Blog
Is InternetNZ suppressing the free speech of it's members?
Recently InternetNZ emailed members stating that it had replaced the previous version of it's 2025 Membership Survey Report with a new version because 'we included a sample of free-text comments from members, some of which included racist remarks that did not align with our organisational views (2025-9-10)'. I requested a copy of the previous version so I could confirm what had been removed but was blocked at every request - I'll go into that in more detail shortly, but first, here's some examples of the comments that were removed:
“Internet NZ should have a core policy on race, committing to a “need, not race” approach in public services, aiming to ensure that resources and support are allocated based on individual need rather than ethnicity. Internet NZ should advocate for a color blind public service where all New Zealanders are treated equally under the law and have the same fundamental rights, regardless of race. Internet NZ should oppose policies that prioritize ethnicity, such as race-based policies arguing they are divisive and ineffective.”
“I find the changes to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles (which will help improve Māori input) to be very important. My life has shown me that different ways of thinking are valuable, and Māori have a unique view to bring, especially as Te Ao Māori can be applied to the Internet. I find this fascinating, invaluable and just.”
“Free Speech first and foremost and avoid becoming an arm of a current trend by Western Governments to enforce censorship and control narratives.”
On that same day (2025-9-10), when I requested a copy of the report, InternetNZ's first response was, 'We will not be releasing the original report' to which I replied, 'Please provide your reasoning for restricting my access to the previous report that is owned by InternetNZ, an incorporated Society. I want to compare the documents to assess your decision to change the information. Without the document I'm unable to validate your decision. Please keep in mind your responsibilities under the Incorporated Societies Act 2022.' To my dismay, they replied with, 'We outlined our reasoning in the email this morning. We will not be providing further comment.' I was shocked. I don't think they understand their responsibilities under the Incorporated Societies Act 2022 so I replied with:
'Please choose one of the following:
A society may decline a request if:
- Privacy: The information would reveal the private details of natural persons.
- Commercial Harm: Disclosure of the information could harm the commercial position of the society, its members, or any other person.
- Relevance: The information is not relevant to the society's operations or affairs.
- Frivolous or Vexatious Request: The request is deemed to be frivolous or vexatious.'
The plot thickened and InternetNZ replied with, 'We believe your request is frivolous and that you do not need the original report for the purposes stated and there is no reason/purpose we need to release the original report to you.' My response was, 'I disagree, and you can't change your reason to "frivolous", after the fact. I expect you to still submit my email to the Board and for it to be placed on the website. Not doing so will be a breach of the Societies Act.'
Frivolous means "not having any serious purpose or value." Internet NZ's new purpose and values, specifically around race-based policies, are the reason media coverage, social media coverage, and membership have all spiked over recent months. This is the most vitally important topic for the Society to discuss, debate and be transparent about.
My letter/email with the subject "Item Two: Staff requirements under the Incorporated Societies Act 2022" recounted my experience above and requested the following motions be presented at the next InternetNZ Board meeting:
'Staff Processes
A response such as "We will not be providing further comment." is unacceptable and extremely unprofessional. How many other members with valid queries have been ignored this way? A new communications process needs to be created such as:
- If a Staff Member is unable to solve a member's problem they should escalate the communication to a more senior staff member and notify the member.
- If the senior staff member is also unable to solve the problem, they should respond with: "We're unable to fulfill your request. Your next option is to write a letter to the Board that will be included in their next meeting".
Proposals for vote:
- That staff are refreshed on their responsibilities to Members under the Incorporated Societies Act
- That a new process for how staff respond to members gets created that does not include a freeze on communication.
In the minutes of your meeting can you please provide a list of who voted for the above proposals and what their vote was? I'd also like both of my emails be publicly available on the website (without my phone number) as proof that these items have been brought to the Board's attention.'
When liaising with another InternetNZ member who has had poor experiences with InternetNZ I asked him whether he thought their actions were politically motivated and to my relief has said No:
'I have inside knowledge about how the board runs, and increasingly I’m of the view that it’s more a collection of [quoted slur removed to remain respectful] rather than some Machiavellian cabal. Apparently they all have their pet projects but none of them have any real experience in how to run an organisation professionally and spend time trying to hide it.' (2025-9-9)
The reason I'm relieved that these issues are likely more because of experience, rather than because of political agenda, is because experience can be improved with better business processes. To help improve those processes I'll keep liaising with the silent majority of InternetNZ members whose views are being suppressed to ensure our organisation is meeting it's requirements under Incorporated Societies and Charities Services Acts. However, the following ideas still r"attle around in my head" causing concern and starting points for new stories:
1. It seems a small number of members and staff significantly influence the decisions of management and governance to the detriment of the majority of members.
2. Moments of "cry wolf" such as stating something is "racist" or "hurts my feelings" are easily shutting down discourse and free speech.
3. To ensure transparency, an Oversight Sub-committee needs to be created consisting of experienced organisation and business leaders like myself with access to resources to assess the decisions made by InternetNZ.
Some interesting stats related to my future stories regarding InternetNZ:
- There were over 6000 free-speech comments submitted in the survey
- InternetNZ member ethnic composition:
66.8% identify as NZ European / Pākehā
6.4% identify as Māori (Including Me)
12.0% declined to specify their ethnicity
- $249,000 of $448,390 (55%) of total grants was spent on Maori grants and is increasing. However, I actually think actual spend on Maori benefits is much higher but has been obfuscated in the Annual Financials and is still presently under investigation.
Brynn Neilson
Editor and Chief
NZ Media Watch
www.nzmw.nz
Date: 2025-09-16 NZT
Source: NZ Media Watch
Author: Brynn Neilson
Copyright: CC BY (This article may be reused commercially with Attribution)
Original Source: https://nzmw.nz/blog/is-internetnz-suppressing-the-free-speech-of-its-members
Discussion on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/internetnzmembers
Discussion on X: https://x.com/nz_media_watch/status/1968022712691106291
