Does the Free Speech Union deserve authority, or does it need challenging from within?

OPINION: The Free Speech Union is asking New Zealanders to join their membership programme. I am asking about something more than membership. Specifically, what authority should it actually have over the national debate on our public political conversations?

The union describes itself as politically neutral, says it defends lawful speech across the political spectrum, and gives members voting rights at its AGM and a say in electing its Council. That may be democratic internally but it does not make the organisation a democratic authority over Aotearoa.

This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.

Image: With a Master of Laws focused on free speech principles and human rights, Jillaine Heather brings a legal and advocacy background to her position as Executive Director of the Free Speech Union. (File. / Courtesy of the Free Speech Union)

The organisation is currently led by Jillaine Heather, its Executive Director, who oversees the union’s strategy, campaigning and advocacy programme.

Heather has a Master of Laws focused on free speech principles and human rights, placing her within the the union’s orbit of public interventions on legislation, institutional policy and freedom of expression.

That makes her leadership relevant to the question of how much influence the union should really have. Under Heather, it continues to lodge submissions, campaign on proposed laws and publicly pressure decision-makers, which is precisely why its internal balance, political neutrality and accountability deserve scrutiny.

This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.

No advocacy group, union or lobby organisation gets to decide the law.

Image: The Beehive may be a focal point for lobbying ministers, but influence inside Wellington does not amount to legislative authority. Groups such as the Free Speech Union can campaign, submit on bills and press decision-makers for change, while the power to debate, amend and pass legislation remains with Parliament. Bills must progress through formal parliamentary stages, with select committees normally providing an avenue for public submissions before the House ultimately decides whether legislation proceeds. (Supplied / Samuel Hudson / Courtesy of Quiet Pact Network)

The Free Speech Union can campaign, lobby ministers, make submissions, support legal cases and pressure institutions. It can influence debate but it cannot rewrite legislation on its own.

That power belongs to Parliament and people voting in elections.

MPs carry electoral mandates, bills face parliamentary votes, and select committees normally give the public an opportunity to submit before laws are changed.

The union may argue for law changes, but it has no sovereign mandate to impose it.

In 2025, the Free Speech Union directly lobbied Parliament on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), and later said the select committee adopted several changes it had pushed for, including removing the requirement that controversial campus speech be expressed “in a respectful manner.”

This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.

Image: Around the meeting table, the Free Speech Union’s influence is theoretical. It raises real questions about who shapes its direction, governance and claim to viewpoint neutrality. (File. / Courtesy of the Free Speech Union)

That is important to note here because it shows the union can exert real influence over the wording of legislation, even though the final authority still rests with elected MPs and the parliamentary process, not the union itself.

I have also been told directly by the union on X that, if I joined, there could potentially be a path to greater involvement, even a role in its governance. As someone involved in the left of our political landscape, that raises a question; could entering the room help push the union towards a genuinely viewpoint-neutral defence of free speech in Aotearoa, without imported culture-war ideology taking over?

If the union means what it says about protecting lawful expression regardless of politics, then it should survive challenge from within. It should accommodate members who disagree with its leaders, test its priorities and demand consistency when free speech clashes with ideology.

Free speech cannot become something used selectively against one side while excuses are made for the other. The principle has to protect conservatives, socialists, activists, academics, religious voices, secular critics and people whose views make everyone uncomfortable, provided the speech is lawful without causing harm through memes or inciting real-world events that put safety at risk.

The union should be judged by whether it defends the principle of actual responsible free speech when doing so is inconvenient.

This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.

Image: If membership offers dissenting voices a genuine path to influence the Free Speech Union from within, then testing that route may be worth it. No private organisation should be treated as if it holds democratic authority without scrutiny. (File. / Courtesy of the Free Speech Union)

If joining gives dissenting members a vote and a genuine route to influence at the top, perhaps change from within is worth testing. But no private organisation should be mistaken for Parliament.

New Zealanders, through democratic institutions and elections, decide who holds the power to make legislation. Advocacy groups can influence that process, but they do not own it. Make no mistake about that.

Advertisement

Advertisement Why this ad? Advertising revenue keeps articles free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

Advertisement