Why is the Free Speech Union suddenly so involved in the Medical Council?

Two new appointments to the Medical Council raise an obvious question and competing issues around free speech, writes Henry Oliver in today’s excerpt from The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

This morning, The Post’s Andrea Vance reported that Roderick Mulgan – a former Free Speech Union chair who remains a board member and now serves as its international director – was named alongside three others in health minister Simeon Brown’s latest round of appointments to the Medical Council.

The fact that he is one of two FSU-linked figures among just four new appointments to the Medical Council raises an obvious question: why has an organisation supposedly focused on free expression started turning up on the body that regulates doctors?

The first appointment

Mulgan follows Monday’s appointment, also reported by Vance, of Manoja Kalupahana, the previously anonymous X commentator known as Momo, whose case had already made her a cause célèbre for the FSU. In 2023, her anonymous social media posts triggered a workplace complaint and media inquiry that never resulted in a published story, but became a rallying point for the union, which argued it showed how health professionals could face consequences for lawful opinions expressed outside work.

As reported yesterday by The Post’s Luke Malpass, when Vance emailed Brown’s office questions about the appointment process – not about whether Kalupahana’s views should disqualify her, but about what background checks and consultation had occurred – the FSU issued a press release accusing her of a “muckraking campaign” within about two hours, before Brown himself had responded.

A pattern of wider influence or just a defence of principle?

In today’s story, Vance reported that Mulgan and Kalupahana both lobbied Brown directly as part of an FSU delegation in May 2025. That meeting covered the FSU’s concerns about conscience rights in healthcare and cases before the disciplinary tribunal – the same issues the appointments will now be involved in. Vance also noted overlapping links between the FSU and figures in Brown’s political circle, including a former FSU chief executive who once worked for Brown, and a senior press secretary who previously worked for another Taxpayers’ Union-affiliated group.

FSU chairperson Stephen Franks rejected any suggestion of coordination, saying in a statement (also reported on by The Post) that the appointment came as a “welcome surprise” and denying the union had lobbied for it. He argued deciding which lawful opinions are compatible with public service isn’t a role that belongs to the press, and dismissed The Post’s reporting as “tripe”.

Luxon is “completely relaxed” about it

As reported by The Post’s Anneke Smith yesterday, Chris Hipkins accused Brown of treating the FSU and the Taxpayers’ Union as his “own personal troll farm,” saying ministers should answer journalists’ questions rather than see them turned into targets.

Brown denied forwarding Vance’s questions to the FSU, saying he only followed courtesy protocol by notifying Kalupahana that questions had been received. Christopher Luxon, meanwhile, said he was “completely relaxed” about how the situation had unfolded.

Subscribe to
Create a free account to manage my subscriptions.

+Subscribe ...