PILLAR says the recommendations in today’s Inquiry into
the harms young New Zealanders encounter online risk
undermining fundamental freedoms while offering little
evidence they will actually improve child safety.
The
report proposes sweeping new controls on the digital
environment, including the creation of an “independent
national regulator for online safety”. In practice, this
would function as an online regulator with broad authority
over how New Zealanders access and communicate
online.
PILLAR Executive Director Nathan Seiuli says
the proposals place freedom of expression, access to
information, and personal privacy at risk.
“This
report moves away from protecting young people and instead
moves toward forcing New Zealanders to share their identity
online and submit to a new layer of regulation,” says
Seiuli.
“Protecting young people should never come
at the expense of the privacy and freedoms of every New
Zealander.”
The inquiry positions New Zealand as a
“fast follower” of regulatory models emerging in the
United Kingdom, the European Union, and
Australia.
Seiuli says there is little evidence these
overseas approaches have actually improved child safety.
“While these nations fail to prove child safety has
improved, the number of non-criminal arrests have
dramatically increased for things like online speech,
sharing of posts, and even memes.”
“There is no
credible data showing these policies have made children
safer overseas. Without that evidence, there is no reason to
believe they will succeed here.”
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
The report itself
acknowledges that young people may bypass proposed age
verification systems. Despite this, it still recommends
their introduction.
Seiuli says the committee appears
to have jumped straight to regulation without clearly
defining the problem it was meant to solve.
ACT in
their own statements said “The committee has categorically
and embarrassingly failed in its approach. It has moved
straight to heavy-handed solutions before properly
identifying the true problem.”
PILLAR made a
submission to the inquiry in October 2025 that focused on
parental responsibility, digital education, and targeted
enforcement against illegal content. Experts in the months
since have reinforced that these approaches are the most
effective ways to address online harms without imposing
sweeping restrictions on lawful speech.
The report
also recommends exploring restrictions on VPN use, which
could limit New Zealanders’ ability to access the open
internet.
“Restricting VPNs would place New Zealand
alongside countries like North Korea, Iraq, China, Iran,
Russia, and other authoritarian states that tightly control
how citizens access the internet,” says
Seiuli.
“The introduction of mandatory identity
verification, a taxpayer-funded online regulator, and
expanded censorship powers cannot be allowed to take hold in
a free and democratic society.”
Seiuli says PILLAR
will strongly oppose any attempt to implement the report’s
recommendations.
“This inquiry has opened the door
to widespread online control, censorship, and state
monitoring of lawful behaviour online. That is not a
direction New Zealand should be
heading.”
