Split views over free speech policy

The council discusses the free speech policy.

An anti-co-governance rally that never occurred in Taupō in 2023 had its delayed repercussions at last week’s full meeting of the Taupō District Council.

By Chris Marshall

In 2023 the council faced a free speech complaint for not allowing a venue booking at the Great Lake Centre of prominent anti-co-governance campaigner Julian Batchelor of the Stop Co-Governance group.

Similar events elsewhere in the country run by Batchelor were met with angry counter-protests and the application by Batchelor was rejected for what the council said at the time were health and safety concerns, spurring the Free Speech Union to lay a complaint with the Human Rights Review Tribunal calling the booking cancellation “undemocratic discrimination”.

Taupō was one of several councils to turn Batchelor down but the only one the FSU pursued in the tribunal.

Councillor Duncan Campbell, voted against the new policy calling the “so-called” freedom of expression policy a fraud.

He said the policy under consideration pretended to “value the very thing which was willingly squashed.

“There’s been no apology, acknowledgement or reckoning … This policy does not restore freedom of expression, and I will not be party to that form of hypocrisy.”

Campbell said he advocated at the time for locals who wanted the meeting, saying he also had questions about co-governance.

“It does not necessarily mean I support him (Batchelor), but he raises some valid points.”

The complaint to the tribunal was later transmuted to an agreement that council staff and elected members would meet with the FSU to work together on the council’s free speech policy.

This resulted in the document policy advisor Andrew Wilson presented last week.

The council had had two workshops on freedom of expression, his report said, with the FSU delivering the first and council officers leading a subsequent one.

Councillor Karam Fletcher had concerns about freedom of expression being weaponised against minority or indigenous groups to become ‘hate speech’.

Wilson said the council would rely on the law and the courts rather than its policy in such cases via the Harmful Digital Communications Act and the Human Rights Act.

He said the document provided guidance on freedom of expression and the law, and as that changed, the council would have to update it.

“The policy is a nice way for particular officers and governance level staff, and also yourselves to be able to, at a glance, quickly understand what those obligations look like.”
Cr Kevin Taylor wanted Wilson to confirm the policy was written in cooperation with the FSU following their workshop with councillors and staff earlier in the year.

Wilson said he couldn’t speak for the FSU, but they had a fair chance to present their views which were considered.

Campbell described Wilson’s reply as diplomatic and suggested amendments put up by the FSU were removed.

“Not only that but I think something I pointed out at the workshop too was that it’s all very well having a policy with nice words but giving us some traction on the ground I actually think that is the responsibility of governance and I don’t actually see this policy doing that.”

The motion to adopt the policy was moved by Rachel Shepherd, seconded by Taylor and accepted by all in attendance. Campbell, who had joined by video, interjected, saying he would like his vote against the motion recorded.