The Free Speech Union believes its new bill will provide clarity over the responsibilities to facilitate free speech in public venues.

It claims to have the support for it from the right bloc of parties heading into the election.

The union’s bill - Protection of Freedom of Expression Bill – was released this week after consultation with political parties, public servants, and civil society.

Drafted by former-Judge, Dr David Harvey, and presented for consideration to the Law Commission and Ministry of Justice, the Bill outlined duties for venues which are bound by the Bill of Rights Act 1990 to "secure the freedom of expression... for any speaker and any person who wishes to hear that speaker... by ensuring that the use of any premises of the provider or over which the provider may exercise any control is not unreasonably denied."

The union’s chief executive Jonathan Ayling said it was becoming more common for provocative or unpopular perspectives to be cancelled from public venues due to backlash that threatens to disrupt events.

“Whether it is cancellations of foreign speakers by Auckland Council, Speak Up for Women by Palmerston North City Council, or Julian Batchelor by Taupo Council, threats of protest and violence are silencing Kiwis' voices. “

“This is the essence of the Thugs' Veto, and it has no place in a liberal democratic society. Legislation is needed to clarify the duties that exist for public venues to refuse to be intimidated by threats of protest and protect the right for groups to speak freely.”

The Free Speech Union is also claiming that is has the support of the three parties in the right bloc heading into next week’s election.

Most publicly available polling shows National and Act will need the support of NZ First to form a government.

According to the union’s statement, Chris Penk – National’s shadow Attorney-General – said in response to the draft bill that National recognised the importance of ensuring free and frank public debate.

“We also agree more particularly that threats of physical violence shouldn’t be used to shut down debate. For this reason, the draft Bill produced by [the Free Speech Union] in relation to what’s often described as “the heckler’s veto” is a welcome contribution... we’ll be pleased to consider.”

Meanwhile, Act’s David Seymour said the legislation would be a step towards ensuring taxpayer-funded organisations don't deplatform speakers using dubious claims of 'psychological harm' because they don't agree with their views or buckle to threats from their opponents.

NZ First had committed that they would support legislation that would provide protection to New Zealand “from unreasonable denial of access to venues and ensure that the legal right of free speech are assured … the proposed [Free Speech Union} legislation would be supported”.

Ayling said the legislation was the first of three bills that would be released to address inadequacies in the law to ensure basic freedoms.