Defamation and Online Harassment Laws in New Zealand

Defamation in New Zealand rests on the common law as amended by the Defamation Act 1992, in force since 1 February 1993. The Act states that defamation includes both libel and slander, renames the classic defenses, sets out remedies such as declarations and court-recommended corrections, and says it does not limit other rules of law on qualified privilege.

Source1Defamation Act 1992, ss. 1(2), 2(1), 16(3) and 24-27

Defamation is no longer a crime in New Zealand. Part 9 of the Crimes Act 1961 (sections 211 to 216, covering criminal libel and criminal slander) was repealed on 1 February 1993 by section 56(2) of the Defamation Act 1992, so a damaging false statement is pursued through a civil claim.

Sources2Crimes Act 1961, Part 9, ss. 211-216 (repealed)1Defamation Act 1992, s. 56(2) and Schedule 3

The defendant has a limitation defense if a defamation claim is filed two years or more after the publication. If the claimant only learned of the claim later, the period is two years from that late knowledge date instead, subject to a 15-year longstop from the publication.

Source3Limitation Act 2010, ss. 11 and 15

New Zealand does not keep the old split between libel and slander on this point: in any defamation claim, the claimant does not need to allege or prove special (financial) damage. The exception is a company or other body corporate, whose claim fails unless it shows the publication caused, or is likely to cause, it financial loss.

Source1Defamation Act 1992, ss. 4 and 6

The Defamation Act 1992 has no dedicated anti-SLAPP procedure. Its closest safeguards are that a damages claim is deemed vexatious if the claimant had no intention of going to trial when filing it, that a defendant can have a case struck out if no trial date is set and no step has been taken for 12 months, and that a claimant who wins less than they claimed must pay the defendant's full legal costs if the judge finds the amount claimed grossly excessive.

Source1Defamation Act 1992, ss. 43(2), 45 and 50

Someone who says they were defamed in a news medium may, within 5 working days of becoming aware of it, ask the publisher to publish a retraction of the factual statements or a reasonable reply, in the same medium and with substantially similar prominence. A publisher that agrees must also offer to pay the requester's legal costs, other reasonable expenses and direct financial loss. In a lawsuit, the court can recommend a correction; if the defendant publishes it as recommended, the claim against that defendant ends with costs usually awarded to the claimant, and a refusal is taken into account when damages are set if the claimant wins.

Source1Defamation Act 1992, ss. 25-27

The main defenses are truth (formerly justification), which succeeds if the imputations, or the publication as a whole, were true or not materially different from the truth, and honest opinion (formerly fair comment), which fails if the author cannot show the opinion was genuinely held. Proceedings in Parliament and in courts and similar tribunals carry absolute privilege, while matters and reports listed in Schedule 1 carry qualified privilege, which is lost if the publisher was predominantly motivated by ill will or took improper advantage of the occasion. Consent, and innocent dissemination by processors and distributors such as printers and booksellers, are also defenses.

Source1Defamation Act 1992, ss. 8-10, 13-14, 16, 19, 21-22 and Schedule 1

Since 26 May 2026, stalking and harassment has been an offence under the Crimes Act, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. It covers a pattern of specified acts directed at a person on at least two occasions within two years, done knowing it is likely to cause fear or distress. The listed acts include tracking, contacting or communicating with the person, damaging their reputation or relationships, and publishing material about them or made to look as if it came from them; acting for a lawful purpose, with a reasonable excuse or in the public interest is a defense.

Source2Crimes Act 1961, ss. 216O-216Q (inserted by the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Act 2025)

Under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, it is an offence to post a digital communication intending to cause serious emotional distress, where it would cause that harm to an ordinary reasonable person in the victim's position and does cause it to the victim; the maximum is 2 years in prison or a NZ$50,000 fine for individuals. After first complaining to the Act's Approved Agency, a person can ask the District Court for orders against the author (such as taking material down, stopping the conduct or publishing a correction or apology) or against an online content host (such as removing material or releasing an anonymous author's identity to the court). Separately, the Harassment Act 1997 lets a person harassed on at least two occasions within 12 months, including by electronic contact, apply for a restraining order.

Sources4Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, ss. 12, 19 and 225Harassment Act 1997, ss. 3, 4(1)(d)-(ea) and 9

New Zealand has no offence named doxxing. However, the first communication principle of the Harmful Digital Communications Act says a digital communication should not disclose sensitive personal facts about an individual, and a serious, threatened or repeated breach that causes or is likely to cause harm can support a District Court order, such as removal of the material. Publishing material about someone as part of a pattern of behaviour can also amount to the stalking and harassment offence.

Sources4Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, ss. 6 (Principle 1), 12 and 192Crimes Act 1961, ss. 216O-216P

Posting an intimate visual recording of someone online without reasonable excuse, knowing they did not consent or being reckless about it, is an offence carrying up to 2 years in prison or a NZ$50,000 fine for individuals. A person under 16 cannot consent. Separately, the Crimes Act punishes knowingly publishing, importing, exporting or selling an intimate visual recording made without the subject's knowledge or consent with up to 3 years in prison.

Sources4Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, s. 22A2Crimes Act 1961, ss. 216G and 216J