Academic Freedom Legislation Important Step To Save Universities From Themselves
The Inter-University Council on Academic Freedom (IUCAF), a subcommittee of the Free Speech Union, submitted today in support of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) 2025. The submission commends key strengths and provides several recommendations to ensure academic freedom is protected in New Zealand universities, says Professor Paul Moon, Co-Chairperson of IUCAF.
'Academic freedom is essential for universities to uphold if academics and students are to speak freely. We welcome the Education and Training Amendment Bill, which the Free Speech Union contributed to extensively, to protect and enable academics and students to speak without fear of retribution.
'Research by the Free Speech Union and others clearly shows that academic freedom is in jeopardy in New Zealand, despite being enshrined in the Education and Training Act. Universities are not currently doing the job they're legally obliged and publicly funded to do.
'We welcome the introduction of duties on universities to protect and promote academic freedom. We commend that the Bill would prevent universities from denying speakers based on controversial or unpopular opinions, and the introduction of annual reporting requirements.
'To ensure the Bill has the full effect of enhancing academic freedom in New Zealand, we have several recommendations. We've proposed that free speech policies avoid language that could actually limit speech, that a clear definition of 'institutional neutrality' is provided to avoid misunderstanding, and that annual reports be made publicly available.
'A culture of fear on our campuses has prevailed for too long. This is the reinforcement universities need to once again return to fostering open dialogue and debate.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
DCC to consider official support for Israel sanctions Bill
A Dunedin City councillor is urging her colleagues to support a government Bill which would impose sanctions against Israel. Next week, elected officials will considered a motion from Cr Christine Garey, asking for the council to support Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick's Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill. Cr Garey's motion also requests Mayor Jules Radich write to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters, asking government MPs to support the Bill. It would impose sanctions in response to the "presence of Israel ... in the Occupied Palestinian Territory", which the United Nations deemed to be unlawful. Cr Garey said it was the council's role to advocate for the Dunedin community. "There'll be people in the city ... who will wonder, 'what has this got to do with us?'," she said. "Our New Zealand Palestinian community, and the community in Dunedin, they are traumatised — they are beyond grief." The council had previously called for a ceasefire in Gaza and advocated for special humanitarian visas to be extended to the families of New Zealand's Palestinian community. Dunedin city councillor Christine Garey hopes her fellow elected members will back her motion for the council to support a Bill sanctioning Israel. PHOTO: PETER MCINTOSH She said she applauded the government's recent sanctioning of two far-right Israeli ministers; "however, it's not enough". "There's been this shift in attitude from our government politicians ... it feels like there's momentum," she said. All opposition parties supported the Bill, and support from six government MPs was needed for it to pass. Earlier in the week, councillors heard from two Dunedin residents who urged them to support the bill. Dunedin for Justice in Palestine member Anna Knight said there was "clear precedent" for the Bill and the council had a duty to advocate and protect its constituents affected by the war. Dunedin Jewish woman Kathryn Goodman said Israel was "violating all Jewish ethics". "We have the precedent to be able to discourage the occupation — that would hit them in the wallet, and that is what the sanction bill is about." Councillors will consider the motion at Wednesday's community services committee meeting. Last year, Environment Canterbury and Nelson and Christchurch city councils voted to boycott businesses which operated in illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories.
Kiwiblog
3 days ago
- Kiwiblog
Guest Post: Silenced for exposing foreign interference in NZ? Surely not.
A guest post by Nice Hanne of the Free Speech Union: I saw this for myself last Friday in the Manukau District Court when I went to support Portia Mao on behalf of the Free Speech Union. Don't let Portia's appearance or gentle demeanour fool you. This pint-sized Kiwi-Chinese journalist isn't backing down to anyone or anything. Portia is a fierce defender of free speech. Coming to NZ over twenty years ago in search of a democratic society to call home, Portia has earned a reputation amongst the NZ Chinese community for her uncompromising stand against foreign interference by the Communist Party of China (CCP). Exposing the increasingly brazen intimidation tactics and influence peddling in NZ politics by emboldened supporters of the CCP, some dissidents have already paid a heavy price for calling out this anti-democratic agenda. Last year it was Portia's turn. As a result of working with journalists at Stuff to expose CCP influence in NZ, Portia was shocked to find herself subject to a District Court interim order after she criticised an aspiring East Auckland political candidate for his strident pro-CCP views. Prevented by law from speaking out about the issue and unsure how to challenge the judge's interim order, Portia reached out to the Free Speech Union for help. We connected Portia with Callum Fredric (a fantastic Auckland-based barrister who really cares about this cause). We shared Portia's story with you – our supporters – as well as with the media. And we began a fundraising drive to support Portia's legal challenge. Many of you contributed with donations and messages of support which allowed Portia last month to challenge the court order in a bid to have it overturned. How could a NZ journalist be silenced in this way under NZ law? Portia was targeted using a poorly drafted law. The Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA), passed in 2015 (and originally designed to protect vulnerable young people from online harm) is now being appropriated by cynical adults to suppress legitimate political expression from their critics. To be clear, being punished under the HDCA is not the same thing as defamation. Rather, the HDCA is concerned with subjective claims of 'harm' – this means that truth is not a valid defence. The HDCA is an almost-perfect political censorship tool. It allows authoritarian sympathisers and potential agents of foreign governments to silence Kiwis who dare to speak up for democracy. It then also threatens heavy financial penalties for those organisations, such as news or social media platforms, which share the journalist's work. Yep, you're reading that right. In our rush to protect kids from horrible online influences we've somehow denied our society not only a fundamental civil liberty, but its best defensive weapon against foreign interference. Handing a club to the opponents of democracy; should we really be surprised they're bludgeoning us over the head with it? The HDCA is also a radical departure from traditional legal principle in that it allows for the emotional subjectivity of a complainant to substantiate their own claim that 'harm' has been caused. Just so we're clear, this means that to establish whether certain digital communications deserve censoring, all that is required is for a self-proclaimed victim to strenuously maintain the digital communication in question was 'grossly offensive' to them. No specialist or clinical expert is even needed to endorse this self-diagnosis. What can Kiwis do about this problem? We need more Kiwis to realise what's going on. We're now waiting for a decision in Portia's case from the judge, and as soon as we have it we'll be sure to publicize it. But her case is not the only example of this kind. We have evidence to suggest that dozens of similar abuses of the HDCA have occurred but have largely gone unreported. Not only is the FSU campaigning for legislative reform of the HDCA, but we're also calling on – and calling out – those in positions of power who aren't saying or doing anything about the foreign interference Portia is trying to combat. Because if those people in charge are too afraid, how can we expect anyone else to speak up? Many politicians have chosen to remain quiet. Either intimidated or simply hoping they can wish away the problem, many are nervous about upsetting a major trading partner. This issue is not your run-of-the-mill 'ambiguous ethics of trade' dilemma. This is political interference happening on NZ soil. Apparently, it's easier for some to forget that free speech – not a free trade agreement – is the lifeblood of a democracy. Free speech allows our nation to flourish domestically and empowers us to exercise independence from the unprincipled and often ruthless whims of authoritarian governments like that of China. We can't leave a few brave souls to fight this situation by themselves. A small principled voice, though mighty like Portia's, will not be enough to combat the growing influence of foreign and domestic voices, however, even in a small country, will make it loud and clear to those who interfere in our democracy that free speech in NZ is non-negotiable. UPDATE: The FSU won the court case. Yay.
Otago Daily Times
3 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
The Regulatory Standards Bill is an attack on all of us
It is that time again. We have another big parliamentary Bill to submit on, the Regulatory Standards Bill. It is a complicated beast. I know this because I submitted on the discussion document back in December. I was one of the 20,108 not-bot submitters who argued against its complex and contradictory proposals. You might be one of the 76 people who supported the proposals. Good on you for having your say. You and I both get to do it again. I do not know anyone other than Act New Zealand who is providing advice if you are one of the 76 but there is a lot of support if you want to join the 20,000. A major concern is the explicit exclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the Bill's narrow law-making principles. The Bill excludes Māori perspectives in the law-making process, erodes Māori rights to self-determination and threatens te reo Māori. It perpetuates systemic racism and colonial structures of power. Lawyer Tania Waikato argues the Bill will lead to even greater legal confusion and uncertainty, and undoubtedly more litigation because it discards decades of law on the application of te Tiriti in New Zealand policy and legislation. Even the Ministry of Justice has said the Bill fails to reflect the constitutional importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The government wants to use the Bill to help it avoid having te Tiriti conversations, but it will only encourage and amplify them. There are other reasons too. The Bill will constrain the regulation and law-making of future governments. All laws and regulations will have to meet a set of principles that idolise individual freedoms and private property rights over everything else. That means, for example, over public services like a good, fit-for-purpose, future-proofed hospital for the South. You do not have to be a hardcore socialist to think public hospitals are a good idea. Or that it is good for governments, even ones we did not vote for, to be able to legislate for the public good over private interests. Academic Jane Kelsey describes this as "metaregulation", where the Bill will regulate the way governments can regulate. Because of this, the Bill has the potential to constrain parliamentary sovereignty, in practice if not in law. What about our environment? The environment has taken some big hits under this government and the Bill will make more of them more likely. Greenpeace is saying it will be harder for the government to address climate change and biodiversity loss. The Bill might require the government to compensate corporations for the impact of protective laws that affect their property. You do not get compensated when the law impacts your property: why should corporations? The Bill encourages deregulation which will compromise the health of the environment. It will encourage exploitation of natural areas and accelerate the loss of endangered species. It is very contradictory. On one hand the government is encouraging more tourists into New Zealand and on the other promoting legislation that puts our most valuable tourism asset, our natural environment, at even greater risk. Some are also arguing the Bill will disproportionately benefit wealthy people, widening the gap between them and everybody else. The Bill will prioritise individual's property rights over workers' rights to secure and safe employment or the rights of vulnerable communities. These are collective services, like social services and infrastructure. Collective services help to keep us working, support the elderly through superannuation, and provide the social safety net. As eroded as these services might be right now, it can still get much worse, for everyone. The Bill proposes having an unelected regulatory standards board appointed by the minister to oversee the regime. This is not a body representing the public. This is an elite group hand-picked by the minister to help put pressure on the government to follow the Bill's prescription. The board will be unelected lobbyists for the Bill's ideology and will not be accountable to voters. The submissions on the Bill close on June 23, so you have 10 more days. There is a good portal on the parliamentary website to make your submission through, so it is easy to do. You do not have to say much and you do not have to know all about the Bill's trickier details. ODT columnist Chris Trotter is right that no Parliament can bind a future one. A future government could, of course, repeal the Bill if it becomes law — but that is not a reason not to fight it. Putting your faith in the good judgement of a future government is, well, not good judgement. We have to keep up our side of our democracy and have our say, even more so as democracy comes under intense attack. Because that is what this Bill represents. It is not just an attack on Māori and te Tiriti. Or just on conservationists. Or just on the social safety net. It is an attack on everyone. ■Metiria Stanton Turei is a senior law lecturer at the University of Otago and a former Green Party MP and co-leader.
