DIA Should Not Become New Zealand’s Online Gatekeeper

For Immediate Release  

17th June 2026  

DIA Should Not Become New Zealand’s Online Gatekeeper.  

The Free Speech Union is warning that the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) is becoming a one-stop shop for identity verification, content regulation, and online access control, despite no law yet having been passed requiring age verification for social media users. 

The warning follows comments from Secretary for Internal Affairs Paul James defending the Department's role in developing age-verification systems as part of the Government's proposed under-16 social media regime. 

"The Secretary has answered a question about competence. Our concern is about power," said Free Speech Union Chief Executive Jillaine Heather. 

"No one is suggesting the Department is incapable of building a system. The question is whether any government agency should hold this much authority over how New Zealanders identify themselves, access online platforms, and communicate with one another." 

The Department already issues passports, holds passport photographs, administers digital identity systems, operates internet content-blocking mechanisms, and investigates breaches of content regulation laws. 

Under the proposed age-verification regime, it could also become the agency responsible for building and accrediting the systems used to determine who can and cannot access social media platforms. 

"That should concern people regardless of where they sit politically," Heather said. 

"When the same agency holds identity information, regulates online content, operates filtering systems, and potentially controls access to communication platforms, we are no longer talking about a simple age-verification tool. We are talking about a significant concentration of state power." 

The Free Speech Union says the Department's own documents suggest the programme has progressed well beyond preliminary policy work. 

A senior implementation role was advertised earlier this year to lead the under-16 social media regime before being withdrawn and reposted in softened language. More than $30 million has been allocated to the project, while Official Information Act responses obtained by the Free Speech Union show officials referring to the work as "implementation" and "delivery", rather than merely exploring options. 

"Government agencies should not be building the machinery to enforce legislation before Parliament has even debated whether that legislation should exist," Heather said. 

"The proper constitutional order is simple. Parliament passes the law first. Bureaucracies implement it second." 

The Free Speech Union stresses that it is not opposed to digital identity systems where individuals voluntarily choose to use them. 

"Many New Zealanders happily use digital verification services because they are convenient. That's not the issue," Heather said. 

"The issue is compulsory identity verification as a precondition for participating in public debate online." 

"Once citizens are required to prove who they are before they can access communication platforms, the state is no longer simply regulating platforms. It is regulating access to speech itself." 

The Free Speech Union points to recent developments overseas as evidence that such systems rarely remain limited to their original purpose. 

In the United Kingdom, proposals initially justified as protecting children online have rapidly expanded, with restrictions being considered for older teenagers and discussions extending to features such as overnight access limits and controls on platform design. 

"The history of regulatory systems is that they grow," Heather said. 

"The question isn't whether today's officials can be trusted. The question is whether we should build systems that require us to trust every future official as well." 

The Free Speech Union is calling on the Government to pause the programme until legislation has been drafted, debated, and passed by Parliament, and to release the Cabinet papers, legal advice, and policy analysis underpinning the initiative. 

The Free Speech Union has also challenged the Department to answer three questions: 

First, why has no legal analysis been undertaken on the implications for freedom of expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, despite officials developing a programme that would directly affect access to online communication? 

Second, why have officials described the work internally as "implementation" and "delivery" while publicly characterising it as exploratory policy development? 

Third, if the Department argues that power is sufficiently dispersed because private providers may verify identities, how can that be true when the Department would simultaneously establish the framework, accredit providers, and exercise enforcement powers? 

"Digital identity technology may well have legitimate uses," Heather said. 

"But the Department that already operates internet blocklists and holds the identity information of millions of New Zealanders should not also become the gatekeeper of access to the digital public square." 

ENDS 

Notes to editor: 

• Secretary for Internal Affairs Paul James recently responded to criticism from retired District Court Judge David Harvey regarding the proposed age-verification programme. 

• David Harvey has argued that the issue raises constitutional concerns regarding the concentration of state power rather than merely technical or operational questions. 

• The Social Media (Age-Restricted Users) Bill remains paused while a broader cross-agency programme is developed. 

• The Government has allocated $30.7 million toward development of the regime despite no implementing legislation having yet been introduced. 

• OIA response OIA2526-1145, dated 28 May 2026, confirmed officials had not assessed consistency with the right to freedom of expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 

• The Department of Internal Affairs administers the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework, operates RealMe and Identity Check services, issues passports, and has responsibilities relating to online content regulation and internet filtering systems. 

• Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act affirms the right to freedom of expression. Any limitation on that right must be demonstrably justified under section 5.