Two Futures: One We’re Winning, One We Need to Fight
Every so often, we get to send you an email about a positive development for free speech in New Zealand. Today is one of those moments.
On Wednesday, the University of Auckland adopted a new Freedom of Expression Statement, committing to institutional neutrality and reaffirming that universities are supposed to host debates – not decide them in advance.
And make no mistake: this didn’t happen by accident. It follows the passage of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) – legislation we supported and helped shape through the Inter-University Committee on Academic Freedom.
When the Bill passed last month, we said we hoped it would help turn universities back toward open inquiry. Auckland has just become the first to do it.
Auckland University: A Win for Free Speech
The newly adopted statement is clear on two principles:
- Debate is essential, even when it’s uncomfortable.
- The university stays neutral, rather than jumping in and taking sides because somebody is upset.
Neutrality isn’t about avoiding conversations – it’s about making sure everyone can participate without worrying the institution has already picked a side.
So yes, this is a genuine win. The process, led by Distinguished Professor Sir Peter Hunter and a Senate working group, actually modelled the kind of dialogue universities should be championing.
Will a statement fix everything? Of course not.
Will it matter when a controversial speaker is invited or research findings get political? Absolutely. That’s when neutrality counts. And the Free Speech Union will be watching to ensure both the substance and spirit of this policy are upheld.
But on Wednesday, the dial moved in the right direction for Kiwi universities. These wins don’t come often. We should note them when they do.
Meanwhile, Australia Just Banned Kids From Social Media — and We’re Hovering With Ctrl+C
While universities rediscover free debate, certain politicians seem determined to regulate it away.
This week, Australia became the first country to ban under-16s from social media, with platforms facing fines of up to $50 million if they slip up. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, Snapchat – all now scrambling to build age-verification systems.
And here in New Zealand? The Government is standing behind Australia like a student who didn’t do the homework, whispering: “Just move your hand a bit so I can see the next answer…”
Education Minister Erica Stanford is already exploring “regulatory options”, and the Education and Workforce Committee’s interim report, released yesterday, reads suspiciously like the early draft of a copy-and-paste job.
We get the concern for young people. None of us wants kids exposed to cyberbullying, sextortion, or the wild psychological roller-coaster that is TikTok’s algorithm.
But good intentions and rushed legislation are a terrible combination. It’s the policy equivalent of “We’ll fix it in post.”
Spoiler: they never fix it in post.
What You Told Us About the Under-16 Ban
Earlier this year we asked supporters what you thought. The consistent themes were:
- protect kids, yes, but
- don’t bulldoze adult freedoms, and
- absolutely don’t sneak in a digital ID system.
Curia’s polling backed you up:
- 66% initially supported a ban on social media for under-16s with mandatory age verification (so far, so predictable)
- But 43% were concerned this could lead to de facto digital ID requirements for all adults (ah, there it is)
- And a striking 74% were highly concerned that age checks could evolve into mandatory digital ID for everyday internet use (bingo)
- Only 7% thought Parliament could adequately fix these issues through the select committee process (ouch)
Seven per cent. New Zealanders are optimistic people, but apparently not that optimistic.
Age Verification Is Not Like Showing ID at a Pub
A quick reminder:
When you show ID at a pub, the bartender forgets you existed 30 seconds later.
Online, verifying your age means handing over one of the following:
- a government ID
- a biometric scan
- banking data
That information is stored, cross-checked, processed, and kept. The internet never forgets - and it certainly never deletes anything on purpose.
And once a digital ID infrastructure exists? Feature creep is a hell of a drug. It starts with “just for the kids” and ends with “sorry, you can’t read the news until you scan your face.”
We’re already seeing this pattern overseas. In the United Kingdom, platforms have restricted features or blocked younger users entirely rather than risk penalties - exactly the kind of overcorrection we’ve been warning about.
Platforms terrified of liability will over-censor or remove features. Some may just geofence New Zealand entirely. It’s happened elsewhere.
At our recent Annual General Meeting in November, we hosted a panel discussion on the under-16 social media ban featuring Eric Crampton, Andrew Cushion, and Ani O'Brien – with Chris Lynch moderating.
Check out the discussion below, where the free speech implications of social media restrictions were discussed in depth.
Two Futures: One We’re Winning, One We Need to Fight
Auckland University shows what can happen when institutions choose open debate, neutrality, and genuine inquiry.
The social-media proposals show what happens when politicians chase performative legislation rather than thinking through consequences.
One expands the space for free expression.
The other narrows it.
We’re determined to pull New Zealand toward the first
The Committee’s final report lands next year. Submissions will open. MPs will start taking positions. And we’ll need you - as always - to help make noise when it counts.
For today, celebrate the Auckland win. It’s real, and it matters.
Tomorrow, we get back to work.
P.S. If you’re not yet a member and want to support wins like Auckland - and stand with us in the battles ahead - you can join here.
Jillaine Heather | Chief Executive
SHARE THIS POST
