Free Speech Union: Hardwire Fundamental Freedoms Into Online Safety Law, or We Will Fight It

MEDIA RELEASE

6 March 2026

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Free Speech Union: Hardwire Fundamental Freedoms Into Online Safety Law, or We Will Fight It

The Free Speech Union draws non-negotiable red lines on speech regulators, digital ID, and subjective 'harm' definitions

When Parliament’s Education and Workforce Committee began investigating online harms facing young New Zealanders, the Free Speech Union supported that work. Protecting children online is important and we understand that families want practical solutions.

But the Committee’s final report goes far beyond protecting children. Buried inside it is the blueprint for a new regulatory system that could permanently change how every adult in New Zealand uses the internet, from how we access websites, to how we speak online, to whether we can be anonymous if we choose.

“Good intentions don’t guarantee good law,” says Jillaine Heather, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union. “We’re not arguing about whether to protect kids. We’re arguing that the way we protect them cannot cause bigger problems than it solves.

“We do not want to see protecting children used as a vehicle to shoehorn broad and intrusive restrictions over internet usage in general.”

No new speech regulator

The Committee’s centre-piece is an independent online safety regulator with a “flexible mandate” and power to make secondary legislation. 

We’ve seen where this leads and it is nowhere good. The UK’s Ofcom and Australia’s eSafety Commissioner were sold as targeted and proportionate, but both have expanded eagerly and rapidly. Mission creep is the rule here, not the exception.

“Once you create an office empowered to define harm, set speech standards, and enforce compliance, its scope inevitably widens,” says Heather. 

“The Free Speech Union vehemently opposes the introduction of an eSafety-style regulator. If the Government intends to proceed with establishing one without free speech protections hardwired in, they can expect a fight. We will not pull punches.”

No digital ID regime for adults.

Enforcing an under-16 ban means age verification and this requires everyone to prove who they are. Curia polling from November 2025 found 74% of New Zealanders are highly concerned age checks will evolve into mandatory digital ID for everyday internet use. The Free Speech Union shares their concerns.

New Zealanders want to be able to protect their children, but they don’t want to lose their own freedoms in the process. They want guardrails and proportionate tools that parents can opt into. 

“Recommending centralised databases, biometrics, and pseudo-digital ID in response to New Zealanders expressed concerns is like prescribing chemotherapy for the flu,” says Heather.

"Harm" must mean something, or it will mean everything.

The Committee’s report proposes platform liability for broadly defined “harm” from content and design features. The term is simply too subjective and leaves far too much room for it to be used to justify policing of lawful speech.

“If you ask the people in your life what ‘harm’ is or what they find ‘offensive’ no two answers will be the same. That is why we need to anchor liability to content already illegal under existing law. Unpopular or uncomfortable opinions cannot become subject to state censorship”, says Heather. 

Adults' rights are non-negotiable, not collateral damage.

Both ACT and the Greens filed differing views, raising concerns about overreach, digital ID, privacy, and impacts on marginalised communities. 

“When parties on opposite ends of the political spectrum raise the same alarms, it is a big warning sign. The fundamental freedoms of adults must not be collateral damage in the process of trying to protect kids. Legislation must explicitly ring-fence what any regulator can and cannot do.”

The Free Speech Union calls on the Government to:

• Reject or strictly constrain any new regulator, with explicit statutory prohibitions on function creep
• Define "online harm" narrowly, anchored to existing criminal law
• Require privacy-preserving age verification only: no central ID database, no biometrics, no data retention
• Explicitly protect adults' access to lawful content, anonymous internet use, and freedom of expression
• Empower parents with better tools and education, not replace parental judgement with state gatekeeping
• Mandate a statutory review within three years

This debate should not be framed as a choice between protecting children and protecting freedom. New Zealand can and must do both. But if politicians attempt to use child safety as a vehicle for wider speech controls, surveillance systems, or digital identity requirements, they should expect a serious fight.

“Once governments build the infrastructure to control speech and identity online, it rarely stays limited to its original purpose,” says Heather. “If those red lines are crossed, we will oppose this with everything we have.”

ENDS

Notes to editor:

The Education and Workforce Committee received over 400 submissions and heard from 87 submitters across nine months. The Government must respond by 3 June 2026. The FSU submitted to the inquiry and responded publicly to the interim report in December 2025. Curia Research polling (November 2025) found that while 66% initially support an under-16 ban with age verification, 74% are highly concerned age checks will evolve into mandatory digital ID for everyday internet use, and only 7% trust Parliament to adequately address these issues via select committee.

FSU Media Contact: Jillaine Heather | [email protected] | 

www.fsu.nz