Auckland Transport Letter Regarding Rejection of Amnesty International Advertising

03 February 2026 

To the,  

Chief Executive: chief.executive@at.govt.nz    

Executive Officer: kristine.jones@at.govt.nz  

Director Partnerships and Engagement: dan.lambert@at.govt.nz  

PILLAR writes to formally seek clarification regarding Auckland Transport’s refusal to permit advertising space for a recent Amnesty International Aotearoa New Zealand campaign. 

PILLAR is a civil liberties organisation committed to protecting fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, and to ensuring that government-funded bodies exercise their powers in a manner consistent with democratic principles, transparency, and the rule of law. 

Auckland Transport is a government-funded entity entrusted with managing public infrastructure and associated communications platforms. As such, it bears a heightened responsibility to ensure that its policies are applied in a manner consistent with democratic principles and freedom of expression. 

Public reporting indicates that Auckland Transport relied on provisions within its advertising policy relating to content addressing matters of public controversy or sensitivity, and material considered likely to cause widespread or serious offence. 

PILLAR is concerned that such provisions, if applied broadly or without rigorous justification, risk suppressing lawful public interest expression and chilling democratic debate. 

Accordingly, PILLAR formally requests the following: 

Identification of the precise advertising policy clauses relied upon in refusing the Amnesty International advertisements. 

A detailed explanation of how the advertisements were assessed against those clauses, including the reasoning underpinning the decision. 

Disclosure of any internal guidance, codes of conduct, or discretionary criteria applied beyond the published policy. 

Clarification of how Auckland Transport distinguishes between lawful, good-faith advocacy and content deemed impermissibly controversial or offensive. 

Confirmation of whether Auckland Transport recognises that public advertising platforms should accommodate robust public debate, including debate that challenges government action or inaction. 

Many of the most important democratic conversations are inherently controversial. To exclude lawful expression on the basis of sensitivity alone risks transforming public advertising spaces into curated platforms that privilege comfort over democratic engagement. 

It is also of concern that requests for discussion or engagement were reportedly declined. Transparency and accountability require that public authorities be willing to explain how decisions affecting fundamental freedoms are reached. 

PILLAR therefore requests a written response addressing each of the points above, and clarification of how Auckland Transport intends to ensure its advertising policy is applied consistently with freedom of expression, public accountability, and democratic values. 

Yours sincerely, 

Nathan Seiuli 

Executive Director, PILLAR