Depending on who you are in our society you have a greater or lesser degree of freedom to say what you think in public. To express your opinion without being constrained in what you can say.
Politicians can say what they like of course. They even have parliamentary privilege, allowing them to say things within the chamber that might get them sued elsewhere.
Although sometimes politicians are constrained in what they say by their own party. For example, when National Party liberals like Chris Bishop or Nicola Willis go along with, even vote for, whatever wackadoodle, conservative, 1950s stance, the party is taking to appease the fundies on their back bench lest they boil over.
CEOs, business owners, farmers - they can say whatever the hell they want. There are few ramifications for them saying the most repugnant, hurtful, or insane garbage. Unless it veers over the line of legality, and then there might be.
If you’re working for a private company what you can say pretty much depends on the boss. If you work for Hilary Barry she is not going to let any misogynistic or racist talk slide. On the hand if you work for Elon Musk he’d probably high five you for it, then go tweet it as if it was something he’d thought of himself.
But you know who can’t say what they think, even if their boss agrees? Public Servants, people who work for the government. Doesn’t that seem crazy? If you’re a guy with an animation business, or own a bar at the Viaduct, you can say pretty much whatever you like. But if you’re a Public Servant then zip it sweetie.
It’s like they’re second class citizens, as if they were… well… Servants.
We saw this yesterday when Te Whatu Ora, Heath NZ, chairperson Rob Campbell was sacked over comments he’d made following the weekend announcement of National’s policy replacing Three Waters. In case you haven’t seen the post on LinkedIn (that was a joke), here it is:
“What on earth would make anyone think this was a sensible idea for debt raising alone, let alone the management and delivery of the tasks.
I can only think that this is a thin disguise for the dog whistle on ‘co-governance’. Christopher Luxon might be able to rescue his party from stupidity on climate change but rescuing this from a well he has dug himself might be harder.”
As a senior Public Servant Mr Campbell should not have been making such a post. Even if, as claimed, he felt it was in a private capacity. He subsequently apologised to Christopher Luxon who accepted his apology, and to Health Minister Ayesha Verrall who apparently didn’t and who at 5:30pm yesterday sacked him.
Now we have a group of people in this country who claim to be very interested in free speech. They get very excited by the idea that sometimes people with really ghastly, offensive views should just shut up. Free speech cannot be compromised on, clamour the libertarians in the ACT Party and on one of National’s many fringes.
So did these people come to Rob’s defence? Did they stand up and demand he be allowed to say what he wanted, even if they disagreed with it? No, they were the ones demanding that he be fired.
Along with their mates over at Newstalk ZB, and others in the media, who joined the lynch mob. Kate Hawkesby, who many have been saying should apologise for her dangerous and misleading comments on the Cyclone, said he must apologise or resign.
“He is not allowed to make political statements, or politicise his role, yet that’s exactly what he did…
We have a health system in tatters, a system we all pay for that they can’t fix, a system overseen by him, and yet instead of spending his time fixing it, he’s espousing his views on opposition party policy on social media.
Hipkins needs to show strong leadership and stub this banana republic vibe out.”
Then of course there was Jenna Lynch on TV3 talking about how “the perception of public neutrality is paramount”. That would be this Jenna Lynch. Sorry, what?
What if the words posted are not opinion but simply an accurate observation - the truth? Campbell said National’s policy was a “thin disguise for the dog whistle on ‘co-governance’”. That seems like the only reasonable assessment anyone could make of it after the way National have attacked co-governance and crowed that their policy excluded it. A very thin disguise indeed.
What if this man has been sacked for telling the truth, rather than expressing an opinion?
What if this man has been sacked for telling the truth about co-governance, essentially an attack on the treaty of Waitangi?
Gee that doesn’t sound so flash does it? Maybe he is more of a whistle blower.
I’m kidding the rules are what they are, he broke them, therefore there are consequences. Although they do appear a bit severe, ultimately the Minister had no other option but to sack him - National, ACT, and the media saw to that. But maybe these shouldn’t be the rules?
Oh, and while many might look at Rob Campbell’s firing and say he has paid the price - not Simeon Brown. No, he of the cream pants, the brand new gumboots, the faked photo ops, and tightly held Christian beliefs says just firing him from that role is not enough. This post from last last night:
Clearly Simeon with his genuine Christian beliefs has misinterpreted “turn the other cheek” to mean “punch them on the other side of the face too”. Simeon can smell blood in the water and he is going to put the boot in.
Part of the neutrality tradition is of course to protect Public Servants. What government would hire someone they thought was going to openly criticise them? This is not dissimilar to the corporate world where in many organisations if you’re left leaning but ambitious you probably keep quiet about it, chances are the boss is a Tory.
But maybe we need the people in our public services speaking up. We sure hear plenty from big business. The CEO of a bank in this country has far more of a political platform than Health New Zealand's chairperson.
The CEO is regularly asked what they think, and they say what they think without being answerable to anyone, other than the shareholders whose interests they serve. They even get to put their own spin doctors on the news to burble whatever is in the interests of the bank. These people are known as Bank Economists.
Shouldn’t we listen to senior Public Servants who have a good understanding of government services? Might they not be a more useful person to ask than the beardy tattoo the news puts on a vox pop because they found him wandering near the office?
I do understand all the reasons why Public Servants have to remain neutral, but maybe we should have the same expectation of other sectors? The business roundtable or the mood of the boardroom anyone?
Is it really right that the CEO of a large Australian bank, who is motivated to extract as much wealth from Kiwis as they possibly can, gets a voice in our political system. But the chairperson of NZ Health does not?
The unfortunate thing about this action is his comments were right on target.
Free speech seems to be given to anti left wing government voices and harsh repercussions to anyone who criticises right wing governments as was shown by the RNZ Kim Hill interview with Eleanor Catton world famous NZ author. Act's demand for Mr Campbell's removal from office struck me as hypocritical.