Paul Rishworth KC says academic freedom is already protected in the Education Act, and the Bill of Rights protects free speech.
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.
