Social Media Bill Should Be Government Bill
Family First welcomes the introduction of a Social Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill by Catherine Webb, the National MP for Tukituki, which makes it a legal requirement for social media companies to verify users are sixteen years or older.
However, with the supposed backing of the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and the National Party, Family First is asking why this Bill is being left to the luck of the members bills' ballot and not made a government Bill?
'If as Ms Webb and Mr Luxon say in their introductory comments that this is intended to protect young people from bullying, inappropriate content and social media addiction, then why is it not a government priority which would actually see the idea made into law, or at the very least have a parliamentary & public discussion via a Select Committee process?' asks Bob McCoskrie, CEO of Family First.
Family First has long advocated for better regulation of social media and support for parents so as to protect young people.
'First and foremost, there needs to be a community response where parents unite to ensure their young children are not exposed to social media, but there is also room for government support to empower parents,' says Mr McCoskrie.
Dr Jonathan Haidt - author of ' The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness ' - notes in his acclaimed research that there is a clear correlation between the introduction of smart phones and a significant decline in young people's mental health. (Dr Haidt was a guest at last year's Forum on the Family and he called on New Zealand and other countries to do more to protect young people from the harms online.)
In Australia, a Guardian newspaper poll last year found that almost 70% wanted age limit raised from 13 years to 16 years when it came to social media. Of this, 44% strongly supported the idea and 24% were somewhat supporting it. Only 14% opposed the notion and 17% were unsure.
In the US State of Virginia, legislation has just passed ensuring social media companies limit under sixteen year olds to a maximum of one hour of scrolling a day.
Family First thanks Catherine Wedd for drafting the Bill but once again calls on all the coalition parties in the Government (ACT and NZ First) to adopt the bill as a Government bill and ultimately walk the talk when it comes to protecting children online.
'This important discussion needs to be a priority for the Government and not left in a biscuit tin.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 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
2 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.
Scoop
21 hours ago
- Scoop
Resignation Of PM's Press Secretary Highlights Gaps In NZ Law On Covert Recording And Harassment
Article – The Conversation Criminal law struggles to keep up with predatory uses of the technology for image-based sexual abuse. Its time to step back and build future-proof protections. The sudden resignation this week of one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his 'shock' at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was 'open to revisiting' the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. Are covert audio recordings illegal? New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of 'intimate visual recording' under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. What about covert filming of women in public places? Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed body parts, would unlikely meet the definition of 'intimate visual recording'. That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Are any of these behaviours 'harassment'? Under the Harassment Act 1997, 'harassment' is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as 'image-based sexual abuse'. The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Has New Zealand law kept up? Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain – largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or 'upskirting', for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as 'living documents', able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. Where to now? There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies.
