The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal censured Catherine Simpson and suspended her registration for two months over offensive social media posts, but stopped short of ending her nursing career. Health New Zealand subsequently dismissed her for serious misconduct, according to the Free Speech Union, raising questions about free expression, professional standards and the limits of state employment power.
Report by eLocal
For 25 years, Catherine Simpson worked as a nurse, including 19 years with Health New Zealand and its predecessor services, according to the Free Speech Union (FSU). She specialised in mental health, addiction and intellectual disability services.
On 10 September 2026, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal found that social media posts she had made or shared brought the nursing profession into disrepute.
It censured her, suspended her for two months and imposed further professional conditions.
It did not cancel her registration.
On 9 October, Health NZ dismissed her without notice for serious misconduct, according to the FSU's account of the employment decision.
That sequence presents a question of public importance.
When a professional disciplinary tribunal decides a nurse may continue practising after a defined suspension, under what circumstances is a state employer justified in imposing the further consequence of dismissal?
The answer is not that the Tribunal's decision automatically binds Health NZ. Professional registration and employment are legally distinct.
The issue is whether Health NZ's decision was independently justified, proportionate and reached through a fair process.
What the Tribunal actually found
The Tribunal's 27-page decision, numbered 1581/Nur25/657P, was issued on 10 September following a hearing on 27 August.
Its findings deserve to be read in full, rather than selectively quoted by either side.
At paragraph 2, the Tribunal recorded Simpson's evidence that she had treated patients from diverse backgrounds, including LGBTQIA+ patients, and could put her personal views aside when providing care.
It stated:
"there is no evidence before the Tribunal which would contradict the submission that she is a capable nurse."
That is a significant finding, but it was not an endorsement of her social media conduct.
The Tribunal expressly distinguished clinical competence from the question it had been asked to determine: whether Simpson's public statements brought nursing into disrepute under section 100(1)(b) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003.
The posts included strong language about abortion, gender identity, Pride events and immigration. Some contained derogatory descriptions of transgender people, and one shared video depicted people of Indian descent in a degrading setting.
The Tribunal found that several posts were offensive, inaccurate or discriminatory in their presentation.
It also recorded that Simpson had identified herself publicly as a registered nurse.
That connection to her profession was central to its decision.
The Tribunal found the relevant charges proven, except for the particular concerning her criticism of Te Pāti Māori MP Rawiri Waititi, which it treated as political protest.
This distinction matters. The Tribunal did not rule that every controversial political opinion expressed by a nurse constitutes professional misconduct.
It considered the specific statements, their connection to nursing and their potential effect on public confidence.
Why the Tribunal stopped short of cancelling her registration
The Professional Conduct Committee sought cancellation of Simpson's nursing registration.
Simpson's counsel argued for censure and education.
The Tribunal chose a middle course.
At paragraphs 70 and 71, it recognised what it described as genuine regret for hurt caused, reflection on her conduct and willingness to undertake further training.
It imposed censure, a two-month suspension, postgraduate study requirements and supervised professional practice.
These penalties were substantial.
They restricted her ability to work, required additional education at her own expense and placed her under continuing professional oversight.
Yet the Tribunal concluded that cancellation was not necessary.
That decision reflected its assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct, public protection, rehabilitation and proportionality.
The Tribunal was not excusing Simpson's posts.
It was determining the disciplinary consequences appropriate to the conduct it had found proven.
Health NZ's subsequent dismissal
According to the FSU, Health NZ dismissed Simpson on 9 October for serious misconduct.
The union says Health NZ's dismissal letter acknowledged that it had not concluded she was clinically incapable or that she had discriminated against patients.
The FSU further reports that Health NZ considered the public's perception of her posts relevant regardless of whether discriminatory patient care had been demonstrated.
These are important claims, but eLocal has not been supplied with the complete dismissal letter.
Consequently, its wording, full reasoning and procedural history cannot yet be independently assessed.
Health NZ is entitled to consider whether an employee's conduct affects trust in a public health service, including the confidence of patients who may be particularly vulnerable.
However, dismissal is a serious employment sanction.
It is legitimate to ask whether the employer adequately considered Simpson's previous service, the absence of an established clinical competence issue, the Tribunal's rehabilitative conditions and alternatives to dismissal.
The employer's duty to maintain public confidence does not eliminate its obligations under employment law.
Nor does the absence of proven patient discrimination automatically make dismissal unlawful.
Both propositions must be tested against the actual evidence and the applicable legal standards.
The freedom of expression question
Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 protects freedom of expression.
That protection extends to opinions which others find offensive or deeply objectionable.
But freedom of expression is not an unrestricted entitlement to avoid professional or employment consequences.
New Zealand law permits justified limits on rights, and regulated professionals undertake duties designed to protect patients and public confidence.
The Tribunal relied substantially on the High Court's 2025 decision in Turner v Professional Conduct Committee, which addressed the professional obligations of nurses who make public statements outside clinical practice.
That legal background cannot simply be ignored.
Nevertheless, Simpson's case raises a further issue.
How should public employers distinguish between genuinely harmful professional conduct and the lawful expression of unpopular opinions?
If actual discriminatory treatment is established, an employer has a clear basis for intervention.
If the concern instead centres on anticipated public perceptions, the reasoning becomes more complex.
The employer must still assess the nature of the statements, their relationship to the employee's duties, the potential harm and the proportionality of its response.
The existence of a professional code does not remove the need for that assessment.
Was the dismissal process fair?
The FSU has also raised concerns about the time Simpson was given to respond to Health NZ's proposed dismissal.
Reporting by Bob Edlin in Point of Order states that she was initially given two working days and that her lawyers obtained only one additional day after requesting a week.
Those details require confirmation from the underlying correspondence.
They nevertheless raise a specific employment-law question: was Simpson given a reasonable opportunity to respond before the final decision was made?
The Employment Relations Act 2000 provides the legal framework for assessing whether an employer's actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
A finding of serious misconduct does not make every dismissal automatically justified.
Equally, procedural concerns do not, without further examination, establish an unjustified dismissal.
The complete correspondence, investigation findings and decision letter would be necessary to reach a reliable conclusion.
A second concern: the reported threat at her home
The FSU has separately reported that Simpson received an anonymous threatening message at her home after requesting access to her Health NZ employment records.
In February, the union said the message referred to questions being asked by HR and told her to stop.
The FSU called for an investigation into how information concerning her employment records request might have become known.
There is no established evidence in the material reviewed that Health NZ personnel sent the message or improperly disclosed her personal information.
Any suggestion of such involvement must remain an allegation unless supported by evidence.
However, the incident raises a legitimate question about employee privacy and the protection of staff involved in disciplinary proceedings.
The appropriate response is an independent examination of the message's origin and any relevant access to confidential information.
What about patients who might feel unsafe?
The strongest argument against Simpson's position is not simply that her statements were offensive.
It is that patients should be able to seek treatment without fearing discrimination or hostility from the professionals responsible for their care.
This is especially important in mental health services, where trust and vulnerability are central to effective treatment.
The Tribunal expressly relied on that concern.
But a competing principle also matters.
Professional regulators and public employers should not assume that every strongly expressed personal opinion necessarily determines how an individual behaves professionally.
The evidence in each case must be examined.
Simpson's long nursing career and the absence of a finding of clinical incapacity are relevant considerations. So too are the nature of her public statements and the legitimate expectations of patients.
A sound system must protect both patients and the rights of those who care for them.
Will this in fact make New Zealand stronger?
New Zealand faces continuing pressure on its health workforce.
Experienced nurses are valuable not only because of their qualifications but because of the practical knowledge, relationships and specialist expertise developed over years of service.
Losing an experienced practitioner can carry costs for patients, colleagues and taxpayers.
Yet retaining clinical experience cannot be the only consideration. Public confidence and professional standards are also essential.
Will this in fact make New Zealand stronger?
In this case, that question requires an evidence-based answer.
Did dismissal protect patients from an identifiable risk that the Tribunal's suspension and conditions could not adequately address?
Were less restrictive employment options considered?
Was the decision proportionate to the established conduct?
And did the process respect the rights and obligations of both employer and employee?
These are not abstract questions about political correctness or free speech.
They concern how New Zealand's public institutions exercise power over people's livelihoods.
eLocal calls for full transparency
The FSU is supporting Simpson's appeal against the Tribunal decision in the High Court and seeking financial support for associated legal analysis and campaigning.
The appeal should be allowed to proceed on its merits.
Separately, Health NZ should explain, subject to lawful privacy and employment constraints, the principles it applied in deciding that dismissal was necessary after the Tribunal had imposed a suspension and rehabilitative conditions.
A complete public account would help distinguish legitimate patient protection from any disproportionate restriction on personal expression.
eLocal considers that question worthy of independent scrutiny regardless of whether readers agree with Simpson's statements.
Freedom of expression is most meaningfully tested when the speech concerned is unpopular. Professional accountability is most meaningfully tested when the conduct concerned is difficult or offensive.
Neither principle should automatically defeat the other.
The public deserves to know whether the consequences imposed on Catherine Simpson were justified by evidence, proportionate to the misconduct and consistent with the rights of New Zealanders who work in regulated professions.
Support and further information
The Free Speech Union's Cath Simpson campaign provides information about its support for Simpson's legal challenge and accepts contributions towards its work.
Readers can examine the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal's full decision before forming their own conclusions.
Sources
eLocal | Independent News Since 2004