Letter to the Minister of Health re FSU correspondence concerning the Nursing Council's draft code of conduct for nurses.
Rights Aotearoa has become aware of correspondence to you from the Free Speech Union (FSU) regarding the Nursing Council’s proposed amendments to the Code of Conduct for nurses. We write to provide an alternative perspective and to respectfully urge you not to intervene in this matter.
Tuesday, 27 January 2026
Hon. Simeon Brown
Minister of Health
VIA EMAIL
Tēnā koe Minister Brown,
Re: Nursing Council draft Code of Conduct consultation – Response to Free Speech Union correspondence
1. Rights Aotearoa has become aware of correspondence to you from the Free Speech Union (FSU) regarding the Nursing Council’s proposed amendments to the Code of Conduct for nurses. We write to provide an alternative perspective and to respectfully urge you not to intervene in this matter.
2. The Nursing Council is an independent statutory body established under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (HPCAA). Its principal purpose, set out in section 3 of that Act, is to protect the health and safety of members of the public by providing mechanisms to ensure that health practitioners are competent and fit to practise. The Council’s consultation on its Code of Conduct falls squarely within its statutory mandate.
Professional standards are not “gagging” measures
3. The FSU characterises the proposed Code amendments as restricting freedom of expression. This framing fundamentally misunderstands the nature of professional regulation. Nurses, like all regulated health professionals, voluntarily enter a profession that carries heightened obligations of public trust. Professional codes do not “gag” practitioners—they articulate the standards of conduct expected of those who hold positions of considerable power and responsibility in relation to vulnerable people.
4. The proposed standards cited by the FSU are neither novel nor unreasonable. Requirements that public statements not be “offensive, abusive, inflammatory or ill-informed” reflect well-established principles that professional conduct extends beyond clinical settings. The FSU’s concern about subjectivity ignores that professional regulation inherently involves judgement about context, impact, and professional standards—this is precisely why the HPCAA establishes expert bodies like the Nursing Council.
5. Similarly, the prohibition on “imposing” beliefs on health consumers does not prevent nurses from holding or expressing views. It prevents the use of professional authority and access to vulnerable patients to advance personal agendas. This is a fundamental safeguard, particularly for patients whose health needs may intersect with contested social issues—including transgender, non-binary, and intersex patients who may encounter nurses opposed to their very existence.
The “freedom of expression” argument masks harm
6. The FSU’s concern is not truly about freedom of expression in the abstract. Their letter reveals their actual objection: they oppose accountability for nurses who use their professional platform to express views that undermine trust, cause harm, or compromise patient safety—particularly in relation to marginalised communities.
7. The FSU states that complaints now extend beyond “matters of public health, such as vaccine efficacy” to “nurses’ political views, religious beliefs, and broader social or moral commentary.” This is telling. What the FSU euphemistically describes as “political views” or “social commentary” may include, for example, public statements denying the validity of transgender identities, opposing healthcare for transgender youth, or characterising entire communities as delusional or dangerous.
8. Such statements, when made by registered nurses, carry professional weight whether the nurse intends this or not. They undermine public trust, create barriers to care, and can cause direct psychological harm to patients and community members. The Nursing Council is entirely justified in considering whether such conduct raises concerns about fitness to practise.
The claim of “ideological conformity” is a strawperson argument
9. The FSU presents a false dichotomy: either nurses must “toe the line” on every issue, or professional regulation has failed. This misrepresents how professional standards operate. The Code does not require nurses to hold particular views. It requires that their public conduct, including online expression, maintains professional standards and does not undermine public confidence in the profession or cause foreseeable harm.
10. There is ample room for professional dissent, debate, and diversity of thought within these boundaries. What is not acceptable is using one’s professional status to spread misinformation, to demean vulnerable populations, or to undermine colleagues’ professional practice in ways that compromise patient care.
11. Notably, the FSU provides no concrete examples of nurses who have been unjustly sanctioned for legitimate professional debate. The reference to a Professional Conduct Committee suggesting “safe” conversations are private overlooks the context of that determination—likely a case where a nurse’s public statements genuinely raised concerns about their fitness to practise.
Ministerial intervention would be inappropriate
12. The Nursing Council is currently undertaking a public consultation process. This is the appropriate forum for debating the proposed amendments. Stakeholders, including nurses, patients, advocacy organisations, and indeed the FSU, have the opportunity to make submissions addressing specific concerns about wording, scope, or potential impacts.
13. Ministerial intervention at this stage would be premature and inappropriate. It would undermine the independence of professional regulation and suggest that the Government considers the Council incapable of balancing competing interests—including freedom of expression and public protection—in developing professional standards.
14. The HPCAA already provides safeguards. Should the Council’s final Code be challenged as inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or as exceeding the Council’s statutory authority, those challenges can be properly tested through judicial review. Political interference in the regulatory process is not the answer.
The public interest supports robust professional standards
15. Public trust in the nursing profession is not maintained by permitting nurses to say whatever they wish without consequence. It is maintained by assuring the public that nurses will provide competent, respectful, evidence-based care to all patients, regardless of the nurse’s personal views. Professional standards that hold nurses accountable for conduct that undermines this assurance strengthen, rather than weaken, public confidence.
16. We respectfully submit that the appropriate course of action is for your office to take no action in response to the FSU’s letter, allowing the Nursing Council’s consultation process to proceed independently. Rights Aotearoa intends to make a submission to that consultation in support of robust professional standards that protect vulnerable patients.
17. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues further should you wish.
Nāku noa, nā
Paul Thistoll
Chief Executive
Rights Aotearoa
paul@rightsaotearoa.nz
