Select Committee inquiry “failed to inquire”

MEDIA RELEASE | 10 March 2026 | For immediate release

PILLAR says a parliamentary inquiry into the harms young New Zealanders encounter online has failed in its most basic responsibility.

The report from the select committee examining online harms makes significant policy recommendations despite acknowledging it did not conduct the necessary analysis to reach well informed conclusions.

Nathan Seiuli, Executive Director of PILLAR, says the process raises serious questions about how the committee reached its recommendations.

“The committee admits it did not analyse the costs and benefits of a social media ban, yet it still promotes the idea,” Seiuli said.

“The obvious question is: on what merit should such a broad and blunt policy be adopted?”

Seiuli says a select committee is expected to investigate issues carefully before recommending policy.

“The role of a select committee is to do the work. It should research, analyse evidence, and understand the consequences of its recommendations. It should not simply recommend sweeping restrictions without proper scrutiny.”

The report also acknowledges practical barriers to enforcing a social media ban, such as the use of VPNs, yet proposes further restrictions to address those challenges.

“This approach risks becoming a cycle of bans,” Seiuli said. “When a ban is your only tool, everything begins to look like something that should be banned.”

PILLAR also raised concerns about the committee declining opportunities to hear from relevant stakeholders.

“It is curious that the committee recommends the Government seek advice from stakeholders about Australia’s experience with a social media ban, yet the committee itself declined an offer from YouTube to provide evidence based on its experience,” Seiuli said.

“The committee also rejected the opportunity to seek advice from the Department of Internal Affairs. That raises serious questions about whether the inquiry had already made up its mind.”

The report gives some consideration to freedom of expression but suggests New Zealand explore a regulatory framework similar to the European Union’s Digital Services Act.

“One international human rights organisation has described the DSA as the heart of Europe’s censorship industrial complex, giving an unelected bureaucracy broad power to censor speech,” Seiuli said. “Free speech appears to be an afterthought in this report.”

PILLAR says the harms associated with social media are real, but simplistic solutions will not address complex problems.

“These are sophisticated challenges that require thoughtful responses,” Seiuli said.

“Parents, families, and communities must be part of the solution. Education and parental support should come first, not last.”

ENDS

Media contact | Nathan Seiuli | nathan@nzpillar.com