Protecting children? Or preemptive policing?
Media Release | 28 November 2025 | FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Protecting children? Or preemptive policing?
Calls to protect children online have quickly grown into far broader proposals that would regulate the online behaviour of every New Zealander. While groups such as Makes Sense Aotearoa and B416 have been effective at raising concerns about children’s online safety, their solutions fall short of respecting parental responsibility, personal privacy, and individual freedom.
PILLAR Executive Director Nathan Seiuli said the organisation has never disputed the existence of online ‘harm’ or the need for action when children are genuinely at risk. The real issues, he said, the definitions at play and methods on offer. "The debate has never been about whether to respond. It is about how we respond. PILLAR supports parental authority, digital education, resilience training, and targeted enforcement. These approaches empower families. Broad state bans do not," he said.
The proposals being advanced lack clarity and risk creating more problems than they solve. According to Seiuli, "The legislation is incomplete and vague. It does not define harm or social media. It does not explain who will manage age verification or how identities will be confirmed. What we can say with certainty is that these proposals would centralise large amounts of personal information, meaning that before a single child is protected, every New Zealander would face a serious loss of privacy."
Recent social media posts from Makes Sense Aotearoa have called for an Online Children's Safety Act, an Online Commissioner, a platform regulator, and a new online safety agency. Seiuli said these proposals stretch far beyond child protection. "They want safety for everyone, but who appointed them the czar’s of safety?”
“Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protects the right to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions. Section 5 requires any restriction on rights to be demonstrably justified, necessary, proportionate, and the least intrusive effective option. International standards, including ICCPR Article 19 and the UN Human Rights Committee’s guidance, frame free expression as a pillar of democracy. For children, CRC Article 5 confirms the central role of parents in guiding their development. Solutions currently on offer stand to infringe on all of these in a very serious way” says Seiuli.
Seiuli said New Zealand risks repeating the mistakes of the recent past. "We saw during the covid years how quickly fear can be used to justify sweeping intrusions on personal liberty. The same pattern is emerging again under the banner of child protection," he said.
With the Prime Minister promising action by the end of 2026 and limited public engagement from the responsible ministers, Seiuli said the responsibility now rests with the public. "New Zealanders must challenge these proposals before they reshape our digital landscape. PILLAR will continue to defend the freedom of individuals to parent their children and navigate the online world with as little interference from the state as possible."
Nathan Seiuli, nathan@nzpillar.com