Majority support under-16 social media ban: poll
Political parties cannot agree on a social media ban, but more than half of New Zealanders support it for children under 16, according to the latest RNZ Reid Research poll.
It comes as the government looks into options to restrict social media for young people, after a National Party members bill was dismissed by the ACT party as unworkable.
National MP Catherine Wedd, with the backing of leader Christopher Luxon, put forward a members' bill last month which would follow Australia's lead on cracking down on the social media giants.
The proposed law would require age verification measures on social media platforms.
The ACT party dismissed the proposal, calling it hastily-drafted, simplistic and unworkable, meaning Luxon was prevented from pushing ahead with the policy as a government bill.
ACT MP Parmjeet Parmar instead proposed a select committee inquiry which would look at the harms of social media for young people.
Minister of Education Erica Stanford has been tasked with exploring options for legislation and implementation of possible restrictions and bringing those to Cabinet for consideration.
In the latest RNZ Reid Research poll, 1008 respondents were asked:
"Do you support banning under 16s from using social media?"
Overall, 57.8% of those polled said yes, while 31.6% said no. 10.6% said they did not know.
Taking a closer look according to party support, a significant majority of National voters agree with a ban - 75.1%, with only 18.8% of its voters saying no.
Despite the party being opposed to a simple ban, 55.5% of ACT voters do support a ban, while 35.9% of its voters do not.
The poll found 69.6% of NZ First voters supported a ban, while 23.4% of its voters do not.
Less than half of those who vote for Labour and the Greens support a ban, with 46.7% of Labour voters saying yes and 37.1% of its voters saying no.
Green voters are split with 43.7% saying yes, and 43.1% saying no.
Te Pāti Māori voters also had mixed feelings, with 42.2% saying yes and 49.8% saying no. Politicians agree something needs to be done
Luxon said parents, teachers and kids were calling for a ban on social media for under-16s, and he was confident National had the public's support on the issue.
"Yeah, absolutely, I think the feedback we've had from parents, and from you know, teachers, and even from kids themselves has actually been really positive. So I think it's important we do act, as I've said before, and we've got Erica Stanford leading that work for us."
ACT deputy leader Brooke van Velden argued any such ban should be enduring, and backed ACT's select committee investigation.
"We actually need a lot of in-depth analysis as to what are all of the things that could happen before we even go to a full ban for under-16s, or even if it's feasible - but there needs to be a lot of in-depth analysis cross party, because we'd like something that's actually long-standing."
Winston Peters said the idea needed serious study, with parents looking to lawmakers for help.
"We don't think we have all the answers but it's worth a serious study because every objection you raise with it is fine until you've got parents who say 'look, we need help, we want the lawmakers to help us', and we think it's worth a serious investigation as to whether we can do that.
"Whilst all the free marketeers and libertarians are making one argument out, [parents] still have the problem of trying to be a responsible parent where the utilities have been taken out of our hands and that's where we've got to step in."
On the other side of the aisle, Labour leader Chris Hipkins was still curious to see how a ban would be implemented.
More of Labour's supporters polled backed the idea than opposed it.
"That's proven to be a challenge in Australia as well where they've been trying to do this and they still haven't managed to implement what they're proposing to do there, but we think there is a legitimate debate to be had about how to keep kids safe online."
He said a lot of parents were concerned about what their kids were being exposed to online.
For the Greens, co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said a ban would be a blunt instrument and while there was real concern from parents, the focus needed to be on regulating the platforms.
"We're kind of missing the point if we're only focusing on users themselves. Of course there is disproportionate impacts that young people do face but again this is why we want to have this issue considered in the round."
She said people should realise social media algorithms were controlled by billionaires fixated on creating outrage and discontent.
Te Pāti Māori does not have a formal position on a ban, but co-leader Rawiri Waititi said tamariki and parents needed to be aware and educated about the risks of social media.
"The well-being and safety of our tamariki is the most important thing for us." 'Anything is better than nothing' - the public reacts
Members of the public in Christchurch also had mixed feelings.
Nicholas Steed said a ban could have some benefits, but the problem would be implementation because of the difficulty to regulate platforms.
"[It] could be very difficult to actually enforce that, and get people to follow the rules."
Ashton Owen said he had two young boys and navigating this issue as a parent was really hard.
"There's so many risks for young people getting on social media, with things like bullying."
Owen said a ban would be difficult, but the benefits would outweigh how hard it would be.
"The well-being of our young people is going to far outweigh the costs of trying to navigate and keep it in place and monitor it. Anything is better than nothing."
Fiona Cleve said a ban did not make any sense and would be incredibly difficult to implement.
"The way they're going about it is not productive, it's not going to solve the problem.
"It's going to be a whole lot of red tape for no actual gain."
Cleve pointed out that a lot of the social media companies were based overseas, and questioned how a verification measure to check someone's age would be enforced.
George and Harlan are aged under 16 and told RNZ young people would be able to get around the ban, but agreed there should be regulation.
"TikTok - yes get that banned, it's very damaging actually," said Harlan.
This poll of 1008 people was conducted by Reid Research, using quota sampling and weighting to ensure a representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between 23-30 March 2025 and has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. The report is available here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
36 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
The importance of clear laws shown in impressive evidence from Italy
If New Zealand's laws were as ambiguous, we would be worse off by $20 billion – or about $10,000 per household – every year. What family would not welcome avoiding that? What is 'poorly drafted' law? The researchers used 10 indicators of writing that likely lacks clarity. It assesses each of over 75,000 Italian laws. One measure is sentence length. According to experts, sentences with more than 25 words are likely to be unclear. The authors found that 85% of the millions of sentences in all of this law exceeded 25 words. That might seem staggering for those who do not read law books. Authors of children's books might think it was absurd. Lawyers are likely less surprised, but still disturbed. Greater clarity in drafting should be easy to fix. So why isn't it? The paper's answer lies in law-making imperatives. These include haste, compromise, personal career aspirations and short-term expediency. Ambiguity conceals likely outcomes. It shields blame and defuses critics' attempts to pinpoint a proposed law's problems. Even lawyers cannot be sure how courts will interpret unclear laws. Nor can judges in a lower court be sure about how a higher court will interpret them. This uncertainty creates a cascade of problems throughout the legal system. The authors examined 620,000 Italian Supreme Court judgments between 2004 and 2017. They found 32% of them reversed a decision of a lower court solely on legal grounds The rule of law is a precondition for national prosperity. The law should be clear and accessible. When it is not clear to judges, it cannot be clear to those who must obey it. The paper next assessed the effects on over 700,000 Italian firms of reversed court decisions. It looked, for example, at changes in their investment spending and output growth. This aspect was another exhaustive, path-breaking achievement. It found the adverse effects were significant. The estimated permanent 5% drop in Italian national income encapsulates that. The paper's approach is ingenious, but too complex to explain here. Are New Zealand's laws better drafted in these respects? It would be good to know, because low productivity is holding New Zealanders back. It should be easy to improve drafting quality. The bigger the gains, the more it should be a priority. To better inform this article, I used AI to count the word lengths of sentences in two of New Zealand's acts. From an Italian perspective, the results were encouraging. The proportion of sentences in the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 that exceeded 25 words was 'only' 70%. For the Resource Management Act 1991, it was 53%. Even so, the implication is that most New Zealanders would not find the Resource Management Act (RMA) law clear and accessible. Parliament could be more insistent about improving clarity. The Government's Regulatory Standards Bill would increase this discipline. One part requires the Government to tell Parliament if a bill is unclear and hard to understand – and explain why. Small comfort, but better than nothing. Of course, there is more to good law than just clear drafting. Its content surely matters even more. Prominent symptoms of content problems include unaffordable housing, and infrastructure delays and inadequacies. However, much more is hidden or accepted as 'part of the woodwork'. Content problems have many sources. Public pressure on governments to 'do something' about the latest adverse headline is one source. Appeasing that pressure can be the easiest option. More mundane are the relentless daily calls on ministers to regulate or spend for this or that partisan or public-spirited cause. Such calls often fail to consider the costs to others. The Italian paper acknowledges that content also matters. It cites literature that shows property rights and institutional quality are key determinants of economic prosperity. The RMA is deficient in both respects. It offends almost everyone. The Regulatory Standards Bill also recognises the importance of protecting private property. Ministers must tell Parliament of any grounds for concern but Parliament can ignore this information at will and continues to be supreme lawmaker. (Most public opposition to this bill ignores this limiting aspect.) Greater transparency about these matters could help inform voters. Governments would spend and regulate more judiciously if more voters rewarded them for doing so. This exhaustive Italian research helps make the potential gains more concrete.
Newsroom
4 hours ago
- Newsroom
Online radicalisation and foreign interference among rising threats to NZ
Young New Zealanders are at growing risk of being radicalised online, according to a new report from one of the country's spy agencies that also highlights a rise in foreign interference activities against a background of global instability. In its latest security threat environment report, the NZ Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) warns the country faces 'the most challenging national security environment of recent times', with increasingly unstable relationships between states as well as rising levels of polarisation and grievance. The report says there has been 'a noticeable increase' in foreign interference actors visiting the country in the last 18 months, highly likely to have asked to build relationships with specific parts of New Zealand society and conceal their links to foreign states. China is singled out as the most active nation undertaking foreign interference in New Zealand (although not the only one), with a section on the country's United Front Work Department and its efforts to build influence with individuals and organisations in countries like New Zealand. 'It is important to acknowledge that not all [United Front] activity is foreign interference and some engagements can have benefits for New Zealand organisations. However, its activities are regularly deceptive, coercive and corruptive and come with risks for New Zealand organisations.' The security report emphasises concerns about transnational repression, saying some New Zealanders are being targeted by foreign states in a bid to keep diaspora communities politically loyal even though they live in another country. The agency says it is aware of 'co-optees' monitoring social media, photographing individuals at events, or instructing other community members to collect information on behalf of foreign states, with the risk that such information could be used to coerce the person being monitored or their family back home. In one case, a foreign state asked a co-optee to collect information on a New Zealand-based person who had applied for refugee status – 'almost certainly' because they were a member of the rainbow community. The report also says it is aware of foreign intelligence officers who have travelled to New Zealand to likely support 'coercive repatriation' of people back to their country of origin. Though it does not name any states, Newsroom has previously reported on China's efforts to force alleged criminals to return from countries including New Zealand. Foreign agents have been taking control of community organisations by co-opting or replacing leaders, with the replacements sidelining those deemed to be a challenge to the foreign state's agenda and sometimes restricting government officials from speaking to the wider community. In one case, a New Zealand official who wanted to share 'important security advice' with a community was discouraged from doing so by a community leader (also a government employee) who had undertaken activity in support of a foreign state's objectives: 'Even though the intent of the security advice was to raise awareness of risks, the gatekeeper likely thought it was against the interests of a particular foreign state.' The report also raises concerns about increasingly polarised and violent rhetoric both in the real world and online, including 'a notable degree of misplaced agitation and blame for perceived societal ills' at the fringes. 'Much of this rhetoric exists solely online, and its spread is aided by algorithms that push controversial content because it generates the most engagement.' The NZ Security Intelligence Service says it has not seen any sophisticated state-backed information operations directly targeting New Zealand, but believes New Zealanders 'have almost certainly consumed foreign state-manipulated information when active online, even if they are not the target audience of that information'. Young and vulnerable Kiwis were particularly at risk of being radicalised online, with teenagers increasingly coming to the attention of security services as unfettered internet access shortened pathways to violence. 'What might have previously been considered societal risks associated with internet safety, now have the potential to pose an ongoing risk to New Zealand's national security.' In an interview with Newsroom, NZSIS director-general Andrew Hampton said the report was not intended to alarm people, but to raise public awareness about the growing threats. 'We certainly don't want to cause despair or anxiety. I actually believe that in a democracy like ours, the public are often those who are best placed to actually see concerning behaviours, report them and take steps to mitigate them.' Although much of the activity outlined in the report was not currently illegal, Hampton said the Government's foreign interference legislation – which is yet to pass its second reading in Parliament – would allow police to take action and give communities a clearer demonstration of what activities were unacceptable in New Zealand, acting as a deterrent to foreign states and the 'sympathetic individuals' they co-opted. Asked how the public should reconcile China's status as both New Zealand's largest trading partner and the most active state carrying out foreign interference here, he said the spy agency was well aware that our country's prosperity relied on its international and trade connections. 'We are not saying don't engage, and we're certainly not saying don't engage with China: what we are saying, though, is be cognisant of the risks that are associated with some of that engagement.' On the issue of young New Zealanders being radicalised, Hampton said questions around greater regulation of internet access – such as a social media ban for under-16s as suggested by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and others – was for politicians and Parliament, but the agency wanted to draw attention to increased online engagement with grievance-based narratives. 'If you look at our current subjects of investigations – we're not talking about large numbers of people here – they're almost all young, in their teens or early 20s, they aren't part of global terrorist networks, they are people who have been largely radicalised online.' The spy agency had been speaking to school principals and other educators about what online radicalisation looked like, and had received leads as a result of that work.
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Council's ‘Robin Hood' rating system verges on socialism
This pattern of rates collection can only be explained by a 'Robin Hood' council that is robbing the well-off to give to the poor, which I label as socialism. Is this the job of a council? No council should adopt this mandate. Its function is to provide quality services to the public at acceptable prices, and not do this via a wealth tax, because that is what our rating system has become. Trevor Smith, Takapuna. The languages of real life I was lucky to have something of a natural talent for assimilating language. When I started school in 1950, Māori was forbidden to be spoken and the small number of Māori kids were forbidden to use their native tongue. When I got to secondary school at the age of 11, I was put into 3L1, and was taught Latin, French, and English, but not a word of the only other language that was spoken by numerous New Zealanders. Now these accursed philistines in charge are winding the clock back again. This is an international humiliation and disgrace, and a terrible blot on our collective copybook. The more language you learn while you are young, the better prepared you are for real life. Real life almost universally includes more than one language. Bruce Rogan, Mangawhai. Not my kind of rugby The letter by Gary Carter (Aug 19) enthuses 'this rugby championship is a must-watch for spectacular, world-leading excitement'. I am not sure if the writer has his head in the clouds or the sand but the current version of rugby is almost unwatchable. Crash-bang dangerous tackles, late TMO rulings, whistle-happy refs, rolling mauls all add up to a stop-start game going backwards. With 10 minutes of running rugby in an 80-minute game, wouldn't there be more 'excitement' watching Donald Trump and our Prime Minister playing noughts and crosses? Graham Fleetwood, Tauranga. Retain the moral high ground The idea that New Zealand should consider losing its moral high ground and its nuclear-free status as contemplated by Matthew Hooton (Aug 15) gets a big Yeah, Nah. How could he suggest such a thing after all the work put in by activists of the past? We should reaffirm our non-aligned status and spend our defence on firefighting drones capable of defending us against any threat. If we can build America's Cup yachts, surely we can do that here, and probably better than elsewhere. We could also take a leadership role in reforming the UN Security Council so we (the whole world) can feel safe with genuine collective security, and put our energy into the real threat to the world - anthropogenic climate change. Dennis Worley, Birkenhead. Performative, not informative Jeremy Coleman (Aug 19) is right. Demands for Dame Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson, Aysha Verrall and Chris Hipkins to present in person at the Covid inquiry are pointless. During lockdown, as we silently watched the countless dead being loaded on to refrigerated trucks around the world, as we listened to clear messages from our leaders about what was happening, and as we learned that subsidies were helping people to put food on the table, I for one felt grateful to these people and proud to be a New Zealander. It needs to be understood that these former leaders have already responded to hours of questioning on the Covid response for the commission. Appearances by them would be merely performative, not informative, as others have said. This inquiry runs the risk of becoming less about how to do things better next time, and more of a political witch hunt. The money would have been better spent on social housing and equal pay. Christine Hart, St Mary's Bay. Keeping up with AI Writing is going to be the future for school kids. Really? Having just used AI to transcribe handwriting to text and found it recorded my statement about it being 'absolutely amazing', it is no surprise that Education Minister Erica Stanford needs a distraction. Perhaps our kids could learn a few Māori words like tūī and kererū. Our manu/bird names are part of our vernacular. Steve Russell, Hillcrest.
