Social Media Ban: Parents Need To Step Up, Not The Government
National is looking for new friends to support a ban on children under 16 using social media.
The party has put a member's bill into the ballot which could see New Zealand follow in Australia's footsteps.
But coalition partner ACT says the proposal is hastily drafted, simplistic and unworkable.
Online law expert Judge David Harvey said it would breach the Bill of Rights Act, a claim denied by the bill's sponsor, National MP Catherine Wedd.
If it became law it would empower parents, she said.
Judge Harvey said the breach would occur because of the right to freedom of expression.
"They [Under 16s] would be basically offline as far as that means of communication is concerned, remembering of course that the internet is primarily a system for communication so any attempt to regulate the internet has implications for freedom of expression."
He said some of the social media harms, such as cyberbullying, concerns over body image, anxiety and depression, did not apply to all youngsters.
It was possible that some, perhaps through "a lack of resilience" or "difficulties to adjusting" in messaging, "suffer some sort of problem as far as social media is concerned".
But it was an issue that should be dealt with by their families.
He pointed out the irony that on the same day the bill was announced, the Censor's office released a report on harmful digital content.
The Censor had pointed out that young people were finding it difficult to share their concerns about online content with someone else.
"And what the Censor suggests is there should be an opportunity for educating parents ....so that kids can feel comfortable going to their parents to say 'look I've got a problem'."
The state shouldn't be taking over the role of parents, he said.
"Do you want the government to solve every problem?"
Nor did the retired judge agree that the internet platforms were using algorithms to make their content addictive.
He said people needed to be careful using that word, he preferred to call it "habit-forming".
Young people were communicating with their constant use of their phones, and it was part of a dramatic change brought about by digital technology.
"That's the way they live their lives."
'It's empowering parents'
MP Catherine Wedd who is behind the bill said it didn't breach the Bill of Rights, as claimed by Judge Harvey.
As a mother of four, she was "living and breathing the negative impacts of social media in our communities every day".
Parents were "grappling and struggling" to combat its negative aspects and the government needed to do more to support them.
Parents and principals were regularly complaining about its harm, which included cyber bullying, inappropriate content being shared, exploitation and its impact on mental health.
"We have restrictions in the physical world to protect our kids, we should have them in the online world as well."
Asked if it restricted the freedom of expression of those under 16, she said the main responsibility was to protect them from harm.
As for encroaching on parental responsibility, "responsible parents can't necessarily control what is being served up to their kids by the social media companies, what's being shared online by others ...", Wedd said.
"We're taking a responsibility .... It's giving more control to parents, it's empowering parents, it's creating a level playing field for parents."
Regarding controls on gaming sites, Wedd said her bill mirrored what was being proposed in Australia, so it would target platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok and Snapchat.
"These are the traditional platforms where we are seeing kids and we are seeing a lot of the online harm caused by these platforms."
The need for restrictions to gaming sites access would need to be explored.
Asked about not getting support from ACT, she said it was a complex issue that she had been working on for over a year and she had the support of the National caucus, including the prime minister.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Sentencing reforms come into effect as govt targets crime
By Natalie Akoorie of RNZ Sentencing reforms which will cap discounts judges can give to an offender and introduce aggravating factors at sentencing, have come into effect as the government targets tougher crime consequences. The Labour Party says the move will only exacerbate an already clogged court system, add huge costs to the taxpayer by increasing the prison population, and will not reduce crime or the number of victims. But Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the sentencing reforms, which came into effect on Sunday, were about restoring real consequences for crime. Communities and hardworking New Zealanders should not be made to live and work in fear of criminals who had a "flagrant disregard for the law, corrections officers and the general public", he said. "We know that undue leniency has resulted in a loss of public confidence in sentencing, and our justice system as a whole. We had developed a culture of excuses." The tougher stance was part of the government's plan to "restore law and order, which we know is working", he said. "It signals to victims that they deserve justice, and that they are our priority." The changes include: • Capping sentence discounts when considering mitigating factors • Preventing repeat discounts for youth and remorse • Introducing aggravating factors at sentencing for offences against sole charge workers and those whose home and business are interconnected • Encouraging the use of cumulative sentencing when someone commits a crime on bail, in custody or on parole • Requiring courts to take victims' needs and interests into account at sentencing Act backs reforms Act MP Nicole McKee welcomed the new rules saying there had been a steady erosion of public confidence in the justice system. "Offenders faced fewer and shorter prison sentences, while communities paid the price." She said police data showed a 134 percent increase in serious assault leading to injury from 2017 to 2023 under "Labour's failed experiment of being kind to criminals". "We've restored Three Strikes, and from today additional measures are coming into force to make the message even clearer." She said the vulnerability of people who worked alone or in a business attached to their home would be "recognised in law" thanks to Act's coalition agreement to crack down on retail crime with the introduction of the aggravating factors. 'Smart on crime' Labour's spokesperson for Justice Duncan Webb, however, said tough on crime sounded good but did not actually have the effect of reducing crime. "We've got to be smart on crime as well. We've got to address the causes of crime which we know are poverty, family violence, mental illness and addiction, and until we address those, there'll continue to be crime and there'll continue to be victims." Tougher sentences were just one option, he said. "If we're gonna be serious about reducing crime and reducing harm, we've got to address those causes of crime." Evidence showed tough on crime initiatives such as the Three Strikes law, which the government had reinstated, did not reduce victims, Webb said. "Victims are absolutely central to the approach and the best thing we could ever have is avoiding someone becoming a victim and that means addressing the causes of crime before crime occurs. "And absolutely I understand that when people are victims of crime they want to see the perpetrator punished and that's the right thing to happen, but I'd rather see the appropriate amount of resources put into mental health, reducing poverty, [and] eliminating homelessness, because those are things that create crime and we've seen them all increase under this government." The fact white collar crime such as fraud - which was one of the few crimes that responded to deterrents - was not captured by Three Strikes was inconsistent, Webb said. Webb said he had sought feedback from those in the social services, intervention, and criminal justice sectors. "They're all frustrated with the fact the direction that's being taken is going to clog up the courts, it's going to create more offenders, it's going to create more victims and it's not actually going to address what we really want to address which is the things that cause crime."
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Backing First Responders And Prison Officers
The Government is introducing new offences to ensure those who assault on-duty first responders or prison officers spend longer in prison, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says. 'Where others may flee, first responders and prison officers run towards danger to help those who need urgent assistance. 'Assaulting them puts multiple lives at risk, so there must be greater consequences for these heinous acts of violence. Our hardworking police officers, firefighters, paramedics and prison officers deserve better.' Under these proposed offences: Assaulting a first responder or prison officer will have a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment. This expands an existing provision on assaulting Police to cover all first responders and prison officers. Assaulting a first responder or prison officer with intent to injure will have a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. This is a two-year increase in penalty from the standard offence. Injuring a first responder or prison officer with intent to injure will have a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment and will be added to Three Strikes to ensure mandatory minimum sentences in line with that regime. This is also a two-year increase in penalty from the standard offence. 'This builds on our sentencing reforms which came into affect today, and is another way we will denounce violence in New Zealand,' Mr Goldsmith says. 'It fulfils a commitment in the National/New Zealand First coalition agreement, to introduce the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers legislation to create a specific offence for assaults on first responders which includes minimum mandatory prison sentences. 'We promised to restore real consequences for crime. That's exactly what we're delivering. It's all part of our plan to restore law and order, which we know is working.'
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Sentencing reforms to 'restore law and order' come into effect
By Natalie Akoorie of RNZ Sentencing reforms which will cap discounts judges can give to an offender and introduce aggravating factors at sentencing, have come into effect as the government targets tougher crime consequences. The Labour Party says the move will only exacerbate an already clogged court system, add huge costs to the taxpayer by increasing the prison population, and will not reduce crime or the number of victims. But Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the sentencing reforms, which came into effect on Sunday, were about restoring real consequences for crime. Communities and hardworking New Zealanders should not be made to live and work in fear of criminals who had a "flagrant disregard for the law, corrections officers and the general public", he said. "We know that undue leniency has resulted in a loss of public confidence in sentencing, and our justice system as a whole. We had developed a culture of excuses." The tougher stance was part of the government's plan to "restore law and order, which we know is working", he said. "It signals to victims that they deserve justice, and that they are our priority." The changes include: • Capping sentence discounts when considering mitigating factors • Preventing repeat discounts for youth and remorse • Introducing aggravating factors at sentencing for offences against sole charge workers and those whose home and business are interconnected • Encouraging the use of cumulative sentencing when someone commits a crime on bail, in custody or on parole • Requiring courts to take victims' needs and interests into account at sentencing Act backs reforms Act MP Nicole McKee welcomed the new rules saying there had been a steady erosion of public confidence in the justice system. "Offenders faced fewer and shorter prison sentences, while communities paid the price." She said police data showed a 134 percent increase in serious assault leading to injury from 2017 to 2023 under "Labour's failed experiment of being kind to criminals". "We've restored Three Strikes, and from today additional measures are coming into force to make the message even clearer." She said the vulnerability of people who worked alone or in a business attached to their home would be "recognised in law" thanks to Act's coalition agreement to crack down on retail crime with the introduction of the aggravating factors. 'Smart on crime' Labour's spokesperson for Justice Duncan Webb, however, said tough on crime sounded good but did not actually have the effect of reducing crime. "We've got to be smart on crime as well. We've got to address the causes of crime which we know are poverty, family violence, mental illness and addiction, and until we address those, there'll continue to be crime and there'll continue to be victims." Tougher sentences were just one option, he said. "If we're gonna be serious about reducing crime and reducing harm, we've got to address those causes of crime." Evidence showed tough on crime initiatives such as the Three Strikes law, which the government had reinstated, did not reduce victims, Webb said. "Victims are absolutely central to the approach and the best thing we could ever have is avoiding someone becoming a victim and that means addressing the causes of crime before crime occurs. "And absolutely I understand that when people are victims of crime they want to see the perpetrator punished and that's the right thing to happen, but I'd rather see the appropriate amount of resources put into mental health, reducing poverty, [and] eliminating homelessness, because those are things that create crime and we've seen them all increase under this government." The fact white collar crime such as fraud - which was one of the few crimes that responded to deterrents - was not captured by Three Strikes was inconsistent, Webb said. Webb said he had sought feedback from those in the social services, intervention, and criminal justice sectors. "They're all frustrated with the fact the direction that's being taken is going to clog up the courts, it's going to create more offenders, it's going to create more victims and it's not actually going to address what we really want to address which is the things that cause crime."
