Law & Society: Social media ban for kids? The name is wrong and the bill is flawed
There is little doubt that tech-savvy under-16s will work out ways to circumvent age restrictions. Photo / Getty Images
The Social Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill has been touted as a way of preventing people aged under 16 from accessing social media platforms, according to publicity and indeed its proponents in the National Party.
Under this bill, social media platforms will be required to take reasonable steps to put in place an age-verification system. If a proposed user cannot verify their age as over 16, they can't open an account.
But a careful reading says otherwise of the proposed bill, which is currently a private member's bill and will not be considered unless it is drawn from the 'biscuit tin', a form of legislative lottery.
The critical definition within the bill is that of an 'age-restricted social media platform'. A social media platform has a specific definition which does not include all applications available on the internet. WhatsApp, for example, would be unlikely to fulfil the definition, although the bill does allow for such platforms to be designated in the regulations as social media platforms.
The fact that the bill states access will be restricted only to platforms that are designated by the minister immediately narrows the focus.
It means the bill does not take people under the age of 16 off line in the sense that they will be unable to access any social media platforms.
There is no language in the bill that suggests that all social media platforms must have an age verification system, or language that states that any person under the age of 16 is prohibited from accessing a social media platform.
Should the bill become law, the battleground will be in persuading or dissuading the minister from designating a social media platform as age-restricted.
Clearly, the media reports about the proposed policy have been erroneous and lacking in nuance. The responsibility for this lies primarily in the hands of media who have headlined the proposal as a 'social media ban'.
It would have been helpful had it been made clear that the bill would not automatically apply to all social media platforms but only to those which fulfilled the requirements set out.
The bill that I have seen is flawed in a number of respects and there are what could be called unintended consequences. This is an example.
When the minister designates a social media platform as an age-restricted one, that platform must introduce an age-verification system. Anyone – not just an under-16-year-old – who wants to set up an account must go through the age-verification process.
That means adults who could legitimately access the platform would also have to provide evidence of age, leading to personal data that would not otherwise have been collected being stored. There are significant data gathering and privacy implications in this.
That tech-savvy under-16-year-olds will work out the various ways available to circumvent age restrictions is more than likely. One reason for doing so will be the challenge that is presented, and another will be 'because they can'. Yet another will be that they want to stay in touch. After all, the internet is a communications system. Social media platforms enable and enhance that communication. And this proposal will neither prevent nor prohibit the use of all social media platforms by under-16s.
It is fortunate that the government has decided to fully investigate the issue of under-16 access to social media under the watchful eye of Education Minister Erica Stanford. The bill will remain in the biscuit tin but future proposals may be better crafted.
David Harvey is a retired district court judge.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
17 hours ago
- 1News
'Kick in the guts': Govt knocks back Christchurch council housing plans
The mayor of Christchurch says a government knock-back on its three-year battle to create a custom carve-out of national housing intensification rules feels like a "kick in the guts", but others are welcoming the certainty of the move. On Friday, Minister for Resource Management Act Reform Chris Bishop issued a final decision on 17 of 20 recommendations the city council had referred after rejecting recommendations from an independent panel on the council's plan to shape a bespoke Christchurch response to national housing density policy). Minister Bishop rejected the bulk of the council's proposals. In 2021, the then-government released its National Policy Statement on Urban Development, a plan to ramp up housing intensification across most urban areas but focused on the five high growth centres of Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington and Christchurch, amid bi-partisan support for the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, though the National Party would later withdraw its backing. The bill contained Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS), which detail what development can occur without the need for resource consent, public notification and consultation in the areas identified as most in need of housing intensification. ADVERTISEMENT Those rules were intended to apply across all residential zones in those identified cities, unless "qualifying matters" made intensification inappropriate. The decisions come into effect immediately and cannot be appealed to the Environment Court. (Source: In 2022, the council voted to reject the standards, despite warnings that a commissioner could be appointed. Instead, the council began several years of consultation, submissions and hearings on Plan Change 14 - its proposed changes to the district plan that would give effect to the Medium Density Residential Standards, but in a way, it claimed better acknowledged the character and context of the city. The council temporarily halted the process following the last election, and was later granted an extension until the end of this year on some aspects of the plan change. Minister Bishop declined a further extension request last month. The council's stance culminated in an Independent Hearing Panel (IHP), which reported back in the middle of last year. ADVERTISEMENT The council accepted the majority of the IHP's recommendations, which were incorporated into the district plan. But it rejected various aspects of the proposed plan, making twenty counter-recommendations that went to the Minister. The minister announced on Friday he had rejected 14 of the council's recommendations, accepted three and deferred his decision on three more. Minister for Resource Management Act Reform Chris Bishop has rejected the bulk of the council's proposals. (Source: The decision means some parts of the city will be zoned higher-density housing and taller buildings, while the council will not be allowed to use several different "qualifying matters" to refuse consents even in high density zones - most controversially, one that hinged on the impediment of sunlight and proposed the Garden City should get an exemption because its southern location meant sunlight angles differ. Bishop's announcement locks in changes for areas in and around the CBD, and the "town centres" of Riccarton, Hornby and Linwood, which will be zoned high density residential. Taller buildings will be allowed within 600 metres of shopping areas in some suburbs - 32m (around ten storeys high) for the Hornby shopping area, 14m for high density residential zones surrounding the shopping area, 22m (around six storeys) for Linwood's town centre, and 14m for high density residential zones around it. The council's bids to create qualifying matters on the basis of sunlight access, recession planes (a line or plane which limits how close a building can be to a property boundary), or by location - such as 'the City Spine' (major transport routes) or Riccarton Bush - also failed. Nor did the minster accept areas around Peer Street in Ilam or the Papanui War Memorial Avenues should be excluded from density rules or allowed special consideration. The council proposals the minister did accept were Local Centre Intensification Precinct - intensification around eight of the city's commercial centres, including Barrington, Prestons and Wigram; increasing the building height overlay for the former stock yards site on Deans Avenue (a prime spot adjacent to Hagley Park, currently used as car parking for the Christchurch Hospital shuttle service) to up to 36m; and allowing high density residential zoning for Milton Street (the site of the Milton St substation, which Fletchers plans to build 80 homes on). ADVERTISEMENT All other council alternative recommendations were rejected in favour of the hearing panel recommendations. The minister has deferred decision-making for the heritage listing for Daresbury - a historic home in Fendalton; Antonio Hall - a derelict historic home on Riccarton Rd; and Piko Character Area - a Riccarton residential neighbourhood made up of many original state houses from the 1930s - until the council decided on the underlying zoning. Antonio Hall after a fire in 2019. (Source: "In putting these decisions forward to the government, we obviously wanted to get all of our alternative recommendations approved. So to only have three of them get the tick is a kick in the guts," mayor Phil Mauger said. "This plan change has been a huge undertaking for our city, and we've said right the way through that we want to get the best outcome we possibly can. This doesn't feel like the best outcome. "To that end, we'll keep working hard as a council, and there are still major decisions yet to be made when it comes to housing density and planning across much of Christchurch, so watch this space." New Zealand has one of the most unaffordable housing markets in the OECD. ADVERTISEMENT Urbanist collective Greater Ōtautahi welcomed the minister's decision. Chairperson M Grace-Stent said the decision finally brought some certainty after years of delays, decision making, submissions and hearing panels. "What we're most excited about is that Ōtautahi Christchurch is set up for the future, it has certainty around where it can grow and where it can continue to develop in the future." The decision will not mean apartment buildings spring up overnight, they said. "It's still going to be a slow developing process, just as our cities always continually change. This is just another step." The city also needed to turn its attention to improving public transport. "Ōtautahi Christchurch definitely needs a reevaluation of its transport system. We've been calling for the introduction of mass rapid transport across the city to support and facilitate the kind of growth and development that needs to happen, and to make sure that everyone has a choice about how they're getting around the city and aren't forced to just pick cars." ADVERTISEMENT Grace-Stent said the debate touched on ideas embedded in the national psyche about how and where New Zealanders live. They said the quarter-acre dream of a stand alone house on a large section is unsustainable and doesn't not always produce greater social outcomes. "Not everyone wants to live the exact same lifestyle - allowing more housing to be built allows people to make that choice for themselves. So if people want to be living on 1/4 acre block, they're allowed to, and if people want to be living in an apartment close to their friends and amenities and where they work, they also have that choice." They acknowledged that some medium and high-density housing is not built to high standards but said some of that was due to limitations of the current zoning process, which can mean the lowest bidder builds on these sites. "This is just the first step into assuring that everyone has a home that is liveable and that works for them, and is good quality. There also needs to be changes throughout the way that we are think about housing and building houses across the country," Grace-Stent said. The decisions, which come into effect immediately, are final and cannot be appealed to the Environment Court. The council has until the end of the year to decide on density rules for the rest of the city. It was unable to confirm by deadline how much it had spent fighting the density rules, but had budgeted for $7 million between 2021 and the middle of this year. By Keiller MacDuff of
Otago Daily Times
19 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Council's housing plan knocked back
By Keiller MacDuff of RNZ Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger says a government knock-back on its three-year battle to create a custom carve-out of national housing intensification rules feels like a "kick in the guts", but others welcome the certainty of the move. On Friday, Minister for Resource Management Act Reform Chris Bishop issued a final decision on 17 of 20 recommendations the city council had referred after rejecting recommendations from an independent panel on the council's plan to shape a bespoke Christchurch response to national housing density policy. Bishop rejected the bulk of the council's proposals. In 2021, the then-government released its National Policy Statement on Urban Development, a plan to ramp up housing intensification across most urban areas but focused on the five high growth centres of Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington and Christchurch, amid bi-partisan support for the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, though the National Party would later withdraw its backing. The bill contained Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS), which detail what development can occur without the need for resource consent, public notification and consultation in the areas identified as most in need of housing intensification. Those rules were intended to apply across all residential zones in those identified cities, unless "qualifying matters" made intensification inappropriate. In 2022, the Christchurch council voted to reject the standards, despite warnings a commissioner could be appointed. Instead, it began several years of consultation, submissions and hearings on Plan Change 14 - its proposed changes to the district plan that would give effect to the Medium Density Residential Standards, but in a way it claimed better acknowledged the character and context of the South Island city. The council temporarily halted the process following the last election, and was later granted an extension until the end of this year on some aspects of the plan change. Bishop declined a further extension request last month. The council's stance culminated in an Independent Hearing Panel (IHP), which reported back in the middle of last year. The council accepted the majority of the IHP's recommendations, which were incorporated into the district plan. But it rejected various aspects of the proposed plan, making 20 counter-recommendations that went to the Minister. Bishop announced on Friday he had rejected 14 of the council's recommendations, accepted three and deferred his decision on three more. The decision means some parts of the city will be zoned higher-density housing and taller buildings, while the council will not be allowed to use several different "qualifying matters" to refuse consents even in high density zones - most controversially, one that hinged on the impediment of sunlight and proposed the Garden City should get an exemption because its southern location meant sunlight angles differ. Bishop's announcement locks in changes for areas in and around the CBD, and the "town centres" of Riccarton, Hornby and Linwood, which will be zoned high density residential. Taller buildings will be allowed within 600 metres of shopping areas in some suburbs - 32m (around 10 storeys high) for the Hornby shopping area, 14m for high density residential zones surrounding the shopping area, 22m (around six storeys) for Linwood's town centre, and 14m for high density residential zones around it. The council's bids to create qualifying matters on the basis of sunlight access, recession planes (a line or plane which limits how close a building can be to a property boundary), or by location - such as 'the City Spine' (major transport routes) or Riccarton Bush - also failed. Nor did Bishop accept areas around Peer St in Ilam or the Papanui War Memorial Avenues should be excluded from density rules or allowed special consideration. The council proposals Bishop did accept were Local Centre Intensification Precinct - intensification around eight of the city's commercial centres, including Barrington, Prestons and Wigram; increasing the building height overlay for the former stock yards site on Deans Avenue (a prime spot adjacent to Hagley Park, currently used as car parking for the Christchurch Hospital shuttle service) to up to 36m; and allowing high density residential zoning for Milton St (the site of the Milton St substation, which Fletchers plans to build 80 homes on). All other council alternative recommendations were rejected in favour of the hearing panel recommendations. Bishop has deferred decision-making for the heritage listing for Daresbury - a historic home in Fendalton; Antonio Hall - a derelict historic home on Riccarton Rd; and Piko Character Area - a Riccarton residential neighbourhood made up of many original state houses from the 1930s - until the council decided on the underlying zoning. "In putting these decisions forward to the government, we obviously wanted to get all of our alternative recommendations approved. So to only have three of them get the tick is a kick in the guts," Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger said. "This plan change has been a huge undertaking for our city, and we've said right the way through that we want to get the best outcome we possibly can. This doesn't feel like the best outcome. "To that end, we'll keep working hard as a council, and there are still major decisions yet to be made when it comes to housing density and planning across much of Christchurch, so watch this space." New Zealand has one of the most unaffordable housing markets in the OECD. But urbanist collective Greater Ōtautahi welcomed the minister's decision. Chairperson M Grace-Stent said it finally brought some certainty after years of delays, decision-making, submissions and hearing panels. "What we're most excited about is that Ōtautahi Christchurch is set up for the future, it has certainty around where it can grow and where it can continue to develop in the future." The decision will not mean apartment buildings spring up overnight, they said. "It's still going to be a slow developing process, just as our cities always continually change. This is just another step." The city also needed to turn its attention to improving public transport, the collective believed. "Ōtautahi Christchurch definitely needs a re-evaluation of its transport system. We've been calling for the introduction of mass rapid transport across the city to support and facilitate the kind of growth and development that needs to happen, and to make sure that everyone has a choice about how they're getting around the city and aren't forced to just pick cars." Grace-Stent said the debate touched on ideas embedded in the national psyche about how and where New Zealanders live. They said the quarter-acre dream of a stand-alone house on a large section was unsustainable and did not not always produce greater social outcomes. "Not everyone wants to live the exact same lifestyle - allowing more housing to be built allows people to make that choice for themselves. So if people want to be living on a quarter-acre block, they're allowed to, and if people want to be living in an apartment close to their friends and amenities and where they work, they also have that choice." They acknowledged that some medium and high density housing is not built to high standards, but said some of that was due to limitations of the current zoning process, which can mean the lowest bidder builds on these sites. "This is just the first step into assuring that everyone has a home that is liveable and that works for them, and is good quality. There also needs to be changes throughout the way that we are think about housing and building houses across the country," Grace-Stent said. The decisions, which come into effect immediately, are final and cannot be appealed to the Environment Court. The council has until the end of the year to decide on density rules for the rest of the city. It was unable to confirm by deadline how much it had spent fighting the density rules, but had budgeted for $7 million between 2021 and the middle of this year.
Otago Daily Times
19 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Govt knocks back Christchurch council's housing plan
By Keiller MacDuff of RNZ Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger says a government knock-back on its three-year battle to create a custom carve-out of national housing intensification rules feels like a "kick in the guts", but others welcome the certainty of the move. On Friday, Minister for Resource Management Act Reform Chris Bishop issued a final decision on 17 of 20 recommendations the city council had referred after rejecting recommendations from an independent panel on the council's plan to shape a bespoke Christchurch response to national housing density policy. Bishop rejected the bulk of the council's proposals. In 2021, the then-government released its National Policy Statement on Urban Development, a plan to ramp up housing intensification across most urban areas but focused on the five high growth centres of Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington and Christchurch, amid bi-partisan support for the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, though the National Party would later withdraw its backing. The bill contained Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS), which detail what development can occur without the need for resource consent, public notification and consultation in the areas identified as most in need of housing intensification. Those rules were intended to apply across all residential zones in those identified cities, unless "qualifying matters" made intensification inappropriate. In 2022, the Christchurch council voted to reject the standards, despite warnings a commissioner could be appointed. Instead, it began several years of consultation, submissions and hearings on Plan Change 14 - its proposed changes to the district plan that would give effect to the Medium Density Residential Standards, but in a way it claimed better acknowledged the character and context of the South Island city. The council temporarily halted the process following the last election, and was later granted an extension until the end of this year on some aspects of the plan change. Bishop declined a further extension request last month. The council's stance culminated in an Independent Hearing Panel (IHP), which reported back in the middle of last year. The council accepted the majority of the IHP's recommendations, which were incorporated into the district plan. But it rejected various aspects of the proposed plan, making 20 counter-recommendations that went to the Minister. Bishop announced on Friday he had rejected 14 of the council's recommendations, accepted three and deferred his decision on three more. The decision means some parts of the city will be zoned higher-density housing and taller buildings, while the council will not be allowed to use several different "qualifying matters" to refuse consents even in high density zones - most controversially, one that hinged on the impediment of sunlight and proposed the Garden City should get an exemption because its southern location meant sunlight angles differ. Bishop's announcement locks in changes for areas in and around the CBD, and the "town centres" of Riccarton, Hornby and Linwood, which will be zoned high density residential. Taller buildings will be allowed within 600 metres of shopping areas in some suburbs - 32m (around 10 storeys high) for the Hornby shopping area, 14m for high density residential zones surrounding the shopping area, 22m (around six storeys) for Linwood's town centre, and 14m for high density residential zones around it. The council's bids to create qualifying matters on the basis of sunlight access, recession planes (a line or plane which limits how close a building can be to a property boundary), or by location - such as 'the City Spine' (major transport routes) or Riccarton Bush - also failed. Nor did Bishop accept areas around Peer St in Ilam or the Papanui War Memorial Avenues should be excluded from density rules or allowed special consideration. The council proposals Bishop did accept were Local Centre Intensification Precinct - intensification around eight of the city's commercial centres, including Barrington, Prestons and Wigram; increasing the building height overlay for the former stock yards site on Deans Avenue (a prime spot adjacent to Hagley Park, currently used as car parking for the Christchurch Hospital shuttle service) to up to 36m; and allowing high density residential zoning for Milton St (the site of the Milton St substation, which Fletchers plans to build 80 homes on). All other council alternative recommendations were rejected in favour of the hearing panel recommendations. Bishop has deferred decision-making for the heritage listing for Daresbury - a historic home in Fendalton; Antonio Hall - a derelict historic home on Riccarton Rd; and Piko Character Area - a Riccarton residential neighbourhood made up of many original state houses from the 1930s - until the council decided on the underlying zoning. "In putting these decisions forward to the government, we obviously wanted to get all of our alternative recommendations approved. So to only have three of them get the tick is a kick in the guts," Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger said. "This plan change has been a huge undertaking for our city, and we've said right the way through that we want to get the best outcome we possibly can. This doesn't feel like the best outcome. "To that end, we'll keep working hard as a council, and there are still major decisions yet to be made when it comes to housing density and planning across much of Christchurch, so watch this space." New Zealand has one of the most unaffordable housing markets in the OECD. But urbanist collective Greater Ōtautahi welcomed the minister's decision. Chairperson M Grace-Stent said it finally brought some certainty after years of delays, decision-making, submissions and hearing panels. "What we're most excited about is that Ōtautahi Christchurch is set up for the future, it has certainty around where it can grow and where it can continue to develop in the future." The decision will not mean apartment buildings spring up overnight, they said. "It's still going to be a slow developing process, just as our cities always continually change. This is just another step." The city also needed to turn its attention to improving public transport, the collective believed. "Ōtautahi Christchurch definitely needs a re-evaluation of its transport system. We've been calling for the introduction of mass rapid transport across the city to support and facilitate the kind of growth and development that needs to happen, and to make sure that everyone has a choice about how they're getting around the city and aren't forced to just pick cars." Grace-Stent said the debate touched on ideas embedded in the national psyche about how and where New Zealanders live. They said the quarter-acre dream of a stand-alone house on a large section was unsustainable and did not not always produce greater social outcomes. "Not everyone wants to live the exact same lifestyle - allowing more housing to be built allows people to make that choice for themselves. So if people want to be living on a quarter-acre block, they're allowed to, and if people want to be living in an apartment close to their friends and amenities and where they work, they also have that choice." They acknowledged that some medium and high density housing is not built to high standards, but said some of that was due to limitations of the current zoning process, which can mean the lowest bidder builds on these sites. "This is just the first step into assuring that everyone has a home that is liveable and that works for them, and is good quality. There also needs to be changes throughout the way that we are think about housing and building houses across the country," Grace-Stent said. The decisions, which come into effect immediately, are final and cannot be appealed to the Environment Court. The council has until the end of the year to decide on density rules for the rest of the city. It was unable to confirm by deadline how much it had spent fighting the density rules, but had budgeted for $7 million between 2021 and the middle of this year.
