There Is No Safety in Excessive Government Control of the Internet
MEDIA RELEASE | 21 May 2026 | FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New Zealanders are facing a major shift in the way we use and access the internet following National’s decision to pause its social media age-restriction bill and pivot toward broader internet regulation centred around universal identity verification.
While the United Kingdom, European Union, and Australia are often cited as examples of stronger online regulation, the reality is far less promising. A closer look at the UK’s Online Safety Act, the EU’s Digital Services Act, and Australia’s Online Safety Amendment shows a pattern of unintended consequences and policy failure.
“These laws have not delivered the safety outcomes politicians promised,” says Nathan Seiuli, Executive director of PILLAR.
“Instead, they’ve pushed young people toward less visible and less secure platforms, increased the use of false-age and false-identity accounts, and shifted responsibility away from parents and caregivers by reframing online safety as a government-managed issue.”
New Zealand should recognise this trend and avoid repeating the same mistakes.
“For any meaningful online age restriction to actually work, you would need a complete overhaul of how the public accesses and uses the internet,” says Seiuli. “That appears to be exactly the direction National is moving toward, and likely the case Erica Stanford will make when broader online control measures are unveiled.”
The internet is no longer a novelty or luxury. It is now an essential part of modern life that people rely on for work, education, health services, community, communication, and civic participation.
“There is no safety in excessive government control of the internet,” says Seiuli. “Attempts to digitally ring-fence New Zealanders into a state-regulated online environment are bound to fail and risk creating wider censorship and government overreach.”
Any system introduced today under the guise of safety will eventually be inherited by future governments. While the proposed digital gate may currently focus on age verification, the same infrastructure could later be adapted to restrict access based on content engagement, online behaviour, or even perceived political views.
“A framework built for one purpose can easily be repurposed for another,” says Seiuli. “New Zealanders should be extremely cautious about giving the state that level of influence over access to information and online participation.”
Rather than expanding state regulation of the internet through new regulators, parliamentary bodies, or sweeping legislative controls, New Zealand should focus on strengthening families and communities.
“That means supporting parental involvement, investing in digital resilience training for children, parents, teachers, and community leaders, and ensuring targeted enforcement against genuinely illegal material through existing agencies like the Classification Office, Netsafe, and Police where necessary,” says Seiuli.
“Anything beyond that unnecessarily risks infringing on New Zealanders’ right to privacy, digital security and rights to seek, receive, and impart information, as protected under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.”
ENDS