Do Your Local Candidates Stand For Free Speech? Free Speech Union Report Will Find Out
'Every three years, the Free Speech Union surveys all local government candidates on their views about free speech and open debate. We publish the results to over 100,000 supporters nationwide, and we know that many of our members will be referring to this resource specifically in deciding who to vote for during local elections.
'We ask them about their stance on banning events hosted by council venues if some find the event controversial, and whether or not councils should delete comments on their social media that are critical of the council. Similarly, we ask their opinions on removing public artwork if community members find it offensive, and if council staff have full freedom to express their political views in their lives outside of work.
'Local councils control public venues and public spaces – forums that are central to facilitating community debate – so it is necessary that they understand the law and Kiwis' speech rights. Many of our cases have been against local councils that have failed to uphold these rights.
'Transparency and accountability are key for the public's trust in local councils, and our survey is an opportunity for candidates to give their stance, enabling ratepayers to make informed votes. We'll continue to hold councils to a high standard and empower Kiwis to vote in favour of their speech rights.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Do Your Local Candidates Stand For Free Speech? Free Speech Union Report Will Find Out
Speech rights are essential for local democracy to flourish, so electing candidates who respect this freedom is vital. Once again, the Free Speech Union is surveying candidates nationwide ahead of local body elections, ranking them on their support for free speech, says Jillaine Heather, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. 'Every three years, the Free Speech Union surveys all local government candidates on their views about free speech and open debate. We publish the results to over 100,000 supporters nationwide, and we know that many of our members will be referring to this resource specifically in deciding who to vote for during local elections. 'We ask them about their stance on banning events hosted by council venues if some find the event controversial, and whether or not councils should delete comments on their social media that are critical of the council. Similarly, we ask their opinions on removing public artwork if community members find it offensive, and if council staff have full freedom to express their political views in their lives outside of work. 'Local councils control public venues and public spaces – forums that are central to facilitating community debate – so it is necessary that they understand the law and Kiwis' speech rights. Many of our cases have been against local councils that have failed to uphold these rights. 'Transparency and accountability are key for the public's trust in local councils, and our survey is an opportunity for candidates to give their stance, enabling ratepayers to make informed votes. We'll continue to hold councils to a high standard and empower Kiwis to vote in favour of their speech rights.'
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Family Home In Labour's Tax Crosshairs
Press Release – New Zealand National Party Labour crashed the economy, has opposed every measure to get it growing, and has no economic plan except imposing higher taxes on homes, businesses, and savings. Kiwis deserve to know why and how Labour would do this. Labour's refusal to rule out taxing the family home is a frightening prospect for ordinary Kiwis, says National MP Chris Bishop. 'As Kiwis continue to deal with the cost-of-living consequences of Labour's high tax, high spend record, it defies belief that its leader can't rule out piling more costs on Kiwis with a tax on their family home. 'Earlier this month, a former Labour Party advisor publicly confirmed the party had agreed to progress a Capital Gains Tax so it's unclear why Chris Hipkins can't bring himself to explain even the most basic detail. 'Similar to last week when Hipkins had to be corrected by Megan Woods on the party's position on oil and gas, and last month when Kieran McAnulty corrected Hipkins' position on public-private partnerships, it could be that he just doesn't know. Or he might just have to wait for permission from Labour's Policy Council and the Greens. 'Labour crashed the economy, has opposed every measure to get it growing, and has no economic plan except imposing higher taxes on homes, businesses, and savings. Kiwis deserve to know why and how Labour would do this.'
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Will axing petrol tax be a game-changer?
Scrapping petrol tax may, or many not, be transformative, Angela Curl and Caroline Shaw write. The way we get around is unfair, and unhealthy. Some people travel a lot, creating disproportionate harms on people and the planet, such as pollution, injury risk and physical inactivity. Others cannot afford to travel enough, missing out on things that are important, such as catching up with loved ones or healthcare appointments, or end up having to forego expenditure on other important things, such as food. Replacing fuel excise duty (or petrol tax) with electronic road user charges for all vehicles — as announced by Transport Minister Chris Bishop last week — offers an opportunity to transform the way we fund and pay for our transport system in a way that works for people and the planet by reflecting the true costs imposed when we use the roads. Bishop said "it isn't fair to have Kiwis who drive less and can't afford a fuel-efficient car paying more than people who can afford one and drive more often." On the whole, we agree. We know that those households with the lowest income drive far less (about 100km a week less) but also have to spend a much greater proportion of their income on getting around (16% of income compared with 9% for higher-income households). Those on lower incomes are also far less likely to be able to afford an electric vehicle with cheaper running costs, instead paying the relatively more expensive petrol tax. However, Bishop's proposal represents a narrow view of the harms, or wider costs, of driving to society. It is largely based on the assumption all vehicles should contribute "fairly" (based on weight and distance travelled) towards road maintenance, operations and improvements. But a pricing structure that also accounts for the costs to our health system of injuries, pollution and physical inactivity caused by the transport system, might also include differential charging for different types of vehicles. For example, we know that SUVs cause more severe injuries to those outside of the vehicle, and while EVs reduce tailpipe emissions, they still contribute to congestion and injury risk. The proposal does suggest that weight, as well as distance travelled, will be factored into pricing; however, it should also consider the damage that heavier and larger vehicles do to people and the environment. A change in the way we are charged for using the roads offers a real opportunity to design a progressive charge that alleviates costs pressures for those already struggling to pay for the driving they need to do, while reducing levels of driving overall. One way to achieve this would be through increasing the rate per km, above a certain amount of kilometres driven. Given the costs involved in running and operating the scheme, and that this needs to be revenue-generating for government, it seems unlikely there will be a reduction in the cost of travel in real terms for everyone. However, if the government is committed to fairness, it needs to ensure costs do not escalate for those who can least afford it and who have few alternatives. The proposed changes to road user charges are most likely to be successful and acceptable if they are accompanied by investment in public transport, walking and cycling and alongside strategic urban planning that supports local access to the things we all need such as shops, schools and sports grounds. The most straightforward way to ensure that charging for using the roads does not force people into situations where they have to forego other essentials is to ensure that it is easy and safe to get around in other ways, or that we do not need to travel as much. For both fairness and health and wellbeing we need to continue to improve travel options other than driving. Bishop presented this as a new way to fund our roads, but we should be taking a more holistic view — this is an opportunity to think about how we fund our transport system. Using revenue raised to reduce the need to drive can make charging for driving more acceptable. Bishop said: "This is a once-in-a-generation change. It's the right thing to do, it's the fair thing to do, and it will future-proof how we fund our roads for decades to come." This policy has the potential to be truly transformative and be part of creating a transport system (not just roads) that is fairer, and healthier for everyone. It can be done. The question is, will it? — Newsroom • Dr Angela Curl is a senior lecturer in the University of Otago department of population health, Christchurch; Caroline Shaw is a lecturer and researcher in the department of public health, University of Otago, Wellington.
