll of 1,000 voters found 54% believe regulators such as the Medical and Nursing Councils should only discipline doctors and nurses for incompetence or negligence. Only 18% believe regulators should also discipline practitioners for views expressed on social media – a margin of three to one.
This affirms there is strong public disapproval of professional organisations disciplining members for causing some ideological offence or obliging them to venerate the Treaty of Waitangi, embrace co-governance, and approve of discrimination when it benefits Maori.
A poll on what people think of Whanganui Hospital’s racist requirements before they hire a sterile services technician would be fascinating.
The press statement goes on:
When asked if they would support or oppose Parliament limiting regulators to disciplining practitioners only for matters affecting clinical competence, patient safety, or how patients are actually treated, 48% supported the change and 20% opposed it.
The support isn’t confined to one side of politics. Among voters of every main party, more supported the change than opposed it – by +61 points among ACT voters, +38 among National, +20 among Labour, +16 among Greens, +15 among NZ First, and +1 among Te Pāti Māori.
Jillaine Heather, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union points out that the numbers prove this isn’t a left-right issue.
“Voters of every party have reached the same conclusion: a nurse’s personal views are none of the Nursing Council’s business.
“Regulators exist to protect patients from incompetent or dishonest practice, not to protect the public from opinions. New Zealanders can tell the difference, even if some regulators can’t.”
The poll also tested the standard justification for policing practitioners’ private views – that public confidence in the profession demands it.
The public disagrees: only 22% said a doctor or nurse who had treated them competently and respectfully, but expressed a political view they disagreed with on social media, would make them want to change practitioner. 57% said it would not.
“The ‘public confidence’ argument fails its own test,” says Heather.
“Patients care whether their doctor is good at the job. Regulators who launch disciplinary proceedings over lawful speech aren’t defending public confidence – they’re spending it.”
The Free Speech Union is calling on MPs of all parties to support the draft Regulated Professions Neutrality Bill.
PoO was keen to see how the media had treated the statement.
We drew a blank.
Google said:
Your search – nz poll professional regulators – did not match any news results.
We tried a few other word combinations without success.
There are some things (we suspect) which the broadcasters and major newspapers would rather you did not know.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.