National Party’s Attack on Free Speech

By Dr Harpreet Singh | drhsinghnz.substack.com | FB: @DrHSinghNZ

The following article is a brief analysis of the comments made by Minister of Finance Nicola Willis.

Freedom of speech is the bedrock of New Zealand’s democracy, enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It guarantees every person the right to seek, receive, and share information and opinions of any kind. Yet Finance Minister Nicola Willis’s recent comments have ignited a constitutional storm. For the first time in modern political history, a senior minister has publicly pressured a private company over an individual’s political activism. This has never happened before, and it shatters long-standing democratic norms.

The controversy began when Willis publicly urged telecommunications giant One NZ to reconsider using activist and actor Acacia O’Connor in its advertising. O’Connor had livestreamed a protest outside Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ private home, where his address was shared and property was damaged. While the protest itself raised ethical questions, Willis’s intervention raises a bigger one: should a government minister pressure a private company to drop someone from an advertising campaign because of their political activism?

This matters because when a senior minister speaks, companies listen. Even if framed as a personal opinion, the power imbalance creates implicit pressure. If companies fear political backlash, they may avoid hiring anyone with strong views, silencing voices in the public square. The Cabinet Manual warns ministers against influencing private sector decisions unless there is a clear public interest. This case appears to blur that line.

What makes this situation even more striking is its rarity. There are few, if any, precedents of ministers publicly urging private companies to cut ties with individuals over political activity. Historically, ministerial influence has focused on state-owned enterprises, not private firms. This makes Willis’s comments unusual and potentially problematic.

Ironically, the National Party has historically positioned itself as a defender of free speech, criticising Labour’s hate speech proposals as censorship. Yet now, a senior National minister appears to be leaning on a private company to punish an activist for political expression. Is this principled governance, or selective free speech?

This incident is more than a PR skirmish. It raises fundamental questions about the boundaries of political power in a democracy. Should ministers have the power to influence private companies’ choices based on political activism? Does this create a dangerous precedent for corporate censorship driven by government pressure? And most importantly: who decides what speech is acceptable in a free society?