What the Harmful Digital Communications Act set out to do

New Zealand’s Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (HDCA) has shaped debates on both free speech and online safety. Some say it protects people from harassment, others worry it risks being used too broadly. To understand this tension it helps to look at why the law was created.

The HDCA came after a series of cases highlighted the damage caused by cyberbullying and revenge porn. Lawmakers recognised online abuse could cause as much harm as abuse in person. The Bill followed high-profile cases such as the “Roast Busters” scandal in 2013, where young men boasted online about sexual exploitation. That case, along with reports of youth suicides linked to cyberbullying, highlighted the urgent need for new protections. After more than a year of debate and select committee review, the Bill passed its third reading in June 2015 and became law shortly afterwards.

Advertisement
    
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

Courts gained new powers to order harmful content taken down, stop further contact with victims, suppress identifying details and require platforms to disclose anonymous users. It also introduced criminal penalties for sharing intimate images without consent. For many victims these tools filled a gap in the law that had left them vulnerable.

HDCA was designed to work alongside the Harassment Act and the Privacy Act, addressing online abuse that earlier statutes did not cover.

Image: Judith Collins speaking in Parliament in 2022. Collins, as Minister of Justice, introduced the Harmful Digital Communications Bill in November 2013. (Parliament)

Introduced in 2013 by then-Justice Minister Judith Collins, the legislation was described at the time as a necessary step to curb online cruelty and protect New Zealanders from new forms of harm. In the first-reading debate, Associate Justice Minister Chester Borrows, speaking on behalf of the Government, said the Bill was designed to address the growing problem of people using digital platforms to cause serious harm.

Advertisement
    
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

Collins stressed the purpose was not to silence debate but to provide remedies for those whose lives were being torn apart by digital abuse.

The Bill went through select committee scrutiny in the Justice and Electoral Committee where concerns about overreach were weighed against the need for protection from digital abuse.

Supporters at the time argued the law would bring online behaviour in line with the standards expected offline ensuring dignity and safety are preserved across both spheres.

Image: Netsafe acts as the approved agency under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, helping resolve complaints before they reach the courts. (Supplied)

Netsafe was appointed as the approved agency under the Act, giving it a central role in managing harmful digital communication complaints. Anyone who feels targeted online is encouraged to first approach Netsafe, which can liaise with social media platforms, internet providers, or the person responsible for the content. The goal is to resolve issues quickly and informally often by securing the removal of posts or by mediating between the parties involved. This process helps many people avoid the stress and expense of going to court while still achieving meaningful outcomes.

Each year Netsafe receives hundreds of complaints under the HDCA. Most are resolved through advice and mediation, while only a small proportion go on to the District Court.

There are ten communication principles which set out the standards expected of online behaviour. These include not disclosing sensitive personal facts without consent, not making threats, not inciting others to harass, and not spreading false allegations. The principles also cover respect for privacy, accuracy, and fairness in digital communication. While they are not criminal laws on their own, judges can use these principles to guide decisions on whether a communication has crossed the line into harm.

Advertisement
    
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

Each principle acts as a framework reminding New Zealanders that the same basic standards of respect and dignity that apply offline should also apply in the digital world.

From the introduction the Act raised questions about free expression. In New Zealand the Bill of Rights Act protects freedom of speech and critics feared the new law might be used to silence opinion. Supporters argued the Act was carefully drafted so that judges must balance expression against the harm caused. Critics acknowledged the problem of cyberbullying and intimate image abuse was real, though they questioned whether the legislation struck the right balance with expression.

Courts have found the Act is most effective where behaviour goes far beyond ordinary speech. Judges have also stressed that the Act should not be stretched too far.

In recent rulings, the courts have underlined that ordinary journalism and requests for comment do not amount to harmful digital communication. Doxxing, revenge porn and campaigns of abuse are clearly within its scope.

Both sides agree the law will continue to play an important role as digital life evolves. Its value will be measured by whether it can keep protecting people from genuine harm while preserving the space for open debate.

The Ministry of Justice has been considering changes, including clarifying definitions of harm and ensuring protections for journalists. At present no new Bill has been introduced but the review signals that reforms are likely.

Advertisement
    
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

The government is expected to weigh how to preserve strong free speech protections while strengthening safeguards against digital abuse.

Image: The Free Speech Union website. The organisation was formed in 2021 to campaign on issues of free expression in New Zealand, advocating for reforms to laws such as the Harmful Digital Communications Act while opposing what it sees as threats to open debate. (Supplied)

Free speech groups such as the Free Speech Union have supported reform, not repeal, emphasising the need to protect reporting while still tackling revenge porn and harassment.

Breaching a court order under the HDCA is a serious matter. If a person ignores a direction from the District Court such as refusing to remove harmful content, continuing unwanted contact, or publishing suppressed details then they can face criminal penalties.

An individual who fails to comply with a court order may be fined up to $5,000, while a company can face fines of up to $20,000. In criminal cases, such as posting digital communications intended to cause harm or sharing intimate images without consent, fines can rise up to $50,000 for individuals, $200,000 for companies, or imprisonment for up to two years.

New Zealand has traditionally set a high bar for limiting speech under the Bill of Rights Act. The HDCA reflects this culture by targeting only serious cases of digital harm while leaving space for robust debate and reporting.

Enforcement provisions give the Act real weight, ensuring court orders are not symbolic but carry consequences for hostile actors.

Video: Online extremism is growing louder within New Zealand’s political sphere. Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau’s story explains what’s at stake for indigenous, female, and queer leaders. (Paul the Other One / YouTube / Quiet Pact Network Limited partnership content)

In an interview with filmmaker Paul Barlow outgoing Wellington City Mayor Tory Whanau cited a relentless campaign of conspiracy theories, online abuse, and digital disinformation that she says was designed to humiliate and intimidate her out of public life.

In the raw and reflective interview Whanau spoke openly about how hostile fringe groups weaponised lies to smear her reputation and spread fear effectively derailing her political momentum.

A fabricated rumour circulated online Whanau appeared in a sex tape. Though completely false, it spread rapidly and stuck.

“We told journalists that it didn’t exist,” Whanau said, “… but that particular group had so much.. for whatever reason, it gained legs. And I’m still trying to bat off that rumour today. It impacted me, which is probably what they wanted, is for me not to run for mayor again.”

In interviews over the past year Whanau has spoken about the “ugly side” of public life, including targeted harassment, racist and sexist abuse, and coordinated efforts to undermine her leadership.

Get Help
If you are experiencing harmful digital communications, support is available.

Netsafe call 0508 NETSAFE (0508 638 723) or visit netsafe.org.nz to make a report or get advice.
Police if you are in immediate danger or being threatened, call 111.
Community Law for free legal help, visit communitylaw.org.nz
Victim Support call 0800 842 846 for 24/7 support.

Support Brief Banner

Keep independent journalism going.

We are independent and committed to bringing authentic reporting to the people.

thisquality is built for the people and powered by their support. People like you reading this free article help us remain a strong and independent platform within New Zealand's media landscape.

I'd like to donate

About thisquality

13 Comments

Most Voted

Newest Oldest

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Tāne

5 months ago

HDCA Act is a crucial step, especially for rangatahi who face cyberbullying every day.
we need to make sure enforcement is accessible.. too often some must think the process feels overwhelming. I h

Anahera

5 months ago

for me this looks like government overreach. We already have laws against harassment and threats. Sooo whyy add more?

Michael

Reply to Anahera

5 months ago

I agree

Mereana Smith

5 months ago

Thanks for breaking this down. I think the part about “serious emotional distress” is important, but also tricky.

How can we measure it? People who is quiet and doesn’t always speak up, the harm may not be visible until it’s too late.

More support in schools would help.

Joshua Smith

5 months ago

Important to discuss policy and reforms related to hdca legislation. It is a controversial law in my opinion, though personally it can be useful to prevent death threats from harms way.

Sarah T.

5 months ago

I’m glad this Act exists. My teenage daughter was bullied online in Christchurch and having a clear process to report it to Netsafe made a big difference. The internet should be safe for our kids.

Hana Te Whaiti

5 months ago

This Act definitely helps with things like revenge porn and harassment crossing lines. The idea is good but the system still has bias. I do trust it mostly but some argue that.

Michael

5 months ago

It opens the door to censorship of genuine debate. Who decides what ‘emotional distress’ looks like? far too subjective.

Tāne

5 months ago

Not really a fan of Judith either but in this case she made something right for the people just a added comment from me to be honest..

Eric

5 months ago

Just from newsletter. Impressive read and comprehensive.

Jackie T

5 months ago

This has to be taken seriously. Harm is caused by bad online behaviours as a result of incitement. Nice to read something explaining what the law is all about.

-3

Rangi

5 months ago

This is all good on paper but only if people know their rights… that is my honest opinion. I reckon many older people in rural areas like Rotorua or the East Cape don’t even know about Netsafe, or how to complain. Education campaign needed.

-2

Michael

Reply to Rangi

5 months ago

Think twice about what you said..

Advertisement

Advertisement Why this ad? Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉