FREE
SPEEBH
B?ALlTl?ll

7

17 July 2018

Phil Goff
Auckland Mayor
cc Auckland Councilors

By email.

Dear Mr Goff,

CONTROL OF PUBLIC PROPERTY: FREEDOMS OF SPEECH, ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION:
UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF POLITICAL OPINION

This is an open letter in an attempt to avoid the costs ofthe proceedings for which the
papers will be filed tomorrow.

We have been investigating with Axiomatic Media Pty (in this letter ?the organisers?) the
circumstances of the ban on use ofAuckland local government?s public meeting venues by
two Canadian speakers, Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux. Various reasons or excuses
have been offered for that decision but whatever they were, the decision makers failed to
meet reasonable procedural requirements affecting them as public authorities.

We refer to the addressees ofthis letter (the Mayor, the Council, and Regional Facilities
Auckland Limited) together and separately as the context requires as ?you?.

You did not consult with the organisers about their intended decision. You did not provide
any information to support either of the asserted reasons. You did not seek relevant
information, or allow any opportunity to the organisers to correct what appears to be your
material misconceptions. One or more of you has exhibited bias and prejudgment and
asserted authority not actually held, plus indifference to the fundamental freedoms ofthe
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Why not start afresh?

We think that your lawyers? consideration ofthe circumstances, even preliminary, will
support the above summary. But we believe that the interests of Auckland, and New
Zealand would be best served by you ?starting afresh?. You could properly inform yourselves,
and agree arrangements to reassure yourselves on the concerns claimed to be the reason
for the ban. With a fresh start you could affirm respect for fundamental rights in a way that
would unite people around hard-won enlightenment and liberal values embedded in our
law and democracy.

We will outline in this letter much of the information you should have sought and would
have been given. We ask in return that you disclose your reasons and explain your concerns
as they should have before announcing your ban unilaterally.

 

And we ask that you then engage and purposefully on security preparations, if
your concerns are genuine, so that Auckland Council can uphold and protect the freedoms
of speech, assembly and association that are vital for New Zealand?s dominant city and our
nation?s democracy.

We are authorised to ask you to settle on such a basis. But we need to set out the wrong
that has been done so that this kind of thing does not happen again.

Who was the decision?maker?

Though the Mayor has claimed the responsibility and the authority for the decision, the
organisers were advised apologetically by Auckland Live officials that it was their
organisation?s decision.

They claimed that it was solely because of ?health and safety? or ?security? concerns.

The Mayor has said it was his decision and from a wish to protect Aucklanders from ?views
that divide rather than unite? on issues of religious or ethnic contention. The Mayor has
variously repeated similar sentiments, some in more inflammatory terms, attacking views
he imputed to the speakers.

No decision-maker bothered to be properly informed, or to let the organisers know and
respond to concerns.

None of you have explained your reasons for the purported concerns, claimed as reasons
for the decision. None asked the organisers or the speakers for any information pertinent to
those concerns. None gave any preliminary indication of the matters that they were
allegedly worrying about before announcing their views as a decision. Not only were the
organisers given no chance to ensure you were fully informed, they were given no
opportunity to correct any mis-information that might have led to concern (in the case of
the venue managers) or political hostility (in the case ofthe Mayor).

The organisers had no warning ofthe tweet that announced the Mayor?s decision that
speeches repugnant to him (and people who might want to hear them) would be banned
from Council facilities. Indeed, the organisers have never had the courtesy of any
communication at any time with the person who has claimed that he made the decision.

There was no apparent reason for haste in the decision, and no time pressure excuse was
offered. Even ifthe organisers had been given enough explanation to know what had
informed the decision, they were given the distinct impression that there was no point in
seeking a more well?informed or considered decision because it was ?final?.

Health and safety risks must be assessed and managed.

Baldly claiming ?health and safety? concerns because of alleged threats, without more, did
not ensure that the decision?makers were properly informed, and showed no respect for
the fundamental freedoms that public authorities must take into account and protect.
Threats are intended to raise the spectre of ?health and safety? risks. ?Health and safety? is
not a mantra that renders other values subordinate. Many people over hundreds of years
have volunteered their own health and safety to secure those fundamental rights and
freedoms. They must prevail.

 

A unilateral speaker ban is a partisan abuse of power.

Purporting to ban meetings with provocative speakers from Council premises, without
informing the speakers or the organisers of the underlying allegations, or a chance to
answer them, or to arrange to mitigate fears, was wrong procedu rally and as a New Zealand
Bill of Rights Act breach.

We have been advised that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Human Rights Act and the
common law require public authorities to be scrupulous to avoid politically partisan
discrimination in their control of access to public facilities. Balancing competing
considerations should aim for a proportionate policy. For example, Police commonly show
respect for the fundamental freedoms where third parties might breach the peace in
response, or where a freedom might be exercised in a way that could contravene law, or
stay within the law. They seek to understand what is intended by the persons exercising
their rights, and to negotiate arrangements that facilitate enforcement of the peace, and
mitigate intrusions into those rights.

The organisers saw from the Mayor no evidence of any respect for the fundamental
freedoms. Instead the Mayor went out of his way to appear indifferent or hostile to the
freedoms, and to the rights of those who wished to assemble peaceably and to hear the
speakers.

Precautionary punishment in case they were thinking of offending?

It is not New Zealand law that people?s freedoms can be subject to a Mayor assuming,
without asking them or allowing them even to know he was thinking about it, that they
might commit an offense. in this case the Mayor appears to think that precautionary
banning does not even need a concern about law?breaking. He asserted a power to stop the
use of public facilities by people whose opinions he finds repugnant. That is repugnant in a
free country.

Security arrangements a practical evaluation.

The organisers would consult with the venue managers immediately on security matters.
The court may order that the event be permitted to proceed. Whether you think that is
likely or not, the responsible course in the interests of the public, would be to ensure the
organisers know as soon as possible what underlies your security anxiety. It is conceivable,
though highly unlikely, that ifthe organisers knew the detail they might agree that the event
should not proceed.

They think it more likely that a genuine mutual exploration of the issues would satisfy you
that you should reverse your decision, perhaps with conditions. One of the speakers has
already held a public meeting in Queensland entirety without incident.

The organiser?s security team are busy with the other events, but they will take the time to
understand anythin peculiar to the New Zealand environment. They are curious to learn
why you think the risks here are prohibitive, when all but one ofthe venues in Australia are
publicly owned, and none ofthem has declined to host the event for security concerns.

We will not set out the security plan in this letter, because it may become public and it
would be unhelpful to inform people of malign intent, however:

 

1) They have four experienced, trained experts in the security team retained for this tour.
Two will be assigned as body?guards. The others will attend to and supervise venue
arrangements. Extra personnel will be engaged for each event as the assessment
recommends.

2) They expected to meet the costs of any extra in?venue security staff. Forthe Australian
events in state or city venues that extra security has cost between and 

3) They have considerable experience one director has organised over 500 events. His
most recent large event was a festival at which one ofthe acts was Jimmy Barnes.

4) They would expect to liaise for detailed planning with NZ Police as well as venue staff as
they have done for the events in Australia.

Most of the above was explained to your venue managers when the booking was confirmed.

The contract specified that the organisers must deliver their health and safety plan at least
ten working days before the date ofthe event. You are making it hard to give you that much
notice. But we are told that they would engage with you immediately to develop that plan.

We have legal advice that a court is likely at the least to order you to reconsider the decision
taking proper account of the information that the organisers were ready to provide ifthere
had been the proper notice and consultation.

We understand the organisers can be flexible. lfthe Bruce Mason Centre has now been
double booked, the event could be organised at another similar Auckland Live venue
catering for at least 800 patrons. With a week?s notice they could rearrange flights and
other bookings to hold the event any day between 01 and 06 August, inclusive.

Please contact our lawyers, Franks Ogilvie, or the organisers directly, to sort this out sensibly
and without further loss to Auckland City.

Yours sincerely,
Free Speech Coalition New Zealand

David Cumin daWilliams

Member Member
david.cumin@gmail.com