How Far Should Professional Standards Reach Into A Nurse’s Private Life - Dr Roderick Mulgan and Deborah Cunliffe

We examine the proposed nursing Code of Conduct through culture, law, and lived reality, asking how far regulation should reach into nurses’ private speech. Deborah Cunliffe and Dr Roderick Mulgan unpack conformity in institutions, the legal test for disrepute, and the chilling effect on whistleblowing and public debate.

• institutional conformity shaping nurse behaviour
• vague standards used to police lawful opinions
• legal threshold for bringing profession into disrepute
• the Cath Simpson case and tribunal process
• difference between offensive speech and clinical harm
• risks to patient safety from silencing and secrecy
• gaps in whistleblowing guidance and training
• submissions needed to clarify personal versus professional spheres
• calls for government-led clarity and regular code review

If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and consider sharing the podcast with others

If you have any questions, feedback or suggestions, you can contact us at podcast@fsu.nz

If you want to find out more about the New Zealand Free Speech Union, visit fsu.nz

Transcript

Setting The Stakes: Free Speech And Nursing

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Welcome to Free to Speak, the New Zealand Free Speech Union podcast. If you enjoy the show, subscribe for uncensored conversations and free speech news from New Zealand and beyond.

SPEAKER_02 0:12

Welcome to another episode of Free to Speak. My name's Jelaine Heather, and I'm the CEO of the Free Speech Union. Now we're going to pick up here. We've talked a little bit on another podcast about the proposed nursing code of conduct that's out for um out for review and is open for submissions at the moment. The two guests I've got today, we've got Deborah Cunliffe from the Nurses Collective of New Zealand and also Dr. Roderick Mulgan, who's not only a barrister, so that's a lawyer and a barrister, a doctor, but also on our Free Speech Union Council, our board. Welcome both to the to Free to Speak. Thank you.

SPEAKER_00 0:51

Good afternoon.

SPEAKER_02 0:53

Now we have we have, as I said, we've mentioned this before, we've brought up the proposed um code of conduct, we've we've issued a media release, we're putting our own submission in for this. The submissions are open until the 9th of March. And essentially it's about, it appears to be codifying the practice that we've seen happen over the last few years, or probably even going back more than a few years, in terms of nurses not being able to have private expression or their own personal beliefs and expression in their private life that sort of sits outside of their professional capacity. And in that way, the regulatory bodies, you know, and this is without any patient complaints, the regulatory bodies are finding some of these expressions. And nowadays they're all online, right? That's where our communication happens. They're finding these expressions, and then they'll they're literally hauling nurses before them, um, often in confidential um proceedings with their livelihood on the line in terms of um, you know, telling them that they're bringing the the profession into disrepute, etc. Now, they've released this code at first glance. It looks like it's got a lot of very vague and subjective terms in it. It really steps from the

Introducing Guests And The Code Review

SPEAKER_02 2:10

professional capacity of being a nurse into the private life and your private expression as a person. Um, so you're literally almost on the clock, you know, 24 by seven. Now, Deborah, I know you've looked at this code probably until you're cross-eyed. Um tell us a little bit about you know, about this and then also about the practical impact that this this has on nurses day-to-day and and in their work life and in their personal life.

SPEAKER_03 2:37

I think by way of background, and just to set a little bit of context around this situation, nurses have historically conformed. It's taken a long time for us to ditch the doctor's handmade and label um present members excluded, of course. Um, in addition, nursing in itself as a workforce constitutes hierarchical structures and it's also well documented to um attract bullies. Now, all of that ensures what I would label as conformity and groupthink. Um, you know, it starts off at tertiary education and uh kind of meanders through into the workplace. The narrative is changing somewhat around nurse prescribers, nurse practitioners, and nurses who are critical thinkers in the clinical setting. But essentially, generally, nurses are not expected nor are they prepared to stand up for themselves with regard to their own personal

From Ward To Web: Private Speech Policing

SPEAKER_03 3:35

rights, freedoms, freedom of choice, freedom of speak. Um, especially when it's outside of the prevailing narrative and dare I say the union protection. When nurses do speak out and when they do um have an opinion, it looks bad for the nurse and the profession as a whole. Now, uh alongside that context is that nurses have historically been expected to be professional, to um participate in um systemic nursing knowledge, professional recertification, codes of conduct. So what are the code, this current um proposed revisions to the code are proposing aren't actually any different to what was proposed in 2012. And in fact, some of the language that's been used in this new and proposed revisions, they've been around since the 1970s. So things like professional behaviour, um, being kind, being compassionate, they're not new to nursing, they've been around for a long time. Um, but what has changed is, and I think where we're running into problems with this new code of conduct is that whilst the wording in the code of conduct remains the same, the words themselves and the interpretation of the codes of conduct and the competency frameworks have become weaponized. And their application is more to support what I would identify as the latest ideology or trendy liberal interpretations. So it's a little bit like nurses are the proverbial frog in the boiling water. They become accustomed to being told what they can do, can't do, can say, can't say. And so when terminology, as in um principle four in the new proposed revisions about making offensive, abusive, and using inflammatory, oral informed statements, when those things pop up, nurses don't react, they stay very quiet, and they just conform. And this is the problem we've got now in 2026 when um revisions or proposed revisions to the code are attracting a lot of attention from people like the self-free speech union and other sectors, but there's actually very, very little reaction from within nursing itself, including from the legacy unions, as to the potential pitfalls associated with this continuing conformity of being, doing, behaving. And that is where we we've got a problem now because nurses don't know what they don't know. And some of the um potential things that could go wrong for nurses, they'll only realize they should have stood up and said something when it's too late.

SPEAKER_02 6:10

And that's that's so often the case that we see as well. I really liked your analogy

Deborah On Culture, Conformity, And Bullying

SPEAKER_02 6:15

um of in the boiling water, right? The the the surrounding water. Um, well, first it's about professional obligations, and everyone sort of knows that there's a line between personal and professional, and then it just becomes, as you say, that the water becomes warmer and warmer, the ability to express an opinion that differs, that differs from you know, the conformity becomes less and less until the gap narrows so much. Um, Roderick, I'll be interested. Um, Deborah set such a great context in terms of the historical approach and sort of where nurses sort of came from. You know, given your very unusual background, uh, both as a practicing GP, as a doctor, and um and and a lawyer and a barrister, what's your um reflection on that sort of direction of the regulatory codes and the profession?

SPEAKER_00 7:05

I was very intrigued to hear Deborah setting that out. I haven't heard it quite put like that before, but it certainly does conform to the experience of nursing, particularly within institutions, that, you know, big hospital, that it sort of runs on procedures and processes and doing certain things in a certain way. And it's not an environment that encourages individual thought in any great way. Um, certainly not unless you get to the very top of the tree. So I think it's true that this is an environment where conformity, um, going along with the crowd, doing what you need to do, this is a great big ship moving forward, and we've all got our little bit, uh, does lean to that sort of atmosphere. And nurses are less likely to be stroppy than maybe in other professions. I've also noticed that if nurses are split out of that environment somewhere else and given more responsibility, then the individual thinking tends to follow it. So it's not so much nurses as people, but it's the environment that they're in. So small private hospitals, um, community practices, you're more likely to get nurses who express opinions, disagree with you, tell you when they think you're wrong, that sort of thing. Um, unfortunately, most of the nursing profession is, of course, within the institutional model. So that was my observation years ago that it's not so much the personalities attracted to nursing, but the environments that they're placed in. And when those environments are more individualistic, then the individual tends to come forward.

SPEAKER_02 9:00

Yeah. Now that makes sense. And and then I think it is important to pick up another on another point, Deborah, that you mentioned that a lot of this language has been around, you know, for a while and and it's not that new. But what is different is the fact that they are being picked up and really are being weaponized to narrow down that ability to have a differing opinion or to express it outside of work, um, which I would argue, and we are going to argue, I believe, in the Kath Simpson case was was completely contrary to how the code was first written, right, and what it was intended in. And I think something that speaks to that specifically is the fact that these proceedings that we're encountering, they aren't off-patient complaints. They aren't community-led in terms of the professional standard of behaviour or the the level of professional um care that someone's giving. It's it's the regulatory board or sort of other people in the wider community who are saying, I don't think you can say that. That that that's not good. Um and that's is that what you're sort of seeing, Deborah? And you know, you mentioned about the weaponization of the code, it's just been narrowed down and the stamping out any individual disagreement or private expression.

SPEAKER_03 10:20

Yeah, absolutely. And and then the result of that is that because nurses see what happens to another person, they are frightened to speak out. So they're just told a line and you know, are fearful of voicing an opinion. And nurses historically practice defensively, it's a well-known terminology in nursing, you know, that we be careful in our clinical practice not to do something wrong. So we're almost on red alert all the time. And that is now spilling over into these issues such as democracy and freedom of speech, because now nurses are very aware that anything can and will be used against you in a court of law kind of scenario. But you know, the bottom line is like anybody else, nurses should be able to speak freely, share opinions and worldviews, you know, and not be frightened to discuss things like critical race theory, culture, gender, politics, whatever it looks like, especially in their personal lives, but also in their professional lives. Now, I suppose where I might just, you know, slightly differ to the fundamental approach that free speech union takes, and that's absolutely correct, is that because nurses have always been expected to represent a professional cohort of carers, and to that professionalism enhances the trust and respect that patients have in the nursing profession. I do think that you know, anything that nurses say needs to be lawful, not egregious, and not impact delivery of nursing care. So, you know, I do add some provisos around what we say, but I believe that every nurse has got the right to say whatever it is she needs to say, and there should be no um limits on that.

Roderick On Institutions And Groupthink

SPEAKER_03 12:00

But you know, one of my life's lessons has been people will um very often not remember what you've said, but how you say something. So I think one of the things about nurses is often we carry so many emotions. We're dealing with life and death issues, and you know, often we blurt things out without thinking the context and the impact it may have on people. And I think that's one of the things that you know I would encourage nurses to do is to think about how you say something, still say it, absolutely. We will defend your right to say what it is you feel you need to say, but how you say it may need to be considered.

SPEAKER_02 12:36

I mate, this is always this is where the rubber hits the road, right? In terms of um, Roderick, I'd love your opinion on this. Where we have a professional, you know, bringing the profession into disrepute or a professional competency standard, you know, it's it's easy when you can draw the lines. And as it is with Kath Simpson, I think the majority, the vast majority of her tweets were about immigration or other matters or things that are happening, you know, just in the wider context, nothing to do with her job at all. But um, there is obviously a line there of professional competency and holding yourself out to a certain standard. What where do you draw that rhoderic? How do you sort of define um where that is? And this is always the trickiest bit.

SPEAKER_00 13:22

Yeah, well, that's the whole nut of the issue, isn't it? It is true, and the Free Speech Union has never disputed that when you join a profession, that does impose upon you an obligation to conduct yourself in a certain way, including in your private life. So it's not just when you are practicing. So the profession can legitimately intervene if you have a criminal conviction, if you become bankrupt, if you have a substance abuse disorder, that sort of thing. That's traditionally what this concept of bringing the profession into disrepute, which has been the law for a very, very long time and is a foundation principle of all professions. You've got to be an upstanding citizen to practice a profession. That's what it used to mean. And that is still what this statute actually says. That's the uh legal standard to which both sides, both the accusers and the individual nurse, have to address if an issue is made of your private conduct. Was it enough to bring the profession into disrepute? No, you're not required to be a model citizen. You can have a shouting match with your neighbor over the back fence. You can have a disruptive dog, you can play a loud stereo. The the sort of thing that goes on in everyday life, you do not have to be perfect. The bringing the profession into disrepute is a reasonably high bar. It's not the criminal bar, it's not like beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's bringing people into disrepute is means in a reasonably substantial way, the sort of thing that would make you think the less of a person's character. That's what it's meant to be. And what's happening is that this concept is being gradually weakened so that simply an opinion that is outside the group of opinions that the people running the nursing council like and approve of are now being turned into accusations that you have brought the profession into disrepute. That's right. Or even expressing yourself crudely and rudely. Um Kat Simpson, for instance, was on Twitter. Now, anybody familiar with Twitter will know it's a reasonably barrel-scraping forum for the crudest, rudest thoughts. It's got some very erudite stuff as well, but it is an absolute marketplace of ideas. And anybody going on Twitter should be in under no illusions about the sort of thing they're going to read. And the sort of thing that she's put out there includes things that are blunt, that are silly, and that are controversial. None of which ought to attract professional discipline, particularly where she doesn't even say she's a nurse.

SPEAKER_02 16:20

Yeah, understood. And that is and as and I think you've well you've both raised, that is where the the bar has got lower and lower, and the the it feels like the level of conformed um ideas or approaches has got narrower and narrower in terms of of what they what they can expect. Um Roderick, could you speak a little bit more just sort of to the case? And and I suppose we talk a lot about the processes, the punishment here, you know, in terms of, and Deborah's mentioned sort of the self-censorship that happens. You see someone getting into trouble, you see someone's livelihood on the line, you know, and etc. And you just self-censor, right? You exclude yourself from the conversation. And it is an election year, and I think this does make a difference in being able to express robust opinions, especially outside of your profession, um, publicly. Um talk to us a little bit about the processes, the punishment with Kath.

SPEAKER_00 17:22

Yeah, just going back slightly to what you said about the bar getting lower and lower, I think one of the points that's relevant to make here is that the bar is still traveling. And it is still possible to envisage getting some judgments of authority that might restore the bar to a higher point. So we're still wrestling over where the bar should be. Certainly there is pressure on it from the nursing council, but the nursing council don't ultimately decide because we do have due process, we do have the ability to have decisions reviewed and that sort of thing. So just to fill people in, if you are a member of a profession regulated under the health practitioners disciplinary competence, sorry, the health practitioners competence assurance

Weaponised Codes And Vague Standards

SPEAKER_00 18:10

act, that act provides for various councils to regulate different branches of the health profession. And there are 15 such councils. So there's medical council, nursing council, physiotherapists, farpsists, that sort of thing. If you do something they don't like, they can convene their own committee and discipline you. If they decide it's a bit more serious than that, they can refer it upstairs to a thing called the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. And that's one tribunal that governs all 15 of the councils. And if your regulatory council decides to do that, then they become the prosecuting body, and you have to defend yourself in front of this tribunal. And that's what Kath Simpson is up to. But the tribunal is, of course, not the last word. We have the ability to go to the regular legal system and ask for decisions to be reviewed. And that did happen last year with a case called Turner. And Turner was a bit of a mixed bag. It did find that some of the comments involved in that case were legitimate subjects for discipline. But then that nurse expressed herself in rather stronger terms than this nurse. But it did also say at the same time that even if you are a nurse, even if you're a member of a regulated profession, you can express yourself in robust terms on contentious topics like immigration. So to that extent, it was quite a good judgment for us. And that is now a binding on the health practitioners disciplinary tribunal. So I'm very intrigued to see exactly how they're going to handle Cat Simpson. So what she has posted, now, first of all, bear in mind she didn't say she was a nurse. It is possible to work out that she's a nurse if you do some research. If you Google her name in other contexts, if you pick up on clues like one text she refers to reading patient notes, for instance. So if you spend some real time analysing her online presence, you could work it out, but she doesn't say so. So she posted things like um she referred to the known conspiracy that Michelle Obama is a man. I had not personally heard of that one, but apparently that's something out there. She used the C-word to refer to other women. Now I recall there was some controversy a few months ago with a prominent journalist using the C-word to refer to the Minister of Finance when the Minister of Finance reformed the pay parity laws. Now, so truly, that is an objectionable word, but it is a known word. We've all heard it from time to time, including in the media. Does that bring the profession into disrepute? She referred to beneficiaries as drug dealers. Well, she didn't actually say that all beneficiaries are drug dealers, but she said that some drug dealers are beneficiaries, and I would not be remotely surprised if that was true. She posted misinformation about abortion law changes, claiming it allows children to be killed after they've been born. Now, that's just a flat out untruth. She did not say that. What the tweet says is that recent changes to abortion laws mean that a pregnancy can be terminated at a stage that the baby would have lived if it had been born. And that's a very different point. And that is also true. She described Pride Week as a hyper sexualized perversion that should be banned. I mean. You even hear gay people come out and say that Pride Week is not a valid depiction of homosexuality, that we've spent decades fighting to be recognized as part of mainstream society. And this sort of thing really doesn't help. And you you posted a description of transvestites trying to have access to women's spaces, which is a well-known topic of controversy, as people who slap lipstick and wig and a wig on a pig. That's the tone of what we're talking about. That's what she's going up to the health

The Legal Bar: Disrepute Explained

SPEAKER_00 22:40

practitioners disciplinary tribunal for, all in her spare time. Does that bring the nursing profession into disrepute?

SPEAKER_02 22:48

And I think it's important to understand that we all may disagree with this. We may find some of these views offensive. We may find them that they're not views that reflect what we think, but also that's not the point. You know, Kath Simpson.

SPEAKER_00 23:03

That's absolutely not the point. I am not going to be sitting there saying, members of the tribunal, these are reasonable opinions. I don't think anybody believes Michelle Barber is a man. I don't care. It's not the point. She has a private life. She can say that if she wants to. We can all say what we like in our private lives. With certain restrictions, if it was overtly racist, it might well reach the bar for bringing the profession into disrepute. If it was clearly mad and had dangerous implications, it might do that. She also referred to the COVID vaccine as being inadequately tested. Well, there is room for that opinion. The COVID vaccine was brought to market much sooner than the vaccine normally would be because of the urgency of the pandemic. Well, it's relevant to discuss that cost-benefit trade-off.

SPEAKER_02 23:58

And so we're really looking for that line between, you know, what is legitimately bringing the profession into disrepute versus what are just um lawful opinions that you might not like.

SPEAKER_03 24:14

That's exactly right. Can I just jump in there? I mean, it you know, just back to the code and the context that the code does not mean that nurses should not have moral views. It doesn't believe, say that they should not have political opinions, it doesn't mean that we have to agree with every decision of government or remain silent in public debates. And that's what Cass done. She's made her opinion, she spoke her mind. But another thing that is woven through the code in various principles is this ability for people, and it doesn't necessarily have to be the patient or health consumer as the Health Practitioner Competency Act refers to. I prefer the word patient, it doesn't have to be the patient making the um uh complaint, or even their father or family, it can be a member of the public or a colleague. Now we know in the world we live in that everybody's complaining about everybody else, and there's this real possibility of mischievous reporting where a nurse can say something, but just because um an employer or a colleague doesn't like that particular nurse, they can pick up on even the slightest moral um objection, and they can raise that to a disciplinary um event with either nursing council or health practitioner disciplinary tribunal. So, you know, throughout the code, there's these vague um recommendations that anybody can make a complaint about a nurse. And I'm not quite sure who made the complaints about CAF and under what um circumstances, but we, by being the frog in the boiling water, have put ourselves in a situation now where absolutely everybody and anybody can comment on a nurse's behaviour, both in professional and personal, and we're gonna see more Cath Simpsons because you know, more people are now aware you're a nurse, I can report you. And that actually is not, I'm sure, the intents of the court, but that is how it could be misinterpreted.

SPEAKER_00 26:13

Well, and also with the proviso that if we were to get some success at a higher court level, and that's a long way off, and it's a long, expensive way off. But if we were successful there, we might have some chilling effect on these complaints. But you're quite right in the current environment. Um, if I could just throw in another example that quite shocked me when it happened a couple of years ago at the Free Speech Union was approached by a nurse who posted online a very thoughtful and reasonable opinion that endorsed the pro-life anti-abortion welfare. And it wasn't expressed with any strong language, and it was in a context where people were discussing such a thing. Now, for that and nothing else, a member of the public who had strong pro-choice sympathies later complained with the nursing council. And that's fine. You know, you can make city complaints if you want to. The issue is what did the nursing council do? If the nursing council had any understanding of appropriate boundaries, they would simply have said, well, that's obviously not something for us. They, in fact, wrote to the nurse and said that they were going to open an investigation. And they got a letter back from our lawyer saying they certainly weren't going to do that, and that was the end of it. But the fact they would even try it on, the fact they even thought it was worth a go is deeply concerning.

SPEAKER_03 27:34

This is more common than you imagine. And it only takes one nurse in one hospital to get that letter, and then every nurse in that hospital will refrain from whatever behaviour led to that. Just the the fact that you get that letter through the post with nursing council on it, it makes your heart beat faster. It, you know, puts you off your food for a few days. Nurses don't like being told off, they don't like having things being picked up and you know, having their um behaviour brought to the attention of the nursing council. So, you know, the the impact will be that more nurses will just be silenced and just not speak out and not voice an opinion. And I I would just

The Kath Simpson Case: Tweets On Trial

SPEAKER_03 28:10

back to what you mentioned about CAF and Turner mentioning some anti-immigration um issues. Absolutely, every nurse has got the right to have a view on immigration, ethnicity, a number of topics. I suppose one of the things that I am very much aware of is that whilst you might make a general statement about immigration, tomorrow you might be nursing somebody from that particular cohort of immigrants or refugees or whatever. And if they know what your thoughts are, how can you be that trustworthy, reliable, respectful relationship? So this is another dilemma within, you know, what is right, what is wrong, and with making these blanket statements. And that's back to what I said earlier about nurses making the statements but removing it from the clinical context. So it's having an opinion, but not one that directly can impact or be manipulated to have seemingly impacted the clinical context. And that nurses aren't trained to do that because they're trained from very early on, think between this remit and this remit. They're not told how to manage these kinds of situations. And maybe this is what we need to do. You know, maybe we need to equip nurses better to deal with mischievous reports or potential legal challenges or whatever you know, context they come in, and to be aware of what that looks like and how to say what they want to say, but say it in a way that keeps them safe. We never thought, you know, when we started nursing that we would be having to defend our words, our thoughts, our freedom of conscience, freedom of speech. But here we are. And nurse training has not evolved to cover these issues. It's made us defensive, as I alluded to earlier, rather than standing in our truth and in our authoritarian stance, because nurses do have authority. We can speak, we are worth listening to.

SPEAKER_00 30:45

This is a vital thing to meet head on. And the answer is, of course, that it's part of your professional life. And indeed, in most professions, you have to deal with all sorts of people as you find them. People that you like, people that you don't like, people that you approve of, people that you don't approve of, people whose opinions that you might agree with, people that the whole lot, you just deal with what comes in the front door, and it's just part of your professional standing that you don't allow those suppression opinions to intrude into the clinical context. That's just part of how the world works. And if you did allow those opinions to intrude, then that is a legitimate point for discipline to arise. So it's a little bit like saying if you go to the pub and you drink too much, we should prosecute you for drink driving because you might get into your car. Now, at the moment, you do actually have to get into your car before you get prosecuted, and that's the way it should be. So if you have opinions about Islam, about trans people, about gay people, about Mari rights, you shouldn't be disciplined for those opinions until the point that it can be shown that they influence your clinical practice. The fact that they might influence your clinical practice isn't enough, particularly given that it's just part of everyday life to deal with people that you don't like, approve of, that sort of thing.

SPEAKER_02 32:12

It really does trans translate into a bit of thought policing at this point. Yes, exactly. That's what they're doing. That sort of um predictive future thought policing, and and which I imagine, sort of Deborah, what are the consequences for nurses on the ground? They self-censor, they withdraw. I I'm particularly concerned about sort of the public gag order that's that's sort of in here, which which seems to preclude nurses um from going public with some of their healthcare concerns, even if they have exhausted the sort of um internal whistleblower channels. And that surely can't be healthy for a profession where where that involves the public, that it's so important. Um what are your views on that?

SPEAKER_03 32:59

Yeah, it's interesting that in this proposed revisions to the code, they have mentioned the whistleblower act, but it's just a very brief statement. They haven't built any framework around that, and it's up to the nurse, you know. And again, nurses are not trained to look at the whistleblower act, and it's not part of nurse training. I mean, it may come into postgraduate study, but certainly as you basic nurse training, it's not there. So nurse and the nursing council's left it with nurses to consider what the application might be for them. But nurses are just too busy. The majority probably won't have even read the proposed revisions, they're certainly not going to be considering what a whistleblower act would look like and under what circumstances it might be appropriate to use it. So you're if you if a nurse found something wrong in the clinical setting, they'd probably go to a manager, um, and then the manager, if they felt it was, and this is probably one of the weaknesses that I've perceived under the whistleblower act. If the manager perceives that it's an issue, they'll escalate it up the food chain essentially. Um, but nurses and and there's currently um a whistleblower um in court at the moment who managed the whistleblower act so far, but then um decided that it wasn't working in his favour, I believe, and went outside of the provisions of the act and made some um journeys to other people and and uh revealed some information that fell outside the lawful protection of the whistleblower act. So nurses don't know what is right and what is wrong and what will be protected and what won't be protected. So it's just going to be back to this silencing and nurses not feeling that they can speak out. So the end result of that is first of all, we've got nurses that have an opinion that can't lawfully speak out. But the the the reason all New Zealanders should be concerned is because public health could potentially be impacted if nurses who see what is happening on a day-to-day basis in the clinical setting, if they stop speaking out, stop um indicating poor practice, incompetence, unlawful actions, if they don't feel they can because they don't understand what frameworks are in place to protect them or how to use them or how to apply them, the public will be the ones to suffer. So, you know, and you're quite right before you mentioned it's a political year. And this is actually really, you know, a lot of what I'm seeing in this code are assumed ideologies that have been hoisted on nursing for very many years, but now they've they've taken on a life of their own. A lot of this is left-leaning liberalism that um it's got a different interpretation to what it had even 10 years ago. And nurses haven't caught up. We just believe everything is the same, the kindness, the compassion are the same as they were in the 1980s, 1990s. But actually, everything's got a new application, and these are imposed by nursing council, regulators, unions, managers, and nursing really needs to stop and to consider what this means for each individual nurse on a personal level and what it means for their patients in the longer term. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 36:09

No, no, I I think I think that's right. And the pattern that we're identifying here, unfortunately, we're seeing happen across many different regulations, not just in

Robust Speech Versus Clinical Conduct

SPEAKER_02 36:20

healthcare, but across a lot of regulated professions in terms of narrowing down how people can speak out, narrowing down what they can speak out on, and sort of having those. Um, you know, Roderick, I think that was such a great point that that you can be professionally, absolutely competent, serve your patients well, serve the community well, do your job, and still have an awful opinions, or you know what I mean? And and be yourself in in your private life. And and you know, we we are able to to walk and chew gum at the same time, you know, sort of, I guess. And so so just in in wrapping this up, um, in terms of submissions to the code, and then in terms of sort of Kath Simpson, um, I'll start with you, Deborah. You know, what should people do? How do we affect change here? Um, you know, what's what's the best next step next steps in terms of the proposed code?

SPEAKER_03 37:15

So I think if people feel strongly about this, just as um a nurse can be reported on the say so of a member of the public or a member a final member, if the public feel concerned about the code of conduct for nurses, they can make a submission, a personal submission. I think submissions closed on the 9th of March. I think from our perspective, so the nurses collective have made um a 24-page submission to the nursing council on this, and we're asking for clarity and a distinguished um distinguishing between the professional and personal conduct of nurses. And we also really believe that only matters directly related to health and safety and the nursing council's legal scope should fall within its jurisdiction. Because what we're seeing, and I think Mobby's conversation has pointed out, that a lot of these regulatory bodies are broaching into areas that are actually not part of their jurisdiction. So, you know, nurses should not be subject to disciplinary action for lawful activity or expressions of opinion, certainly, you know, outside of the professional setting and inside the professional setting when they don't bring the profession into disrepute through unlawful or egregious behaviour. I think we also need to think about how we can protect the rights of nurses to freedom of expression. And that isn't just going to be through this submission. We need the government to get on board, as with all of the other regulated professions, and start giving us clear examples and clear definitions of what this code is meant to say or should say in 2026. And this needs to go back to the nurses for clear consultation, not you know, a consultation that I can guarantee will attract probably less than 10% of nursing and probably some cons submissions from left-leaning liberal organisations. So we need to protect that freedom of expression and advocacy, but it's got to, I believe, got to come from higher up. I don't believe nursing councils have got the power to do much at this stage. I think it needs to come from government. Um, and I also think that um, you know, one of there are some good things in the code, and I think it's important to point that out. You know, so like principles of informed consent and ethical practice, and including the Far Now in um care plans and caring at, you know, at the bedside with the patient. They really need embedding in any code of conduct and ethical practice. They have been overridden over the last few years. So, even, you know, we need to ensure nurses' rights and professional responsibilities are respected and protected even in times of pressure or times of crisis. And that hasn't happened. So, again, you know, we're grateful that the nursing council have raised that issue in this particular revised submissions. Um and also, you know, I really believe that this no code of conduct should um occur in a silo. It should be part of other documentation, which they have clearly done. But also, it's an ongoing, ever-changing and morphing documentation. So it's been 2012 was the last code of conduct. You know, really we need to be having these conversations a lot more regularly because the world is changing so quickly. So that would be another um recommendation from us that we just engage in ongoing consultation around the issues that are coming up. I mean, currently at the moment, you know, there's been a lot of um media attention around transgender rights, but in some parts of the world they've reached the peak of that conversation and things are changing with regards to those rights. And we saw the recent um issues in Darlington in the in Scotland or the UK, I forget which one it is. But you know, what what was built up and became um an ideology has now started to change a little bit. So there's no point leaving something for 10 years before it's addressed again. We need to be um current in that moment. So, really, you know, I suppose we we know that the revised code maintains high professional standards and we're happy about that, but we explicitly

Chilling Effects, Complaints, And Process

SPEAKER_03 41:10

need nursing council to safeguard nurses' rights to what we define as self-representation of freedom of expression in their personal lives.

SPEAKER_02 41:18

No, and and I think that's really well said. You can go to also our campaign, sort of f su.nz. You can sort of support the nurses. We've got a a bit of a gimmick there, you can sort of put some phrases in and sort of check to see whether it's code compliant, you know, and spoiler alert, most things aren't. Um, but we can also sort of guide you a little bit through how to um submit, you know, how to send your your um thoughts in, how to, how to have a you know, do a submission for the for the code, because it is important to submit, it is important to to have a say, and as you say, recognize there are some great things in here, but there are some real um stretches that you that that um that the code has made. And as a free speech union, we are considering, as you say, going back to the primary legislation or to government to sort of say, look, this is an area that needs to be cleaned up, you know, with the regulators, there's teachers, there's there's veterinarians, there's nurses, there's you know, sort of architects, etc. There's lots of these regulatory boards that are moving into um, it feels like a lot more conformity of either thought or ideology or belief that feels like it's right outside the professional competence or and to do the job. And and Roderick, with Kath Simpson, what sort of the the next steps, you know, you're you we're holding out hope, we're obviously going into bat for her. Um, sort of what are what are the next steps with Kath? How can people get involved in this? Or what should people do if they find themselves in this situation?

SPEAKER_00 42:46

Well, Kath Simpson has received the formal step that charges her with bringing the profession into disrepute, and there will be a hearing in front of the health practitioners disciplinary tribunal later in the year. There's no scope for the public to get directly involved in that, but it must be emphasized that what's going on is that the Free Speech Union is bringing its resources to bear. And myself and Douglas Brown are barristers on the board of the Free Speech Union. We're giving our time for free. Hannah Claue is a lawyer that the Free Speech Union employs. All of this is being driven by donations. So please, we only survive if we have your support and your money. So if you believe in what we're saying, a donation. Every little helps, but of course, uh a lot helps even more. Um please bear in mind that that is the only thing that keeps us going.

SPEAKER_02 43:42

Yeah. Well well said, Roderick. And one of the things that we hear from people all the time is that they get isolated, right? They think they'll be only person going through this when they receive that letter. Deb, you talked about you know, your heart racing, the stress goes up. And often these are sent with you can't tell. anyone. They're often sort of cloaked in this sort of confidentiality and sort of secrecy. So um again, it's about reaching out. It's about either reaching out to us or to you to your community, communicating with other nurses about your situation. You might find that you really aren't alone and a l and more people than you think have have sort of suffered this. And I think that's that's also not to be overlooked in terms of um you know if if you face this in isolation, nothing's going to change. But together, putting the submissions in, talking about it, defending Kath Simpson, um, you know, perhaps we can affect some change in this. Guys, thank you so much for your time. Deborah Kahnler from the Nurses Collective, Roderick, Dr. Roderick Mulgan on our board as well. Thanks for talking about the Nurses Code of Conduct and Kath Simpson. Thank you.

SPEAKER_03 44:50

Thank you.

SPEAKER_01 44:50

Thank you for listening to Free to Speak. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and consider sharing the podcast with others. We release new episodes regularly and subscribing is the easiest way to stay up to date. If you have any questions, feedback or suggestions, you can contact us at podcast at fsu.nz. If you want to find out more about the New Zealand Free Speech Union, visit fsu.nz