Free Speech, privacy and intimidation
Why this case should concern everyone
You may remember that a few months ago I wrote about one of my subscribers, a long-serving nurse who found herself facing professional consequences simply for expressing personal views online that did not align with her employer. I will not name her here and have deliberately redacted her identity. If she wishes to speak in the comments, that will be her decision. What has unfolded since should concern anyone working in the public sector.
She is employed by Te Whatu Ora and, after decades of practice without complaint or disciplinary history, is now defending charges before the Nursing Council’s Professional Conduct Committee relating to her personal online expression. Whatever one thinks of her views, the underlying principle matters. Professionals do not surrender their right to hold personal opinions simply because they are employed in the public health system.
In December 2025 she made a lawful and entirely reasonable request for a copy of her HR file. The Privacy Act 2020 provides individuals with access to their personal information, including information held by their employer. Instead of being provided with a full electronic copy, she was told she could view the file and request certain documents, but not all. No clear explanation was given for refusing the request in the form sought.
After following up with HR to arrange access, she received an anonymous card at her private home referencing HR inquiries and telling her to “stop immediately”. The tone was menacing. The implication was obvious. Information about her HR request, and possibly internal discussions, appeared to have travelled beyond where it should have. At best, this reflects a serious failure of confidentiality. At worst, it suggests the possibility of disclosure that enabled intimidation.
Employers owe duties under the Privacy Act 2020, the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. Those duties include acting in good faith, protecting personal information and safeguarding employees from psychological harm connected to their employment. If an employee cannot exercise a lawful right to access her own information without fear of retaliation, those obligations are not being upheld.
This is why the Free Speech Union deserves credit. They have formally demanded the immediate provision of her complete HR file, an independent investigation into how the request was handled and who had access to the relevant information, clarity around access to her home address, and a formal written apology acknowledging the seriousness of the incident. That is not grandstanding. It is accountability.
This case extends well beyond one nurse. It sends a message to every employee within the public system about what may happen if they assert their rights or express views that sit outside prevailing orthodoxy. You do not have to agree with her opinions to defend her rights. In fact, the strength of free speech protections is measured precisely when they protect those whose views are unpopular.
Civil society organisations exist to step in when power imbalances become apparent and individuals are left exposed. In this instance, the Free Speech Union has done exactly what it was formed to do. Transparency, due process and respect for lawful rights should not depend on whether an employee’s views are fashionable. They should be guaranteed to everyone.
