No need for bill protecting campus free speech, unis and legal experts say
Photo:
RNZ / Alexander Robertson
Universities and legal experts say there is no need for a
bill protecting free speech on campus
.
But the legislation's supporters say universities can't be trusted to uphold freedom of expression.
Parliament's Education and Workforce Select Committee has been hearing submissions on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No. 2). If passed, it would require universities to develop a freedom of expression statement and complaints procedure, and report annually on it.
The Law Society told the committee the bill created "needless complexity" because freedom of expression was already protected by law.
Paul Rishworth KC said freedom of expression was of the utmost importance, but the bill was not necessary. He said academic freedom was already protected in the Education Act and the Bill of Rights protected free speech.
"So, to add in to the Education Act a requirement that there be a statement on freedom of expression, introduces a needless complexity," he said.
University staff warned the bill would force universities to host speakers spreading misinformation and hate speech.
Tertiary Education Union co-president Julie Douglas told the committee there was a lack of evidence that universities were limiting free speech.
"What we have now is a functioning model which does not need this level of monitoring," she said.
Douglas said universities were special places but were being undermined "with a disregard for science, with a
disregard for evidence
, with a disregard for expert opinion".
"I fear that this sort of move by the government with this sort of clause is meddling in a place where it's just not required," she said.
University of Otago vice-chancellor Grant Robertson and Universities New Zealand chief executive Chris Whelan appeared before the committee together. They said the law was unnecessary, but if it was to go ahead universities wanted to reduce the associated compliance requirements.
"We don't think it's either necessary nor a proportionate response to the issues that are there," Robertson said.
Whelan said a similar complaints system in the UK had been "weaponised".
New Zealand Initiative senior fellow Dr James Kierstead said staff and student surveys and 21 separate cases proved that universities were not protecting freedom of expression. Kierstead said the problem included staff fearful of losing their jobs if they voiced unpopular opinions and speakers refused the right to appear on campus.
"It suggests that university senior management cannot be relied upon to uphold their obligations to academic freedom. If we have plentiful evidence that ordinary academics and students feel stifled and no evidence that senior management is going to solve the problem, then legislation is the only solution."
Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling said the organisation was sad the legislation was needed.
Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling.
Photo:
VNP / Phil Smith
He said students could cope with hearing challenging ideas and opinions.
"We should not let a small group of students use their vulnerability... and work with university managers to stop other students hearing views that they think are dangerous," he said. "Free debate, free and open to ideas is part of being an academic, it is part of being a student and universities need to allow that."
Canterbury University biological sciences professor Tammy Steeves told the committee
should not be required to host any event or speaker
. She said academics could judge whether ideas were robust and evidence-based.
Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis said the legislation was likely to backfire.
"It will actually make it worse for free speech on campus, it will politicise it, it will mean that opposing speech on campus will become a political act because it will be seen as opposing the government and I think it will be bad."
Geddis said he was on a committee that drew up the university's free speech statement and statement of institutional neutrality. He said translating those statements into legal requirements would be a mistake.
"I don't think actually it's the role of government to be trying to impose views on how universities as institutions ought to work. I think that's a dangerous imposition into the autonomy of them as institutions."
Geddis said maintaining a culture of free speech would be more effective than making laws.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Peeni Henare to contest Tāmaki Makaurau by-election for Labour
Labour MP Peeni Henare. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Labour MP Peeni Henare has been confirmed as his party's candidate for the Tamaki Makaurau by-election. The by-election was sparked by the death of Te Pati Maori MP Takutai Moana Natasha Kemp last month. Henare previously held the Tāmaki Makaurau seat, before being beaten by Kemp in the 2023 election by a majority of just four votes over Henare in 2023, with a recount widening the margin. Henare had held the seat since 2014. "I am humbled and honoured to be selected to represent Labour in the upcoming by-election," Henare said. He said jobs, access to quality and affordable health services, affordable housing and relief from the rising cost of living were a top priority. "Tāmaki Makaurau is where I was born and is my home. I know the challenges that many whānau are facing. The cost of living is putting significant pressure on whānau just to put kai on the table," Henare said. "My focus is clear. To fight for real solutions so our people can flourish. "This means better paying jobs, making sure that when whānau are sick, they don't need to choose between kai and seeing the doctor and it means getting more whānau into warm dry and safe homes." Labour leader Chris Hipkins said Henare is the leader Tāmaki Makaurau needs. "He has the experience and track record to deliver real solutions for working families, rangatahi, kaumātua and our most vulnerable whānau," Hipkins said. Former Newshub broadcaster Oriini Kaipara has been chosen to contest the Tāmaki Makaurau by-election for Te Pāti Māori. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is yet to announce the date for a by-election. However, the Speaker of the House published the notice of vacancy in the Gazette on Wednesday, meaning the Governor-General will issue a writ within 21 days of 9 July, instructing the Chief Electoral Officer to conduct the by-election. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
NZ's new AI strategy is long on 'economic opportunity' but short on managing ethical and social risk
By By Andrew Lensen* of Photo: Supplied/Callaghan Innovation The government's newly unveiled National AI Strategy is all about what its title said: "Investing with Confidence". It tells businesses that Aotearoa New Zealand is open for AI use, and that our "light touch" approach won't get in their way. The question now is whether the claims made for AI by Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology Shane Reti - that it will help boost productivity and enable the economy to grow by billions of dollars - can be justified. Generative AI - the kind powering ChatGPT, CoPilot, and Google's video generator Veo 3 - is certainly earning money. In its latest funding round in April, OpenAI was valued at US$300 billion . Nvidia, which makes the hardware that powers AI technology, just became the first publicly traded company to surpass a $4 trillion market valuation . It'd be great if New Zealand could get a slice of that pie. New Zealand doesn't have the capacity to build new generative AI systems, however. That takes tens of thousands of NVIDIA's chips, costing many millions of dollars that only big tech companies or large nation states can afford. What New Zealand can do is build new systems and services around these models, either by fine-tuning them or using them as part of a bigger software system or service. The government isn't offering any new money to help companies do this. Its AI strategy is about reducing barriers, providing regulatory guidance, building capacity, and ensuring adaptation happens responsibly. But there aren't many barriers to begin with. The regulatory guidance contained in the strategy essentially said "we won't regulate". Existing laws are said to be "technology-neutral" and therefore sufficient. As for building capacity, the country's tertiary sector is more under-funded than ever, with universities cutting courses and staff. Humanities research into AI ethics is also ineligible for government funding as it doesn't contribute to economic growth. The issue of responsible adoption is perhaps of most concern. The 42-page " Responsible AI Guidance for Businesses " document, released alongside the strategy, contains useful material on issues such as detecting bias, measuring model accuracy, and human oversight. But it is just that - guidance - and entirely voluntary. This puts New Zealand among the most relaxed nations when it comes to AI regulation, along with Japan and Singapore . At the other end is the European Union, which enacted its comprehensive AI Act in 2024, and has stood fast against lobbying to delay legislative rollout. The relaxed approach is interesting in light of New Zealand being ranked third-to-last out of 47 countries in a recent survey of trust in AI . In another survey from last year, 66 percent of New Zealanders reported being nervous about the impacts of AI . Some of the nervousness can be explained by AI being a new technology with well documented examples of inappropriate use, intentional or not. Deepfakes as a form of cyberbullying have become a major concern. Even the ACT Party, not generally in favour of more regulation, wants to criminalise the creation and sharing of non-consensual, sexually explicit deepfakes. Generative image, video, and music creation is reducing the demand for creative workers, even though it is their very work that was used to train the AI models. But there are other, more subtle issues, too. AI systems learn from data. If that data is biased, then those systems will learn to be biased, too. New Zealanders are right to be anxious about the prospect of private sector companies denying them jobs, entry to supermarkets , or a bank loan because of something in their pasts. Because modern deep learning models are so complex and impenetrable, it can be impossible to determine how an AI system made a decision. And what of the potential for AI to be used online to mislead voters and discredit the democratic process, as the New York Times has reported, may have occurred already in at least 50 cases. The strategy is essentially silent on all of these issues. It also doesn't mention Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. Even Google's AI summary tells me this is the nation's founding document, laying the groundwork for Māori and the Crown to coexist. AI, like any data-driven system, has the potential to disproportionately disadvantage Māori if it involves systems from overseas designed (and trained) for other populations. Allowing these systems to be imported and deployed in Aotearoa New Zealand in sensitive applications - healthcare or justice, for example - without any regulation or oversight risks worsening inequalities even further. What's the alternative? The EU offers some useful answers. It has taken the approach of categorising AI uses based on risk : This feels like a mature approach New Zealand might emulate. It wouldn't stymie productivity much - unless companies were doing something risky. In which case, the 66 percent of New Zealanders who are nervous about AI might well agree it's worth slowing down and getting it right. Andrew Lensen is a Senior Lecturer in Artificial Intelligence at Te Herenga Waka - Victoria University of Wellington -This story was originally published on The Conversation.
RNZ News
7 hours ago
- RNZ News
Mediawatch: Pandemic probe media focus flipped to politicians
Representatives of pressure group Voice of Freedom addressing the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 response, last Thursday. Photo: Royal Commission livestream "It's the big one. The inquiry into the Covid response kicks off this morning. It looks at lockdowns. It looks at all of the things you hated most," Ryan Bridge told viewers of NZME's streaming show Herald Now last Monday morning . But the public hearings which ran all week turned out not to be such a 'big one' for the media. "I saw the Covid inquiry in the news this morning and I just thought: how long does this have to go on for?" an exasperated Lara Greaves - an associate professor in politics - told Bridge later in the same show. She's not the only one who feels that way. But the hearings were barely in the news after they got under way on Monday. On Tuesday the inquiry was well down the running order in morning and evening news shows, long after coverage of the mushroom poisoning trial in Australia. On Wednesday the possibility of moa being regenerated with the backing of Sir Peter Jackson was a bigger story for most outlets. There was a little more coverage on Thursday when anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown groups appeared, ahead of anti-conspiracy theory group FACT and immunologist Professor Graeme LeGros later on. But by the time they wrapped up on Friday the hearings had virtually vanished from bulletins. And what was said over the five days generated less coverage than questions about whether politicians would appear at hearings in future. As for "the things you hated most" - people hated different things. Asthmatic Annie Collins told the inquiry on the first day she thought lockdowns worked and saved lives, and vaccine misinformation online was the real problem. "I think that was a major flaw in our system. All those social media streams should have been blocked. They were disgusting and they were basically lies," she said. Shutting down social media channels was out of scope for this inquiry, but the chairman Grant Illingworth KC told Ryan Bridge on Monday the big decisions made at the time were certainly not. Employment relations and safety manager Paul Jarvie and Heart of the City chief executive Viv Beck. Photo: Screengrab / Covid 19 Inquiry When the Herald Now host pressed the chairman about getting the big political decision-makers in front of the inquiry he said they would be invited to come and give evidence at a second set of hearings next month. When asked if former PM Jacinda Ardern would be one of them, Illingworth replied: "There are issues in relation to our powers when people are out of the country. If she's in the country, we will consider her position." He would not reveal details of specific communications, but he did say "those things are being worked through" and that "we will be fair, open and transparent at the appropriate time." That response was misinterpreted by many in the media as meaning Jacinda Ardern had been asked to attend - and either had not yet responded or that the chair would not say if she had or not. RNZ amended its reporting to make it clear the Commission said no decision had yet been made about who would appear at the August hearings. But Ryan Bridge continued to press for Ardern's appearance on Herald Now and Newstalk ZB. David Seymour - appearing as the acting PM - told Ryan Bridge the former PM should front up to answer questions about "the most significant political and economic event of this century so far." But Seymour was also at pains to point out that the inquiry is independent, and would make its own decision. That was the reason Labour leader Chris Hipkins - health minister during the period covered by the inquiry - gave on Morning Report the next day for not giving a view on Ardern's attendance. Hipkins also dodged a question about whether he'd discussed the issue with Jacinda Ardern herself. On Herald Now on Tuesday, Chris Hipkins confirmed he was cooperating with the inquiry, but equivocated on whether he himself would appear before it in August. He also made it clear he really didn't fancy what he thought had become a political process. "The terms of reference specifically exclude decisions made when New Zealand First were part of the government. So I think that the terms of reference have been deliberately constructed to achieve a particular outcome, particularly around providing a platform for those who have conspiracy theorists' views," he said. NZ First demanded the inquiry when forming the coalition government in 2023. The party even invoked 'agree to disagree' provisions in that agreement when National persisted with the first Royal Commission the Labour government had already launched. The second phase opened this week with new commissioners and expanded terms of reference, which meant that fringe voices opposed to the vaccine mandates, and in some cases the vaccine itself, would be heard this time and heard but not cross examined. "It seems to have been specifically written into the terms of reference that they get maximum airtime," Hipkins told Herald Now , adding that some of those given a platform had inspired the occupation of Parliament in 2022, where platforms for gallows were built - including one with his own name on it. One of the groups that prompted the occupation was the anti-vaccine, anti-lockdown group Voices for Freedom. The group's Facebook page was taken offline in 2021 for what the platform said was "misinformation that could cause physical harm." "You seriously expect the people of New Zealand to accept that deaths being reported internationally (in 2020) were not genuinely from Covid?" Grant Illingworth KC asked them on Thursday. "We're not disputing that there were deaths. We're simply saying that it gets very complex, especially when people are being funded in order to tick a box to say that a death was caused by Covid," VFF co-founder Claire Deeks replied. Voices for Freedom is also promoting a Face the Music campaign pressing the inquiry's commissioners to summon Jacinda Ardern and others and "hold them accountable for their COVID abuse." Their online petition depicts Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Sir Ashley Bloomfield all shoulder-to-shoulder in a courtroom dock. It's not exactly in tune with the evidence-gathering and non-adversarial approach of this Royal Commission's mandate. But others in the media weighed in behind the idea. "It is actually bizarre that we are having a Covid inquiry without Dame Jacinda's participation. She owes it to Kiwis to front up," Stuff's 'good news' correspondent Patrick Gower declared on Wednesday. That was triggered by Sir Ian Taylor's open letter to Jacinda Ardern last weekend - also published by Stuff - accusing Ardern of turning her back on the nation of five million for "a waka for one." But the same day The Post had reported a spokesperson for Dame Jacinda Ardern said she would provide evidence to the Covid-19 inquiry if asked - and "discussions were ongoing about the best way for it to occur." "Fact: Ardern has agreed to give evidence to phase two of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Government's response to Covid-19," The Herald's Fran O'Sullivan stated bluntly this weekend. "There is room to examine all of this dispassionately - not try to (figuratively) hang her again as the more deranged attempted when they wheeled out their noose on Parliament's grounds." For all the urging in the media, the story has actually been the same since March when the inquiry issued a minute , making it clear it could not take a legalistic or adversarial approach. "The commissioners expect that individuals will be prepared to attend interviews with them and or officers of the inquiry on a voluntary basis," the minute stated, regarding interviews with decision makers. "The interviews may be conducted online or in person, recorded and may be transcribed for the public record." In the end opinions about a point that was mostly moot overshadowed the coverage of what the commissioners were actually told in five days of public, livestreamed hearings. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
