Growing concerns at the impact of unregulated free speech around the world, and especially in the English-speaking West, are understandable. Mis/disinformation, ‘hate speech’, and online harm all remain real and present dangers – denying or ignoring them is not only foolish, but threatens to allow the worse-faith actors of our time free rein.

However, the free trade in ideas, with as few constraints as possible on the opinions or speech publicly allowed, remains the greatest defence of our democracy, and the rights of minorities. A recent response to the Treaty Principles Bill in New Zealand, illustrates this.

Upon election to government in 2023, the New Zealand Coalition government agreed to draft and consult on legislation relating to the role of the Treaty of Waitangi (what is called Te Tiriti in Te Reo Māori, referring to the Māori language version of the Treaty which most of the Chiefs signed in 1840). Ahead of the introduction of the Treaty Principles Bill, elites from every corner claimed that simply asking questions related to the role of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti in New Zealand, or proposing alternatives to how it could be enacted, threatened division and possibly even violence. It was an immense scandal, in some minds, that this conversation would even be allowed – surely the public were entirely unequipped to participate in discourse on such an important subject?

Kiwis’ response, seemingly from every corner of our society, have proven them wrong.

The Free Speech Union has always insisted that democracy (which is only possible with a defining deference to free speech) will be most successful when we allow the public the right to participate as much as possible in the conversations on major questions that impact our lives.

Likewise, former-Treaty Negotiations Minister, Andrew Little, claimed in his submission to the Justice Select Committee that he thought those who dismissed the conversation were wrong.

He said, ‘This is an important debate. What people say and the collective understanding amongst the nation about the Treaty is going to be very important. This time is going to be an important touchstone in our nation-building journey.’

Ultimately, this proposed legislation evoked a greater response than any other Bill in New Zealand’s legislative history, with over 307,000 submissions. The opinion on the Bill expressed in these submissions was not ambiguous, with 90 per cent opposing the legislation.

By no means does this mean the issue of the role of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti in contemporary New Zealand is settled (any more than the question of Indigenous representation is settled in Australia because of the response to the Voice).

Deeply held and conflicting opinions on that question remain. However, it seems clear that the very parties who were most opposed to the conversation being allowed are those who have most effectively used the conversation to argue their perspective and mobilise those who agree with them.

This was only possible because of our enduring commitment to free speech – a defining feature of democracy.

Those who argued against free speech by challenging the ability for the public to participate in this question might forget that it was the Coalition government who put forward this legislation. It was not a commitment to free speech that allowed them to do so. With a majority in Parliament, they did not rely on the right to express opinions, no matter how controversial or unpopular; they have the power of the State.

Instead, it was those who disagreed with the government’s legislation, who were (electorally speaking) in the minority, who were able to use their voices to mobilise a stronger response through free speech than the government was able to use with the power of the State or its major platform as government.

Free speech has never been the penchant of the powerful or privileged. It is the weapon of those who, despite a lack of power or privilege, are still allowed their voices. It was not power or privilege that gave women the right to vote, enabled workers’ strikes that saw them gain important rights, or forced the question of racial reconciliation and rainbow rights. It was their right to challenge power and privilege through free speech.

As I noted in my opening, it is largely understandable why suspicion, or outright opposition, to free speech is increasing in our time. But this opposition will result in fewer and fewer voices dominating more and more important debates. This will be devastating to our democracy, and the legitimacy of the institutions that govern us. We must continue to insist that free speech forms the foundation on which public participation is founded, the means by which democratic transparency and accountability is enabled.

The recently published 2025 Global Free Speech Survey, administered by colleagues of the Free Speech Union at the Future of Free Speech Network, based out of Vanderbilt University, notes that growing suspicion or opposition to free speech is not unique to New Zealand.

They claim: ‘Dramatic erosions of freedom of expression in democracies are not isolated events. They are part of a broader and global free speech recession that has afflicted the heartland of free expression in open democracies, and which threatens to roll back hard-won freedoms.’ This ‘free speech recession’ has seen ‘twice as many countries showing substantial decreases in support for free expression as showing increases’ in 2024.

This global trend, which we see taking a particular form in both New Zealand and Australia, has many causes, but principal amongst them is the reduced faith in the public to engage in a debate, deliberate, and emerge with a broad consensus. Yet this is exactly what the Treaty Principles Bill has done. By no means is that to say that this issue has been ‘put to bed’ – it is still an important issue to many Kiwis across the spectrum. However, no matter which side of the issue we each sit on, we are stronger for having had the opportunity to consider the issue, contributing our voices.

We must continue to reject the claim that the public is unable to participate in important public questions. These important debates will not ultimately undo our social cohesion, though the debates may be raucous at times. On the contrary, it is through at times disruptive debates that social cohesion is formed – free speech can be an ultimately de-radicalising influence.

But this is only possible if we are willing to allow others who we disagree with the right to contribute their voices, too. Social cohesion is only truly possible if we continue to respect free speech.

Jonathan Ayling is the Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union (New Zealand), a registered non-partisan employment union and the largest civil liberties organisation in the country. He is also a Director of Free Speech International, an international umbrella group of Free Speech Unions (including the Free Speech Union, Australia).