New Zealand’s senior courts have stopped using X and are now directing the public to Bluesky, LinkedIn and their own subscription service for judgements and announcements — a move critics say raises serious questions about political neutrality and public reach.
The Courts of New Zealand website says it will “no longer operate an account on X” and now points users to alternative channels. That has drawn criticism from the Free Speech Union, which says the decision leaves official information less accessible on one of the country’s biggest social platforms.
“The public service isn’t there to feel comfortable. It’s there to be effective,” Free Speech Union chief executive Jillaine Heather said in a statement. “Over 700,000 New Zealanders use X. The government’s job is to be where the public is, not where Wellington would prefer them to be.”
The union has written to Courts Minister Nicole McKee seeking answers about who authorised the withdrawal and what justification was used. In particular, it wants to know whether any cost-benefit analysis was done, whether ministers were consulted, and whether political considerations played a role.
“Public servants don’t get to pick their audience based on politics,” Heather said. “You don’t opt out of platforms because you don’t like the owner. That’s not neutral, and it’s not what the public service is for.”
Heather said at the time of departure, the @CourtsofNZ X account had about 6,200 followers.
The replacement Bluesky account has 113 followers. The issue has wider political overtones because other institutions and parties have also left X in recent years. Critics argue that when courts and government agencies appear to follow the same path as left-leaning political organisations, it risks undermining confidence in their impartiality.
Heather said the consequences of leaving X go beyond appearances. “When the Courts leave X, they do not disappear from public conversation on that platform,” she said.
“The vacuum fills with unofficial commentary, misinformation about proceedings, and mischaracterisation of judgements. Withdrawal does not protect the public. It abandons them without accurate information.”
The debate mirrors earlier controversy over reduced use of X by the Ministry of Health, where ministers publicly questioned whether abandoning a large audience made sense.
For critics, that gets to the heart of the matter. “Why are taxpayers funding comms teams to rebuild audiences from zero on niche platforms when they already had direct access to hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders? ” Heather asked.
The Free Speech Union says Official Information Act requests are now being lodged with agencies to establish when decisions to leave X were made, who signed them off, and what evidence supported the move.
The union says the government should require public servants to “maintain presence on major platforms where New Zealanders already are”. Heather said, “The public service isn’t there to feel comfortable. It’s there to be effective.”