For years, Hobson's Pledge has been raising the alarm about professional regulators being weaponised against people who simply express differing opinions.
It is not illegal, for example, to call for the Waitangi Tribunal to be wrapped up or Māori electorates to be abolished, but posting such opinions could currently get one in trouble with their profession’s regulator.
The obvious example is Janet Dickson, the real estate agent with a spotless 30-year record, banned for five years because she wouldn't sit through ideological training on the Treaty. We have also heard of nurses hauled through disciplinary proceedings for lawful social media posts made in their own time. The Teaching Council spent teachers' own registration fees lobbying on the Treaty Principles Bill - and then pursued a teacher who had the temerity to disagree publicly.
This is not what professional regulation is for.
Stephen Franks Was Right, And ACT Has Listened
You may recall we previously drew attention to former ACT MP and lawyer Stephen Franks' proposal to rein in the overreach of professional regulators. We are pleased to see that ACT has now adopted that principle in full, announcing a 2026 election policy to ban regulators from disciplining members for lawful expression, to require institutional neutrality on political matters, and to restrict mandatory training to matters of genuine professional competence.
This is exactly right. Professionals should be judged on how they do their jobs - not on whether their opinions meet with the approval of ideologically captured regulatory bodies.
Credit Where It's Due — Including to Simeon Brown
We also note that this isn't the first Government action in this space. Minister of Health, Simeon Brown's decision to decline to reappoint the chair and deputy of the Medical Council because they were prioritising Māori activism over healthcare for all was a sound call and deserves acknowledgement. When ministers use their authority to push back on bureaucratic overreach, it matters. He also acted when The Platform’s Michael Laws drew attention to a job ad for a role at Whanganui Hospital that was all about Māori with little focus on the substance of the role. He had the ad pulled down, amended, and readvertised...
More than 200,000 New Zealanders work in regulated professions. Every one of them should be able to participate in public debate without wondering whether their registration is at risk.
Regulatory bodies in charge of licensing and policing conduct and competency should not be forcing contested views on the Treaty on professionals. They should not be punishing professionals for not having a particular interest in te reo or Māori spirituality.
Now Is the Time for Government Action
ACT's policy is a welcome commitment for the election cycle. But New Zealanders should not have to wait for relief. The Government has the authority to act now. Ministers can direct regulators. The Cabinet can issue guidance. The law can be changed.
We call on the Government to take up this cause without delay. The cases are documented. The principle is clear. The public support is there.
Professionals should not have to choose between their career and their conscience. It is time to put ideological regulators firmly back in their lane.
This is not what professional regulation is for.
Stephen Franks Was Right, And ACT Has Listened
You may recall we previously drew attention to former ACT MP and lawyer Stephen Franks' proposal to rein in the overreach of professional regulators. We are pleased to see that ACT has now adopted that principle in full, announcing a 2026 election policy to ban regulators from disciplining members for lawful expression, to require institutional neutrality on political matters, and to restrict mandatory training to matters of genuine professional competence.
This is exactly right. Professionals should be judged on how they do their jobs - not on whether their opinions meet with the approval of ideologically captured regulatory bodies.
Credit Where It's Due — Including to Simeon Brown
We also note that this isn't the first Government action in this space. Minister of Health, Simeon Brown's decision to decline to reappoint the chair and deputy of the Medical Council because they were prioritising Māori activism over healthcare for all was a sound call and deserves acknowledgement. When ministers use their authority to push back on bureaucratic overreach, it matters. He also acted when The Platform’s Michael Laws drew attention to a job ad for a role at Whanganui Hospital that was all about Māori with little focus on the substance of the role. He had the ad pulled down, amended, and readvertised...
More than 200,000 New Zealanders work in regulated professions. Every one of them should be able to participate in public debate without wondering whether their registration is at risk.
Regulatory bodies in charge of licensing and policing conduct and competency should not be forcing contested views on the Treaty on professionals. They should not be punishing professionals for not having a particular interest in te reo or Māori spirituality.
Now Is the Time for Government Action
ACT's policy is a welcome commitment for the election cycle. But New Zealanders should not have to wait for relief. The Government has the authority to act now. Ministers can direct regulators. The Cabinet can issue guidance. The law can be changed.
We call on the Government to take up this cause without delay. The cases are documented. The principle is clear. The public support is there.
Professionals should not have to choose between their career and their conscience. It is time to put ideological regulators firmly back in their lane.
Dr Don Brash, Former Governor of the Reserve Bank and Leader of the New Zealand National Party from 2003 to 2006 and ACT in 2011. This article was sourced HERE
4 comments:
And we need to get rid of the stupid Māori translations for the names of these professional bodies. They are just made up. It is insulting to the intelligence of all New Zealanders.
Thank you Don for your continued work on these subjects. I, for one, am very grateful someone is voicing the opinions of many of us.
I too am so frustrated something which to me is such just cause should be so difficult.
The rot tends to begin at the ideological vetting phase of a job interview. I have long had a strong publication record so I get onto shortlists, but then the questions start coming in about ToW and various woke social engineering agendae and that's me out, for I will not play that game.
It's actually a violation of human rights to force someone to promote a political agenda they don't agree with. Don't take my word for that, ask the UK and US Supreme Courts, who have found in favour of litigants complaining about just that.
Anyway, I had a fascinating career at universities in PNG, Botswana and Lebanon instead........
This is definotely true. At my workplace in Auckland which has about 20 different cultures, everyone bows their head as the maori prayer is read out in the staff meetings, before and after.Someone is asked by managenent each time to come up to the front and read it. The people in my office with actual maori descenr, don't want to do it as it's not their thing either! So they end up getting anyone who could pass, usually a pacific islander, to read it. In my opinion people are all just playing a game that no one is iinto but they participate to keep the peace. Just like in the book 1984 by Orwell. If you get called a racist in the workplace, it is not worth the hell you will go through with HR so you just don't say anything. If you look around during the prayer you will see everyone bowing their heads, some with their eyes closed. .My company is not even a government department, it has it's head office in Australia. I would feel the same way if we did a christian prayer as well. Your religion is your business. Of course no one ever asked us to vote in the office as to whether or not we wanted something like this. But is is everywhere.
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.