How to improve the Aotearoa New Zealand Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms? NZTech is the Code’s Administrator and establishes the Code’s Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee will “review how Signatories are meeting their commitments under the Code.”1 The current Chair of the Oversight Committee is Netsafe’s Chief Executive. A Meta employee sits on the Oversight Committee in an independent capacity. According to the Code, the Administrator “will not receive complaints against Signatories regarding content on their platforms, including whether specific items of content should be retained or removed.”2 This year, the Human Rights Commission launched a three-month pilot initiative to consider a few human rights and te Tiriti o Waitangi issues arising from the Code. The initiative’s objectives, terms of reference, and modus operandi are set out in the Appendix to this report. I appointed an Independent Accountability Group (IAG) which is the heart and brains of the threemonth initiative. I invited experts to join the IAG because of their professionalism, lived experience, robust independence, and exceptional expertise. Some of the members have lived experience of online harms which add authenticity and depth to their insights and mahi. As the Appendix confirms, one of the IAG’s tasks is to hold the Code’s five signatories accountable for their human rights responsibilities. Where do these responsibilities come from? In 2008, after many years of research and discussion, including with the private sector, the member States of the United Nations adopted the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework (‘Framework’). This Framework affirms that businesses have human rights responsibilities. In 2011, the member States adopted the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) which set out the contours and content of the Framework, including the human rights responsibilities of business. The UNGPs are not legally binding, but they are authoritative and need to be taken seriously. Companies have a social licence to operate because most of them play an extremely valuable role in society. A social licence to operate is conditional. Among the conditions is a requirement that the business discharges its human rights responsibilities set out in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. To begin with, the IAG considered whether the Code was consistent with the human rights responsibilities of the signatories and their partners. For several reasons, the Group decided to adjust this approach. Instead, it asked, considering human rights and te Tiriti o Waitangi, how could the Code be improved? The report has four short sections: First, it asks whether the Code would be improved by more detailed attention to the unique context of Aotearoa New Zealand. Second, the report asks whether the Code would be improved by more clarity about the role of te Tiriti o Waitangi. Third, it asks whether the Code would be improved by ensuring its standards are not lower than those agreed by the Code’s signatories in other countries. The report also looks forward to learning how the new Coalition Government proposes to discharge its responsibilities to put in place an effective regulatory framework that protects everyone, and all communities, from online harm in Aotearoa New Zealand. Fourth, a conclusion – headed ‘Map, compass, and guardrails’ - briefly outlines six key features of a human rights and te Tiriti approach to online safety and harms. 2