New Zealanders overwhelmingly believe professional regulators should stay out of practitioners’ politics, according to new polling released today by the Free Speech Union.
The Curia poll of 1,000 voters found 54% believe regulators such as the Medical and Nursing Councils should only discipline doctors and nurses for incompetence or negligence. Only 18% believe regulators should also discipline practitioners for views expressed on social media - a margin of three to one.
When asked if they would support or oppose Parliament limiting regulators to disciplining practitioners only for matters affecting clinical competence, patient safety, or how patients are actually treated, 48% supported the change and 20% opposed it. The support isn't confined to one side of politics. Among voters of every main party, more supported the change than opposed it - by +61 points among ACT voters, +38 among National, +20 among Labour, +16 among Greens, +15 among NZ First, and +1 among Te Pāti Māori.
“This isn’t a left-right issue, and the numbers prove it,” says Jillaine Heather, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. “Voters of every party have reached the same conclusion: a nurse’s personal views are none of the Nursing Council’s business.
“Regulators exist to protect patients from incompetent or dishonest practice, not to protect the public from opinions. New Zealanders can tell the difference, even if some regulators can’t.”
The poll also tested the standard justification for policing practitioners’ private views - that public confidence in the profession demands it. The public disagrees: only 22% said a doctor or nurse who had treated them competently and respectfully, but expressed a political view they disagreed with on social media, would make them want to change practitioner. 57% said it would not.
“The ‘public confidence’ argument fails its own test,” says Heather. “Patients care whether their doctor is good at the job. Regulators who launch disciplinary proceedings over lawful speech aren’t defending public confidence - they’re spending it.”
The Free Speech Union is calling on MPs of all parties to support the draft Regulated Professions Neutrality Bill.
ENDS
Notes
The poll: Conducted by Curia Market Research for the Free Speech Union, 4–8 June 2026. n=1,000 eligible and likely voters (700 phone, 300 online panel), weighted by gender, age, and area. Maximum margin of error ±3.1% at the 95% confidence level. Asked as part of a wider omnibus survey; questions asked in the order listed. Online panels comply with ESOMAR guidelines. The full report, including verbatim question wording, demographic cross-tabs, and methodology, is available on our website.
The three questions (verbatim wording in full report)
Should professional regulators discipline doctors and nurses only for incompetence or negligent provision of healthcare, or also for views expressed on social media on contested issues?
Only incompetence or negligence: 54%.
Also social media views: 18%.
Unsure: 28%.
If a doctor or nurse who had treated you competently and respectfully expressed a view on social media that you disagreed with on a political issue, would that make you want to no longer be treated by them?
Yes: 22%.
No: 57%.
Unsure: 21%.
Would you support or oppose limiting regulators to disciplining practitioners only for matters affecting clinical competence, patient safety, or how patients are actually treated - so they could no longer discipline for personal political, social or religious views expressed outside of work?
Support: 48%.
Oppose: 20%.
Unsure: 32%.
Net support for the law change by party vote:
- ACT +61
- National +38
- Labour +20
- Greens +16
- NZ First +15
- Te Pāti Māori +1
Context
The Free Speech Union has supported a number of practitioners facing disciplinary action over lawful expression, including currently before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.
The Bill
The Bill, drafted by Stephen Franks, can be found here.
❧
Human beings cannot flourish unless they are free! We protect, expand, and fight for New Zealanders’ rights to freedom of speech, conscience, and intellectual inquiry. We envision a flourishing New Zealand civil society that values and protects vigorous debate, dissenting ideas, and freedom of speech as cultural cornerstones.