Have Your Say On Harms Youth Encounter Online, And What The Government, Business, And Society Should Do To Tackle These
Deputy Chair, Carl Bates, says 'The Select Committee members are working collaboratively to progress the inquiry. We will hear from invited parties and receive written submissions from the public.' We are interested in hearing about individual's experiences as young internet users, and as the parents and carers of young New Zealanders. The committee is also keen to receive submissions from organisations and experts, particularly in the fields of education, health, and technology.'
The committee is aiming to understand the harm young New Zealanders encounter online and identify potential solutions. The Select Committee will report to the House of Representatives on its findings. It intends to hold hearings initially in August by invitation only.
Make a submission on the inquiry by midnight on 30 July 2025.
For more details about the inquiry:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
NZ First Bill Legislates 'New Zealand' As Official Name Of Country In Law
Rt Hon Winston Peters Leader of New Zealand First New Zealand First has today introduced a Member's Bill that seeks to state in law that 'New Zealand' is the official geographic name of our country. 'Over the past few years, we have had a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, officials, government departments, and politicians trying to change our country's name by stealth - with no permission or consent from the people' says Rt Hon Winston Peters Leader of New Zealand First. The 'New Zealand (Name of State) Bill' confirms that 'New Zealand' is our country's official name, and it is only parliament and the people, not bureaucrats, government departments, or officials, that have the authority to make decisions about the name of the country. 'The vast majority of New Zealanders are shocked at this insidious creep of misguided and misinformed cultural history of the name 'Aotearoa'.' 'Any true historian or cultural expert would know that it was never the original Māori name for New Zealand – and we should not allow it to be misused for cultural virtue signalling.' 'Colonialist William Pember Reeves incorrectly used 'Aotearoa' in the late nineteenth century, now the cultural hand-wringers have embraced his mindset.' 'Don't force the South Island's iwi Ngāi Tahu to use 'Aotearoa'. In 2021, Ngāi Tahu said the history of the name 'Aotearoa' originally referred solely to the North Island.' Putting the name 'New Zealand' in law will also provide constitutional clarity and legal certainty. 'The name 'New Zealand' is recognised around the world as the name of our country, and any uncertainty about that risks our global economic markets and political identity that we have built, and spent billions of dollars promoting, over many decades' says Mr Peters. 'Our country's name is New Zealand and should not change unless the people of our country decide to change it.'
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Making ‘New Zealand' country's official name added to NZ First's ever-changing list of bills
'Inconsistency in recent years in the way public agencies and officials describe the country – including partial or informal use of other names has created uncertainty regarding the legal foundation for making those choices.' Winston Peters has been frustrated lately by the use of "Aotearoa" in Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell It's the eighth Member's Bill the party has announced this year, but due to the rules of Parliament, NZ First is only able to have four in the ballot at any one time. Only MPs who aren't ministers – NZ First has four backbenchers – can have Member's Bills and they can only have one in the ballot at a time. This has meant the party has had to shuffle out several of the bills it has previously announced, but which remain on NZ First's website as 'Our Member's Bills'. For example, the 'Conscience Acts Referendums Bill', which was revealed in March to remove conscience votes in Parliament and instead require some particular legislation to go to a national public referendum, no longer appears on Parliament's website. It was previously held in the name of NZ First MP Jamie Arbuckle. But he now has a bill protecting New Zealanders' right to use physical currency. Other bills to pulled out recently include a bill to have a binding referendum when deciding whether to add fluoride to drinking water, one to remove diversity, equity and inclusion aspects from the public service, and another to improve access to palliative care. In some instances, the bills have been overtaken by events. For example, the Government's Public Service Amendment Bill, which this week passed its first reading, intends to remove diversity provisions. When the party announced a Member's Bill to clarify the definition of a woman and man in law, it removed another bill that would fine people who use a single-sex toilet not matching their own sex. Peters said the new proposal addressed the issue more comprehensively. The party says if it could have all of its bills in the ballot at once, it would. Those not currently in the ballot, but which have been announced, remain current policy and could be returned. MP Andy Foster has had a number of bills under his name. Photo / Mike Scott The party's MP Andy Foster has been the sponsor of many of the bills, before they have then either been picked from the ballot, transferred to another MP or removed. For example, earlier this year, his bill to stop banks withdrawing services from clients for 'woke' reasons was picked from the ballot and began going through the parliamentary process. This meant he could add another to the ballot, which ended up being the bill to remove diversity elements from law. Eventually, however, this was dropped and he picked up another requiring government buildings to only display the official flag of New Zealand. But after the resignation of NZ First's Tanya Unkovich, this bill was transferred from Foster to new MP Dr David Wilson. Foster now has the bill about the country's name. The four bills currently in the ballot for NZ First are: Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill – Jenny Marcroft Cash Transactions Protection Bill – Jamie Arbuckle Display of Flags (Government Premises) Bill – Dr David Wilson New Zealand (Name of State) Bill – Andy Foster. NZ First MPs in Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell The newest bill comes after several showdowns between Peters and Parliament's Speaker Gerry Brownlee over the use of 'Aotearoa' in Parliament. Peters has bristled when other MPs have used it in questions. In March, Brownlee ruled 'Aotearoa' was 'regularly used' as a name for the country including by the country's geographic board. He noted it appeared on the country's passport and currency, and Parliament's rules allowed MPs to use English, te reo Māori or sign language. Peters subsequently told the Herald that Brownlee was 'wrong' as the matter had 'never gone to the people of this country'. The NZ First leader raised the issue again last week, leading Brownlee to reiterate his previous comments. Brownlee said: 'In his time serving New Zealand, in the capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs, he would've, over some five years or more, presented the New Zealand passport at various passport stations around the world and never had questioned the fact that our passport has the word Aotearoa on the front of it. 'It was always a New Zealand passport despite the use of that word. That is the end of the matter.' Following that, Minister for Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden confirmed the New Zealand passport would eventually be updated to have English appear before the te reo Māori text. In a release on Friday morning, Peters said 'a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, officials, government departments and politicians trying to change our country's name by stealth – with no permission or consent from the people'. 'The 'New Zealand (Name of State) Bill' confirms that 'New Zealand' is our country's official name, and it is only parliament and the people, not bureaucrats, government departments, or officials, that have the authority to make decisions about the name of the country.' NZ First's coalition agreement with National includes a commitment about not changing the country's name. 'Commit that in the absence of a referendum, our Government will not change the official name of New Zealand.' Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
Let's not open the gate to US-style voter disenfranchisement
Opinion: There was a time when worrying about voting rights in New Zealand seemed like a quaint concern. Following a seminar during my undergraduate studies at Otago in the late 2000s, I can remember questioning an Electoral Commission official about increasing Republican hostility towards 'get out the vote' campaigns in the US. Wasn't there a risk, if potential non-voters in New Zealand similarly tended towards particular demographics, that some political parties would be more interested in promoting democracy than others? The answer I received, in short, was that New Zealand was not the United States. Here, I was politely informed, governments of the right were no less likely to support pro-voter measures than those of the left. Is that still the case? New Zealand is still not the United States, where Republicans have studiously fine-tuned the tools of voter suppression. In contrast, Christopher Luxon's coalition Government is only just starting on the project of tilting the playing field of democracy. Last week the Government proposed to remove the right of eligible voters to enrol in the 13-day period up to and including election day. At the 2023 election, the total number of special votes included 97,000 people who registered to vote for the first time during the voting period. Election day enrolments were only introduced from the 2020 election. But the Government is not simply rolling back that change. The proposed amendment would require voters' information to be updated by the end of the 13th day prior to the election. This is taking voter entitlements back more than 30 years. Analysis by the Electoral Commission suggests that those affected by this change are disproportionately likely to be Māori, Asian, Pacific people, as well as younger voters. A startling 48 percent of Māori voters aged 18 to 19 enrolled or changed their voting details during the voting period. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith defended the change by saying, 'The final vote count used to take two weeks, last election it took three … If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections'. This is a hollow justification. In most instances, the outcome of the election is reasonably clear by the end of election night, rather than hinging on special votes. Instead, it is weeks of protracted coalition negotiations that have often delayed a final election outcome. If it is important enough that arrangements between parties are worked through in appropriate detail, why is it intolerable to take slightly longer to count the votes on which the legitimacy of those negotiations rests? There is reason enough for concern when the Government proposes making it harder for already disadvantaged groups to vote. But there is another group who might be particularly affected by these changes – renters. Rules that make it harder for people to change their enrolment details later in the voting period will have a greater impact on groups whose details are more likely to change. Advice to the Government noted 'about 20 percent of the population had lived in their house for one year or less, and 53 percent had lived in their house for less than five years'. During the last election, special votes included a further 134,000 people who were enrolled but were able to change their electorate during the voting period. The proposed rule changes would prevent this group from doing so, and it's hard to say how many of them would still cast their party vote. Those unable to own their own home already have to contend with a dysfunctional housing market and often tenuous living circumstances. Their concerns should be front and centre of our politics. But at some level, political parties ultimately focus on the votes they think will make a difference. Imposing additional barriers to voting for those with less stable accommodation is akin to turning down the volume knob for these voters' concerns. But the more fundamental concern here is the shift away from democracy as primarily a battle of competing ideas and visions towards a contest around the ability of particular groups to exercise their vote. The escalation of this process in the US should serve as a sobering warning for the path the Government has started us down. In recent years, Republican officials have frequently tried to impose strict voter ID laws, with the intent of disenfranchising voters less likely to have such identification. In 2012 one unusually frank Pennsylvanian State Senator said such rules would 'allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania'. Republicans have tried to manipulate the placement of voting booths away from areas convenient to Democratic-leaning voters, particularly African-Americans. More recently, state-level battles have arisen over efforts at redistricting (redrawing electoral maps to try to limit the sway of some voters at the expense of others), with the Republican legislative majority in Texas putting forward a highly contentious plan to redraw districts that might swing as many as five congressional seats to Republicans. These measures are not currently on the table in New Zealand. But what keeps them firmly in the category of a far-off hypothetical is a common commitment to the idea that democracy should be about changing voters' minds, not about making it harder for them to make their voices heard. The Government's disregard for the democratic rights of its citizens is a clear indication those norms are no longer shared across the political spectrum.
