New Zealanders are enthusiastic adopters of new technology and our use of the internet has been described as at near saturation point. In a 2013 survey, 81% of respondents rated the internet as important or very important. Importance ratings of offline media were very different - the proportion who rated offline (or mainstream) media as important were: television (47%), radio (37%) and newspapers (37%). Although watching television is an important leisure activity for people of all ages, 80% of respondents aged 16–29 said the internet is important or very important for entertainment purposes.

In this technological landscape, New Zealand, like other legal systems, is facing challenges arising from harms caused by the publication of online speech. Existing forms of speech regulation are being tested and some adaption has occurred. In addition, the government recently commissioned an investigation into whether gaps exist in the law but ultimately rejected suggestions for a new grand regulator.

This paper examines the contextual background of current media regulation in New Zealand and the challenges presented by the proliferation of online speech. It considers proposals from the New Zealand Law Commission for a new grand-regulator covering mainstream and new media, and the rejection by the Government of those proposals. The paper then examines the current patchwork of regulation applying to online speech and the introduction by the Government of a Harmful Digital Communications Bill. Although there are many positive elements to this current patchwork of regulation, it is concluded that overall the system of regulation is too complex, inaccessible and lacks cohesion. The lesson from the New Zealand experience suggests a grand regulator dealing with both offline and online speech is the most desirable solution.