28 July 2026
The Free Speech Union has responded to
criticism from The Post after publicising the line of
questioning a reporter was putting to the Government about
Dr Manoja Kalupahana’s appointment to the Medical
Council.
Andrea Vance put questions to the Government
before her article ran. The Union commented publicly on
those questions. Ms Vance has objected, and her colleague
Luke Malpass has written in her defence, characterising the
Union’s comments as an attack on a journalist’s right to ask
questions.
Council Chair Stephen Franks said that was
a misreading.
“It’s tripe. We’re all for journalists
asking questions, and any questions are better than none. It
would be better if they were genuine, rather than rhetoric
to frame the target as the villain from the start. Our point
was about what the questions assumed, not about whether they
could be asked.”
“One of them was whether we had
lobbied the Minister over the appointment. We hadn’t. It
came as a welcome surprise to me. Had we been consulted,
we’d have pointed to the woeful Code produced by the
departing Council members and said that whatever happened,
it was time the Council had someone on it prepared to defend
free speech. In the interests of medicine.”
On the
decision to publish first, Franks said The Post appeared to
have discovered a new free speech rule.
“The target of
a coming hit piece waits in respectful silence until it
appears, then begs fruitlessly for equal time, or some
grudging balancing comment, once the scene is set for the
rest to pile in. By then we’re supposed to be on the ropes.
We declined.”
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
“Apparently it’s not cricket to look at
the journalist’s form and judge from experience where the
questions were heading. Remember her reasoning against the
reform of the fake pay equity law was that National women
ministers were “cunts”. A reporter who spent a week
examining a doctor’s lawful opinions from several years ago
is affronted to find her own judgement examined within a
morning. Scrutiny is uncomfortable. That is generally the
argument for it.”
“Mr Malpass has come to her aid,
which brings the total to two articles about a matter The
Post says we should not have commented on. A newspaper
convinced that criticism ought to wait its turn has answered
criticism twice before lunch. We could not have made the
point as neatly ourselves.”
“Nobody at The Post asks
our permission to publish. We don’t need theirs to speak. It
would be good practice for them to get our side first, and
some journalists still do, but it’s idle to rely on them
printing anything inconsistent with their
preconceptions.”
Franks said the Union appeared in the
questions because it had defended Dr Kalupahana several
years ago, when there was an attempt to unmask an anonymous
account said to be hers because of the opinions expressed on
it.
“A doctor was targeted for lawful speech and we
defended her. Years later, that defence was being put
forward as a reason to doubt her fitness for public office.
I will not apologise for getting in first.”
“Deciding
which lawful opinions are compatible with public service is
a role nobody gave the press. Professional bodies have been
captured by people willing to use disciplinary powers to
make whole professions pretend to hold the beliefs that mark
out who is in and who is out of the governing establishment.
Doctors, nurses, teachers and lawyers are censoring
themselves accordingly. That’s why we are asking the
Government to draw a clear line between professional
competence and personal politics. Competence, not
conformity, should decide who is entrusted with public
responsibility, and it should be the first question about
any ministerial appointment. It was not the focus of these
questions.”
The Union is promoting the Regulated
Professions Neutrality Bill, which would restore
professional competence as the purpose of professional
regulation.
Notes:
The Regulated Professions
Neutrality Bill can be found at: https://www.franksogilvie.co.nz/news/end-abuses-of-professional-disciplinary-powers
About
the Free Speech Union
The Free Speech Union defends
the right of New Zealanders, left, right and centre, to
speak, debate, and disagree freely. A registered trade union
and membership-based organisation, we take cases, run
campaigns, and educate on the importance of free expression
in a functioning democracy. More at fsu.nz.
