Letter to the Nursing Council re Todd Stephenson's letter concerning the Nurse's Draft Code of Conduct 2026

Wednesday, 11 February 2026

Catherine Byrne

Chief Executive/Registrar

Nursing Council of New Zealand

VIA EMAIL

Tēnā koe Catherine,

Re: Response to correspondence from Todd Stephenson MP regarding Draft Code of Conduct 2026

I write regarding recent correspondence you have received from ACT MP Todd Stephenson concerning the Nursing Council's Draft Code of Conduct 2026. Rights Aotearoa is aware of Mr Stephenson's letter, as he posted it on his X account, and wishes to provide you with an alternative perspective on the matters raised.

We respectfully submit that Mr Stephenson's concerns are highly misplaced and that the Council should proceed with its consultation process without being swayed by his intervention. Our reasons are as follows.

1.     The statutory mandate supports robust professional standards

The Nursing Council's consultation on the Code of Conduct falls squarely within your statutory mandate under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. Section 3 of that Act establishes your principal purpose: to protect the health and safety of members of the public by ensuring health practitioners are competent and fit to practise. The proposed amendments to the Code serve precisely this purpose. 

Mr Stephenson's letter fundamentally misunderstands the nature of professional regulation. Professional codes do not "gag" practitioners—they articulate the standards of conduct expected of those who voluntarily enter a profession carrying heightened obligations of public trust. Nurses hold positions of considerable power and responsibility in relation to vulnerable people. It is entirely appropriate that professional standards extend beyond clinical settings to encompass conduct that may undermine public confidence or compromise patient safety.

2.    The "vagueness" concern misrepresents professional regulation

Mr Stephenson objects to terms such as "offensive", "inflammatory", or "ill-informed" as creating uncertainty. This concern ignores that professional regulation inherently involves contextual judgement about impact and professional standards. This is precisely why the HPCAA establishes expert bodies like the Nursing Council, rather than attempting to codify every possible scenario in rigid rules.

The standards cited are neither novel nor unreasonable. They reflect well-established principles that exist across health professional codes in New Zealand and comparable jurisdictions. The Council's Professional Conduct Committees are well-equipped to assess conduct in context, considering factors such as the nature of the statements, the forum in which they were made, the use of professional credentials, and the potential impact on public trust and patient safety.

Moreover, the proposed prohibition on "imposing" beliefs on health consumers does not prevent nurses from holding or expressing views. It prevents the misuse of professional authority and access to vulnerable patients to advance personal agendas. This is a fundamental safeguard, particularly for patients whose health needs intersect with contested social issues—including transgender, non-binary, and intersex patients who may encounter nurses opposed to their very existence.

 3.    The "free expression" argument masks opposition to accountability

Mr Stephenson's letter is not truly concerned with freedom of expression in the abstract. The ACT Party's objection becomes clear when he warns that nurses could face consequences "for questioning prevailing orthodoxies, including criticism of Treaty interpretations or of mātauranga Māori in scientific or clinical contexts."

What Mr Stephenson characterises as legitimate "questioning of orthodoxies" may include, for example, public statements denying the validity of transgender identities, opposing evidence-based healthcare for transgender youth, or characterising entire communities as delusional or dangerous. Such statements, when made by registered nurses—particularly when using professional credentials or platforms—carry professional weight whether intended 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. This is not ideological enforcement—it is the core function of professional regulation.

4.    The Teaching Council precedent is inapposite

Mr Stephenson references the Teaching Council's pursuit of a teacher over social media comments as a cautionary tale. This comparison is misleading. Without knowing the specifics of that case, it is impossible to assess whether it represents regulatory overreach or appropriate investigation of potentially concerning conduct. The mere fact that a complaint was eventually dismissed does not mean it "should never have progressed"—professional regulators must investigate complaints to determine their merit.

More fundamentally, the existence of one contested case does not demonstrate that professional codes are inherently problematic. It demonstrates that professional regulation involves judgement calls, that reasonable people may disagree about boundaries, and that robust processes exist to test those judgements. This is how the system should work.

5.    The "needs-based service provision" directive is irrelevant

Mr Stephenson claims the draft Code is inconsistent with the Government's September 2024 Cabinet circular on "needs-based service provision." This is a category error. That directive concerns the delivery of public services on the basis of need rather than race. It has no bearing on professional codes of conduct, which address individual practitioner behaviour and fitness to practise.

The Code does not require differential treatment of patients based on race. It requires that all patients receive competent, respectful, evidence-based care regardless of who they are. Requirements to understand the impact of colonisation on health outcomes, or to practise cultural safety, support needs-based care—they do not undermine it. A nurse who cannot recognise how historical and structural factors affect a patient's health needs, or who cannot provide culturally safe care, is less able to meet those needs effectively.

6.    Parliamentary intervention would be inappropriate

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 Mr Stephenson's like-minded supporters in the Free Speech Union—have the opportunity to make submissions addressing specific concerns about wording, scope, or potential impacts.

 Parliamentary intervention at this stage would be premature and inappropriate. It would undermine the independence of professional regulation and suggest that politicians consider the Council incapable of balancing competing interests—including freedom of expression and public protection—in developing professional standards.

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.

7.    The public interest supports your work

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. The proposed Code amendments serve this purpose. They reflect the Council's proper understanding of its statutory mandate and its commitment to protecting vulnerable patients.

8.    Nurses voluntarily agree to be bound by the code in return for economic benefits

Mr Stephenson argues that “Nurses do not forfeit human rights” when they join the profession. This is true, but they do agree to have their speech rights voluntarily circumscribed for the duration of their registration. The law has repeatedly held that employers and professional bodies can restrict speech rights if such restrictions are justified under NZBORA section 5. Nurses voluntarily join the profession in return for the economic and social benefits of being a nurse.

9.    Conclusion

Rights Aotearoa respectfully urges the Nursing Council to continue its consultation process without being deflected by Mr Stephenson's intervention. The concerns he raises are not borne out by the evidence, misrepresent the nature of professional regulation, and would—if accepted—undermine the Council's ability to protect public safety and maintain professional standards.

We intend to make a formal submission to the consultation in support of robust professional standards that protect all patients, including those from marginalised communities who are most vulnerable to harm from unprofessional conduct.

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