Draft bill prevents regulators from using their powers to advance political or ideological views
Wellington lawyer and former member of parliament, Stephen Franks, has proposed legislation that would require professional regulatory bodies across the country to remain politically and ideologically neutral, arguing they should focus solely on consumer protection rather than policing members' views on contentious social and political issues.
The NZ Herald reported that Franks drafted the Regulated Professions Neutrality Bill after successfully overturning his Law Society complaint. He said the proposed legislation would prevent professional regulators from using registration, licensing and disciplinary powers to advance political or ideological positions.
According to the bill's explanatory note, the legislation aims to reinforce that professional regulation exists to protect consumers by maintaining competence, integrity and service quality, rather than compelling professionals to conform to prevailing views on political, historical, cultural or social issues.
The draft legislation would prohibit regulators from sanctioning professionals for expressing views on contentious issues unless the conduct involved narrowly defined exceptions, including threats of violence, sexual misconduct, or communication intentionally made to minors for an improper purpose. It would also require regulators to dismiss complaints relating to protected expressive conduct unless those exceptions applied or the conduct directly affected a professional's competence or ability to provide services.
The bill would impose a statutory duty of political and ideological neutrality on regulatory bodies. It would prohibit regulators from making decisions or adopting policies based on views that assign value or disadvantage to people because of characteristics such as race or sex, or that promote preferential treatment to achieve diversity, equity or inclusion. Where regulators become involved in contentious public issues, the bill would require them to acknowledge a range of perspectives and minimise partisan activity.
Franks and his Wellington firm, Franks Ogilvie, were called before the Law Society Standards Committee after he sent a letter on behalf of his client criticising the prescription of puberty blockers to adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria. A majority of the committee found against him, but the legal complaints review officer later overturned that decision.
Franks said the case prompted health professionals, architects, lawyers and others to raise concerns about what they viewed as an increasing level of ideological activism within professional organisations. Under the proposed legislation, regulators found to have breached the neutrality requirements could be ordered to pay indemnity costs, compensate affected professionals, and, in some cases, face exemplary damages.
The Law Society said it remains confident in the integrity of its standards committees, noting they comprise experienced lawyers and lay members who bring both professional expertise and a public perspective. The society also pointed to its independent 2021 review of lawyer regulation and its in-principle support for creating an independent legal regulator and overhauling the complaints system.
Franks said he has circulated the draft bill to members of parliament. Although he does not expect parliament to consider the proposal before the next election, he hopes a future government will advance it. The Law Society said it would examine the legislation carefully and prepare a submission if it proceeds to the select committee stage.
