John MacDonald: Free speech rules shouldn't stop at universities

Here’s how I would sum up the Government’s changes to the free speech rules for universities.

It wants more Posie Parkers and less posey political statements.

Which I’ve got no problem with - but I don’t think it should stop at universities. I think the Government also needs to look at other public entities, such as local councils, which actually seem to be making more posey political statements than universities.

Because, if the Government doesn’t want universities taking positions on things like the war in Gaza because - whatever position they take - won’t reflect the views of all staff and students, then the same could apply to local councils, couldn’t it?

If a council boycotts Israel, for example, there’s no way everyone who works for these councils or who pays rates to these councils will agree, is there?

Let me come back to that. But the gist of all this is that the Government wants two changes to the way universities deal with free speech.

For starters: It wants them to stop being so antsy about having guest speakers coming onto campus who might upset a few people with their views.

Which has seen some universities pull the plug on certain events. Massey University, for example, stopped Don Brash from giving a speech there once because of what one person described as his "separatist and supremacist rhetoric".

.css-j9qmi7{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;font-weight:700;margin-bottom:1rem;margin-top:2.8rem;width:100%;-webkit-box-pack:start;-ms-flex-pack:start;-webkit-justify-content:start;justify-content:start;padding-left:5rem;}@media only screen and (max-width: 599px){.css-j9qmi7{padding-left:0;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;}}.css-j9qmi7 svg{fill:#27292D;}.css-j9qmi7 .eagfbvw0{-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;color:#27292D;}

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Kerrywood and Mornings podcast from news
Talk said be Here's.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
How I would sum up the government's changes to the
free speech rules for universities. It wants more posy parkers
and less posey political statements. And I've got no problem
with either, But I don't think it should stop at universities.
I think the government also needs to look at other
public entities, such as local councils, which, on the face

(00:34):
of it, actually seem to be making more posy political
statements than the universities themselves. Because if the government doesn't
want universities taking positions on things like the war in Gaza,
because whatever position they take, they won't reflect the views
of all staff and students, then the same could apply
to local councils. Couldn't it of a council boycott's Israel

(00:57):
for example, and this has been happening around the country.
If a council does that, there is no way everyone
who works for these councils, who pays rates for these councils,
will agree, is there? Let me come back to that.
But the gist of all of this is that the
government wants two changes to the way universities deal with

(01:17):
free speech. For starters, it wants them to stop being
so ansy about having guests or guests speakers coming on
to campus, people who might upset a few people with
their views, which has seen in the past universities pulled
the plug on certain events. Massive University, for example, they
stopped Don Brash from giving a speech there once because
of what one person described as his quote separatist and

(01:39):
supremacist rhetoric. A more recent example is Victoria University in
Wellington this year cancelling a freedom of speech debate because
they were worried it would turn into assess bit of
hate speech. So the government wants to no more of that,
no more of that carry on because it thinks universities
are places where all sorts of ideas and thoughts should

(02:00):
be shared and debated. And I agree with that. So
that's what I mean when I say it wants more
posy parts. The other change it's making to the regulations
that universities operate under is to try and stop them.
Want it not to try, but to outright stop them
taking positions on matters that don't directly relate to their
core business of research and teaching. Now, this, This isn't

(02:23):
something that's going to impact academics who enjoy what's known
as academic freedom, which pretty much says, oh, you can things,
say what you want, although some academics have questioned that
in recent years, haven't they saying that they don't feel
as free to think and say what they want they
as they used to. But essentially what the government wants

(02:44):
to stop is universities as institutions taking a view or
a stance on international issues. For example, now, as far
as I can see, some of our universities have been
under pressure to condemn Israel for what's going on in
Gaza and the occupied territories, but as far as i'm where,
none of them have given into that pressure. What that's

(03:06):
example I could find here in New Zealand was an
announcement three months ago by Victoria University's fundraising arms. This
is the Victoria University Foundation, which said it would be
getting rid of its Israeli government bonds and its shares,
its shares and companies listed in Israel. So maybe this
is a preempt of move by the government as much
as anything, and it says the reason it's doing this

(03:29):
is that if a university takes a stand on something
as an institution, it doesn't necessarily reflect the views of
all staff and students, and that is unfair. So that's
the motivation for the reason. Then I think the government
needs to come down just as hard on other public entities.

(03:51):
Other public entities which at the moment seemed to be
going harder on this than any of our universities. And
I'm thinking specifically about local councils, which seem to have
been more than happy to pile in on Israel this
year with decisions to boycott companies which operate in Israeli
settlements on Palestinian land. Christich City Council's done it, Environment

(04:14):
cann be, regional councils done it, Nelson's City Council's done it.
They're the ones I'm aware of. There might be others.
I'm sure you'll tell me. But if we apply the
argument the government's using to stop universities taking positions on
global issues because they don't necessarily or won't necessarily represent
the views of all staff and students, then the same
can be said of local councils, can't it? And Nelson,

(04:39):
for example, after the council they're voted to go with
a boycott. There were some pretty fired up locals. Nick Smith,
the mayor, he voted against it, but he got a
whole lot of abuse as well from either side. And
who says everyone working at these councils agrees with the
position their employees have taken, Well they won't. And who

(05:02):
says everyone paying rates to these councils agrees with their
anti Israel positions, Well they don't. We know that, Which
is why I think the government should be telling counsels
to pull their heads in when it comes to taking
political positions on global issues, just as much as it's
telling universities not to.

Speaker 1 (05:23):
For more from Kerry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
News Talks a B from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.