Nick Hanne: Free Speech Union spokesperson explains why Tonkin + Taylor shouldn't take drastic action against Winston Peters heckler

Free speech advocates says Tonkin + Taylor doesn't need to apologise for an employee allegedly heckling the Deputy Prime Minister. 

A man appearing to be wearing a company lanyard yelled and swore at Winston Peters after an announcement on rail funding at Wellington's train station.

The engineering firm has since apologised and says it'll investigate.

The Free Speech Union's Nick Hanne says there's a line between work and personal expression. 

"This is an issue that isn't actually directly related to the work that their employee does - and of course to what they do as a company - so it just seems like complete over-reach."

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Free Speech Union has urged Tonkin and Taylor not
to take any disciplinary action against the Winston Peters heckler.
This guy was dumb enough to heckle the Deputy Prime
Minister while wearing his work lanyard, leading to his identification a.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Load of pollax, Like well it's gone up in the mirror.

Speaker 1 (00:15):
Such you look like like Pollock's mate. Now Tonkin and
Taylor has apologized to Winston and is investigating the employee.
Nick Hannas from the Free Speech Union and with us, Hey, Nick, Hi, Ever,
what's your problem with them saying sorry about it?

Speaker 3 (00:32):
Whether they can say sorry or they like, is it
really for them to say sorry? Though?

Speaker 2 (00:37):
We think not.

Speaker 3 (00:38):
I mean, this is an issue that isn't actually directly
related to the work that their employee does, and of
course to what they do as a company.

Speaker 2 (00:48):
So it just seems like a complete overreach.

Speaker 3 (00:50):
And I think they'll probably trying to get ahead of
any kind of reputational damage they perceived might be done
by putting.

Speaker 1 (00:56):
The state's reputational damage isn't there. I mean, if they
say nothing thing, then there will be a bunch of
people who will think that they either condone or agree
or don't care.

Speaker 3 (01:07):
Well, there can't be reputational damage in some cases, and
of course that's part of the reason codes of conduct
assigned by employees. But I think the point here is
that the specific things that were being said in the
context and the fact that it was outside of work
and it had nothing to do with an engineering firm,
especially the one he works for that is very pertinent,
and you know, I really would sort of try and

(01:28):
emphasize that we're going to not have a line anymore
between work and personal expression free expression if we continue
to kind of go down this path. You know, when
can you clock off if you can't do it on
your way to work and express your opinion?

Speaker 1 (01:44):
Well, okay, the thing is, sometimes, so, Nick, are you married, Yes?

Speaker 2 (01:51):
I am.

Speaker 1 (01:52):
Okay, So sometimes have you never had an instance where
your wife does something and you're like, I'm assuming that
your marriage a woman by the way, or your spouse
does something and you're embarrassed by it, and you go
to the person affected and you go, I'm sorry, they
shouldn't have behaved like that, you know, to kind of
preserve your own reputation.

Speaker 3 (02:10):
Well, well, of course, but the point here is that,
I mean, and this is all.

Speaker 1 (02:13):
Their Tonking and Taylor are doing right. They have been
embarrassed publicly. The guy is wearing their lanyard, so they
are just all they're doing is putting a bit of
a distance and going sorry about this guy. We're just
going to get him and remind him, you know, don't
do that. And what's the problem with that?

Speaker 3 (02:26):
Well, I think that's the point though, is that you know,
they can they could be embarrassed, and they can apologize
if they want.

Speaker 2 (02:32):
But the thing is that this guy is not at work.

Speaker 3 (02:36):
You know, he's not at work when he does this stuff, and.

Speaker 2 (02:38):
He says these words.

Speaker 3 (02:39):
He's entitled to have a political opinion on topics. And
I mean clearly this kind of you know, rhetoric that's
being used not just by this guy, but by people recently,
you know, Andrew Advance. You can name lots of people
using language that clearly doesn't elevate political discourse.

Speaker 2 (02:55):
This isn't issue. It's a problem.

Speaker 3 (02:57):
But is it your employer's problem if it has nothing
to do with what they.

Speaker 2 (03:00):
Offer as a service or you know, or whatever it's
a company.

Speaker 3 (03:03):
I just think that we're dealing here with something that's
just not relevant. It's not a reputational issue.

Speaker 2 (03:10):
It is because it.

Speaker 1 (03:11):
Is a reputational issue. I know that you guys, I
understand that you are holding a principle and I respect
you for that, but you also have to live in
the real world, and it is a reputational issue for
them if they do not at least distance themselves from
him and also Nick, is.

Speaker 3 (03:24):
It They're welcome to distance themselves.

Speaker 2 (03:26):
That's but it's not not really a disciplinary you know issue?
Is it?

Speaker 1 (03:31):
Because I agree with you? Well that I agree, that's.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
What that's what we're saying. That's but that's what we're saying.

Speaker 1 (03:38):
Okay. But so there are two things going on here
is the disciplinary action and the apology. Now with the apology,
do you accept do you agree with me? The apology
is okay because actually the chief executive also has free
speech and has free speech which entitles her to say sorry.

Speaker 3 (03:53):
Yeah, yeah, of course we're going to argue that they
shouldn't apologize if they want to.

Speaker 2 (03:57):
Is it necessary? We don't think so.

Speaker 1 (03:59):
Okay. So the disciplinary matter, are you okay with T
and T getting them in and going, hey, listen, don't
do that with a lanyard around your neck, off you go?
Is that okay with you.

Speaker 3 (04:09):
Well, I mean, I think the issue around the lanyard
is one that actually stemmed from the media who were
present at that event, going who was this guy, and
then they wanted to kind of chase the story up.
I don't think that they really needed to do that.
And I think every time we go after people's sort
of personal backgrounds and start getting into stuff that actually
wasn't really relevant at the time. This guy was just
one of many employees expressing a political opinion in a

(04:32):
way that many would consider very crude. I mean, it
doesn't help clearly, you know, to use that kind of language,
But why chase the story so far? It just seems like,
you know, there are other big issues we could be
talking about, and this has become something, you know, it's
a bit of a bit of a circus.

Speaker 1 (04:46):
YEP, I would agree with you on that, Nick, Thanks
very much in the can Free Speech Union. For more
from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to news talks
it'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.