David Harvey: Labour’s Online Policy

The great thing about the Left is that they never fail to disappoint. Rather like Cassandra I have been predicting that Labour and the Left would develop an interventionist Online Policy. In fact in September I suggested that when Hipkins announced Labour’s AI policy it was something of a Trojan Horse. One of the elements there was the presence of an Online Regulator.

David Harvey: Not A Right to Silence Issue

How Politicians Misunderstand Highly Nuanced Legal Concepts

The National Party announced a policy that proposes to remove the right to silence that can be invoked by adults who may (or may not) have information surrounding the cause of death of a child under 12.

The term “right to silence” has a number of meanings at law.

David Harvey: The Rationale for Media Regulation

This article is to be read alongside a detailed examination I conducted of the advice given to the Minister surrounding the disestablishment of the BSA. In this article I tease out the fundamental underpinning for media regulation and the ethereal nature of the “public interest”.

The basic justification for State involvement in media regulation is the public interest.

The argument follows this path. Media – especially mainstream media – are not just a business. They perform a democratic function as the Fourth Estate. Thus society has a stake in how media behaves.

There are a number of linked or associated arguments.

David Harvey: Execution

Banning a Livestream?

Introduction

The implementation of the death penalty in the United States has attracted some publicity of late.

The botched execution of Christa Pike in Tennessee has highlighted issues of the inordinate delays in executions, the methodology of state sanctioned murder and how it can go so badly wrong.

David Harvey: A Stupid Question

The Morality of Billionaires

One of the more absurd questions to emerge in the Leaders Debate on Tuesday 6 October focused upon the morality of wealth and whether it was morally acceptable to be a billionaire. The absurdity continued into the “Futures” debate the next evening.

In my view the question should have been rejected at the outset. To ask whether being a billionaire is acceptable or moral assumes wealth needs moral permission, as if the default is guilt.

David Harvey: Sunset for the Broadcasting Standards Authority

A Bill that is Better Late Than Never

The Broadcasting (Disestablishment of Broadcasting Standards Authority) Amendment Bill was introduced into Parliament on 22 September 2026 – one day before the House rises for the final time before the election.

It will not get a first reading in the current session and the plan is that it will remain, hopefully to be picked up and advanced by a returned version of the current coalition Government.

What this amounts to is a symbolic gesture and an expression of hope.

David Harvey: Bending the Knee

The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill Resurrected

Elections are always the time for extravagant promises. Sometimes these promises can go further and could be interpreted as bribes – a reward given to pervert the judgment or corrupt the conduct – so says the Oxford English Dictionary.

That term may be a little strong for something that came across my desk this morning, but who knows.

Before I get the meat of the problem let’s have a little history.

David Harvey: Opportunist Levelling

The Methods Change With Time

The Levellers were a radical political movement active in England during the mid-1640s to 1649, emerging from the Parliamentarian side of the Civil War. They were most influential among London artisans, tradesmen, and rank-and-file soldiers of the New Model Army.

David Harvey: When the State Breaks Its Own Rules

Unlawful Is Unlawful, Not Merely "Inappropriate"

There is a peculiar softness in the language we use when government breaks the law. A private citizen who takes what is not theirs is a thief. A company that ignores its contractual obligations is in breach and can expect to be sued.

But when a government department does the same thing, the vocabulary shifts. The conduct becomes “inappropriate”. It “appears to be contrary to law”. It reflects “systemic practice” that requires “strengthened compliance”.

David Harvey: The Limits Una Jagose KC Cannot Name

Why Parliament, Not the Courts, Must Prevail

When former Solicitor-General Una Jagose KC told a Law Association breakfast on 2 July 2026 that New Zealand risks “sleepwalking” towards a collapse of the separation of powers, she framed herself as the constitution’s anxious guardian. The framing deserves scrutiny.

David Harvey: Controlling the Internet

Disclosure of interest. I write this as a member of InternetNZ, although I do not agree with its direction of travel or the way in which it has drifted from its original role. I am also a member of the Free Speech Union.

I formerly taught Law and Information Technology at the University of Auckland Law School, where the domain name system and the issues surrounding Internet governance and control featured strongly, and those issues have been discussed fully in the various editions of my text Internet.law.nz – selected issues. Much of this article draws on matters that were the subject of that course, and which have sharpened as the years and the technology have progressed.

David Harvey: Stanford's Crusade

Policy, Passion and Restricting Access to Social Media

Introduction

The Herald’s front page for 22 July 2026 left nothing to interpretation: “I’m standing up for kids against insidious tech,” Erica Stanford declared. The timing was convenient. The article arrived hard on the heels of the paper’s own “Under the Influence” series — an unashamed, unapologetic piece of advocacy about how social media is said to be harming our youth.

David Harvey: Searching in the Dark

How three government agencies are ignoring twenty years of e-discovery technology — and using their own backwardness against OIA requesters

Preface

In an article published in the New Zealand Herald in February 2026 I considered the operation of the Official Information Act. I observed that avoidance strategies persist: repeated requests for “clarification” that reset statutory clocks, fragmented record-keeping, and opaque decision-making. The cumulative effect is delay, frustration, and diminished public confidence. I also noted that most records are now electronic, searchable, and capable of rapid review using modern tools, including AI-assisted search and e-discovery techniques. Claims that requests are unduly burdensome because they involve hundreds of documents ring hollow when compared to contemporary information-management capabilities. Indeed, the digital paradigm should have made compliance easier, not harder.

David Harvey: What Should We Do About Bad Arguments

A Reply to Simon Wilson

I thought when Simon Wilson stopped writing his weekly column for the Herald on Tuesdays that he might fade from my consciousness. Not so. He now writes a fortnightly column for the Listener and ironically his articles feature on the page opposite mine. Even more ironically, his page is often positioned to the right of the fold, mine to the left. Go figure.

David Harvey: The VPN Ban

One of the problems faced by lawmakers is that the laws they make can only be enforced within the jurisdiction. That is what is referred to as the principle of territoriality. Laws do not have an extraterritorial effect. A person who steals something from a supermarket in Sydney cannot be prosecuted for theft in the New Zealand Courts. Why? Because the offence did not take place within the territorial jurisdiction of New Zealand.

David Harvey: The Unfinished Pursuit

Reflections on the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

Introductory

Jonathan Ayling wrote an article in the Herald published on 2 July 2026. He questions whether the promise of the American Dream will survive and that it must renew itself, returning to the truths of its founding.

I have written elsewhere about how it is that Jefferson wrote of his self-evident truths and why there has not been a similar mission statement in New Zealand.

In this article I attempt to answer some of Jonathan’s concerns, suggesting that the American Dream is a work in progress and that the road is still being built. Like all great works there are stumbles on the way.

David Harvey: Skynet on the Brain

How an Old Literary Fear and a 1984 Blockbuster Are Quietly Writing Our AI Policy

When a senator warns that artificial intelligence could “end humanity,” when a tech executive testifies that we are “building a god we can’t control,” or when a newspaper runs a stock image of a chrome skull with glowing red eyes above a sober article about model evaluation standards, something curious is happening.

David Harvey: Reading Between the Lines

How the Human Rights Commission’s Trojan Horse Deepfake Submission Smuggles In a Regime of Pre-Emptive Speech Control

The gift at the gate

The Greeks did not take Troy by force. They took it by leaving a gift the defenders could not bring themselves to refuse — and by hiding inside it the army that would do the actual work. The Human Rights Commission’s submission on the Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill follows the same design.

David Harvey: A Good Bill and a Bad Detour

Why InternetNZ's call for a digital regulator should be resisted

The Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill is one of the more sensible pieces of legislation to come before Parliament in some time. It does one thing, and it does it well. It should pass. What should not pass — and what should not be smuggled in on its back — is the far larger regulatory apparatus that InternetNZ has used its submission to promote.

The Bill gets it right

David Harvey: A Regulator's Impulse

Hasten Slowly on Social Media Restrictions

This article is a companion piece to that entitled “A Regulator’s Reflex” which can be found here. It deals with the issue of social media access restrictions and explains the danger inherent in the proposition - to paraphrase an old saying - “Legislate in haste; repent at leisure”

Stuff reported on 16 June some interesting comments by Education Minister Erica Stanford, who now seems to be leading the charge for what has been described as a social media ban for under 16 year olds.