Warnings Against an Online State Regulator

MEDIA RELEASE | 18 May 2026 | FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

PILLAR NZ Warns Against Creation of an Online State Regulator

PILLAR NZ says debate around protecting young people online has rapidly evolved into something far broader: state regulation of the internet itself.

On Wednesday night, Parliament debated the findings of the Select Committee Inquiry into the harms young people face online. Nearly every contribution to the debate, with the notable exception of ACT, signalled support for the creation of a government-backed online regulator.

PILLAR NZ Executive Director Nathan Seiuli said the direction of travel was deeply concerning.

“What began as a discussion about protecting children online has been revealed a push for broader state control over digital spaces used by every New Zealander, as we expected.” said Seiuli.

PILLAR NZ warned earlier this year that proposals such as an Australian-style social media ban were unworkable and would likely pave the way for wider internet regulation.

Education Minister Erica Stanford, who had been tasked with examining legislation to ban social media for under-16s, has now confirmed the proposal has been put on hold.

According to Seiuli, that pause appears to have accelerated discussion around broader regulatory mechanisms instead.

“We warned in 2025 that these proposals would not remain narrowly confined to children’s access to social media. The inevitable next step was the creation of some form of online regulator with wider powers over digital communication and content,” he said.

PILLAR NZ says international experience should serve as a warning.

Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada have all expanded state oversight of online spaces in recent years, with little evidence that these measures have meaningfully reduced harm to young people. At the same time, concerns around censorship, political bias, and restrictions on lawful expression have continued to grow.

“These measures risk creating an unaccountable body that effectively decides for the rest of New Zealand what ideas are considered ‘harmful’ or what content makes people feel ‘unsafe’,” said Seiuli. “That kind of power should concern every New Zealander, regardless of their politics.”

PILLAR NZ says the centralisation of such authority in unelected bureaucracies would represent a significant shift in the relationship between citizens and the state.

“Protecting children and preserving a free society are not mutually exclusive,” Seiuli said. “We can support young people online without empowering censorship regimes or eroding fundamental freedoms.”

Seiuli said New Zealand must resist the temptation to outsource personal and parental responsibility to the state.

“A healthy democracy is built on responsible citizens, strong families, and resilient communities, not ever-expanding government control over what people can see, say, and access online.”

PILLAR NZ says history demonstrates that broad censorial powers rarely remain narrowly confined.

“Once governments are handed powers to regulate lawful speech and ideas, those powers inevitably expand and can easily be weaponised against dissenting, unpopular, or politically inconvenient views,” said Seiuli.

PILLAR NZ will continue advocating for solutions that strengthen families, support digital resilience, and uphold freedom of speech without expanding state control over the lives and conversations of ordinary New Zealanders.

ENDS

Media Contact: Nathan Seiuli, +64 21 485 449