Mediawatch: Sudden surge of political concern about social media
Photo:
TikTok
On their ZM show last Wednesday, Fletch, Vaughn, and Hayley listed things they'd ban for teenagers if they could.
"When I go to the mall, they're bloody crawling everywhere, aren't they? Oh, my God," spluttered Fletch.
"How do they get the money? I was at the mall the other day and there were all these kids and they had like, shopping bags. I know, it's like, where do you get the money?" asked Hayley.
It was a mocking response to news from the day before.
The Prime Minister and National MP Catherine Wedd teamed up on social media to
unveil her Member's Bill
to restrict social media for under 16s.
"As a Dad, I feel very strongly that we need to do more to keep our kids safe from online harm," Luxon said on TikTok - and other platforms he didn't want under-16s to use.
"We have restrictions to keep our children safe in the physical world, but we don't have restrictions in the virtual world - and we should," he said
What young people should and shouldn't do has been a theme in politics lately - and our media have picked it up and run with it.
Last week
a call to bring in compulsory national military service
for young Kiwis received some enthusiastic backing on talk radio.
The ban on phones in schools last year got widespread media approval too. (The effort to cut back their school lunches ... not so much).
"Restricting access puts the onus on social media companies to verify someone is over the age of 16. It mirrors the approach taken in Australia and follows work in other countries like the UK, the EU and Canada," Wedd said, alongside the PM.
If the goal was to get the
Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill
talked about in the media, it worked.
Within minutes, Wellington Mornings host Nick Mills endorsed the idea on Newstalk ZB.
At the other end of the working day, the idea was discussed at length on RNZ's Panel and Newstalk ZB's equivalent, The Huddle.
"It's a good idea in principle. Evidence shows there's harm to younger people. Kids younger than 13 are not allowed on social media ... but I think there's strong evidence to show that 16 is a good age for that," former Facebook CEO for Australia and New Zealand, Stephen Scheeler
told Newstalk ZB
.
The proposed ban was big news on both 6pm TV news bulletins too.
But it's in the Members Bill biscuit tin along with dozens of others drafted by hopeful MPs. It will only go before Parliament if it's picked out in the ballot.
The odds are even longer for this Bill under this government, even though the PM himself backed it.
If online safety is really a big issue for National and the PM, a bigger hitter in his Cabinet could have backed the Bill.
Communications and media minister Paul Goldsmith for example - who the PM hailed as one of his 'aces in place' when he gave him that job last year - is currently pushing proposals to update the way media are regulated.
The other sensible choice would be the Minister of Internal Affairs, whose department oversees digital safety and online services.
But in this coalition, that's Brooke Van Velden - also deputy leader of ACT, which doesn't believe this is the government's business.
"I'm really worried about social media's effect but for every problem there's a solution that is simple, neat and ... wrong. Just slapping on a ban hastily drafted won't solve the real problem," Act leader David Seymour
told reporters
last Tuesday.
"Australia's passed a law that hasn't come into effect yet and already they've had to carve out YouTube," he added.
Australia's impending ban - also personally backed by their PM who has just won an election- does indeed exclude YouTube.
TikTok complained it was like
banning fizzy drinks
, but exempting Coca-Cola].
In
an RNZ article
about that last week the Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden said: "A minimum age for social media is not something the New Zealand Government is considering."
Catherine Wedd told the media this week she'd been working on her Bill for a year. Clearly she and Act and are not on the same page.
Or Labour.
The former government's proposals for a one-stop shop to regulate media -
Safer Online Services and media Platforms
- were
scrapped by Van Velden a year ago
.
Soon after Wedd's Members Bill was unveiled on Tuesday, former District Court Judge David Harvey - an expert on internet law - said the main problem was the onus on social media companies to verify users' age.
"Currently, there are no legally enforceable age verification measures for social media platforms in New Zealand," he said
on his Substack
.
Wedd had called the bill "a result for concerned parents" on RNZ's Morning Report, but Mike Hosking challenged MP Catherine Wedd on that soon after.
"I'm a parent. Don't sell me the emotion. Sell me the technical answer. You don't have it. Technically, we simply don't know how to do it," he told her.
On Substack, David Harvey also said if the problem is bullying and inappropriate content, we already have a law for that:
the Harmful Digital Communications Act
.
Also, many children and young people today already live their lives online and via social media - including those now under 16 who would be forced to stop.
That's set it out in
Content that Crosses the Line
, a report on how young New Zealanders operate online, what alarms them and what they think they need protection from.
It's the work of The Classification Office, an agency set up long before the internet ever existed.
The survey found social media platforms use is widespread, in spite of minimum age requirements.
Young people interviewed said taking away their devices and banning them from social media would be a significant interference with the way in which they lived their lives.
"(They) engage with social media and other online content for the same reasons as adults: to make and maintain social connections, access entertainment, stay informed, explore their interests, and express themselves. Most young people grow up with consistent access to online content, and the use of social media is generally seen as a normal part of life."
The report also concluded young users know their content feeds are shaped by their own activity. This highlighted "how little control they often feel they have" over what they're shown by the opaque algorithms of the platforms.
"Some participants talked about how harmful or disturbing content can appear unexpectedly while scrolling through social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram or Snapchat --- even when they hadn't searched for it."
There's plenty more in that report - but it was ignored by media when was released last week.
That's in stark contrast to the announcement of a Members Bill that may never even be debated in Parliament, let alone passed into law.
If so, it'll be another failed effort in the lives of an entire generation that has grown up online without any serious steps to moderate the internet.
Back in 2011, justice minister Simon Power ordered a review into what he called the ''wild west'' online world. The Law Commission recommended major reform of New Zealand's regulators and watchdog agencies.
A decade and a half later, New Zealand still has the same pre-Internet era organisations regulating media.
None of them really marshall the internet for the good of New Zealanders, whether they're over 16 or not.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
10 hours ago
- RNZ News
The value of Youth MPs put under a question mark
Photo: VNP/Louis Collins A former politician says change is needed to the Youth Parliament system if it's to stay relevant. MP-turned political commentator Peter Dunne says the scheme isn't just "a rag-tag collection of young people coming together for a couple of days to play at being MPs", but if the event is going to be taken seriously, more consistency is required around its processes. That's not the case at the moment, in everything from how the teens are selected to the quality of the mentorship they're getting. The tri-annual event usually passes under the media radar, but this year's event was overshadowed by what a handful of Youth MPs said was censorship of their speeches . Dunne says he could understand the intention behind the message from the Ministry of Youth Development, which asked some students to remove parts of their speeches where they lacked political neutrality, but the issue could have been handled better. In the end, none of the students were stopped from making their speeches, even if they didn't make the changes. Youth Parliament has been held every three years for the past three decades and is described by the government as, "a unique opportunity for young New Zealanders to learn first-hand about our democracy, influence government decision-making, and have their voices heard". In many ways it's like the real thing, with MPs selecting teens to represent them for a couple of days in Parliament where they debate, give speeches and discuss fictional legislation. Dunne says often the young adults outshine the older MPs. "The contrast has usually been between the impeccable behaviour of the youth MPs and the somewhat unruly behaviour of their adult counterparts," he says. The first Youth Parliament was held in 1995 and initially was just a couple of days. Now the programme has expanded, running from April to August and Dunne questions how much teens take out of those extra two months and 29 days. "And more importantly, what weight is attached to that? They've got no formal status in the community, so what role can they play?" he asks. Dunne says much of what the young aspiring politicians learn and do is dependent on the MP they are mentored by. "In some cases they won't do very much, in some cases the MP will work actively with them and assign them a particular project," Dunne says. There also aren't any rules around how MPs select their mentee. Some get applicants to write essays, this year David Seymour held an election, and Dunne says a couple just shoulder tap the kids of a mate. "The time is right to have a proper review into its function and purpose, including the role of the Youth MPs, how they're selected and what are reasonable expectations of them. "Because I think that with a much clearer focus the youth parliament can play a much greater role than it has done to date," Dunne says. Oscar Duffy, representing List MP Melissa Lee became interested in politics last year when his nan was in hospital. "She's a Māori lady and she didn't have the best experience ... so that was a pretty key driver in me being interested in what's going on. "Obviously there's so much tension between Māori and the Crown ... and that affects my family really directly," he says. Duffy agrees that the degree of mentorship varies. He spent substantial time working on projects in his community and in Lee's Mount Albert office but says others didn't have the same experience. "[Ministers] have no time right? Ministers are so busy, I roomed with Simeon Brown's Youth MP and he didn't really see Simeon a lot, if at all," he says. Duffy sees youth parliament as an opportunity for those interested in politics to get an insight into the system. He says everyone attending this year had a keen interest in advocacy and change-making, but he admits that at times some see their role as more important than it is. "There's just a lot of politically charged people in one room. "Putting them all in the same room is great and it gets everyone talking to each other and firing off really good initiatives ... but yeah I guess some of them do think they are a bit more important than they are which is a shame because they probably should be more important and have more of a say," he says. But if he could change one thing Duffy would raise the age bracket because he thinks 16 is too young. "Even just move it up one year, 17-19, so there's more first year uni students who have been through high school, who have seen the whole system," he says. Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here . You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter .
RNZ News
17 hours ago
- RNZ News
New Zealand not part of 'trifecta' with Cook Islands and China, Winston Peters says
New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters, left, and Cook Islands Prime MinisterMark Brown. Photo: RNZ/Pacific Islands Forum/123RF Winston Peters says the Cook Islands has described its relationship with New Zealand as "part of a trifecta" when dealing with China. The comment from the New Zealand foreign minister comes at a time of increased tension between Cook Islands and New Zealand. At the heart of that tension is four agreements Cook Islands signed with China in February. Peters told Pacific Waves "there are things going wrong". He also rejected Cook Islands' Prime Minister Mark Brown's position that the two nations had a reciprocal relationship , therefore neither had to consult one another on foreign trade arrangements. "They were required under our arrangement and agreement to consult with us when these matters might affect more widely themselves but also other countries and our relationship," Peters said. "To describe us as part of a trifecta when we've got the special relationship for 60 years is utterly wrong." A spokesman for Peters clarified Peters was referring to the way New Zealand had effectively been described as a third-party by the Cook Islands in its agreements with China. Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand. Under that arrangement, implemented in 1965, the country governed its own affairs, but New Zealand provided assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief and defence. Despite that, the current diplomatic rift has resulted in a pause in funding of $18.2 million by the New Zealand government. That occurred last month. And while there have been ongoing discussions between the two nations, this week Prime Minister Mark Brown told a Cook Islands audience that if New Zealand could not afford to fund the country's national infrastructure investment plan - funding the development needs of the Cook Islands was a major motivator in signing the agreements with China. Peters' responded by challenging Brown to call a referendum - a position he doubled-down on when he spoke to Pacific Waves . "They can let us know whether they want the relationship or whether they want independence," he said. "Because if you behave like you want independence, then above all, that, should be up to the Cook Islands people to decide, not just a temporarily-empowered politician or government." The whole population of the Cook Islands should have a say, he said. "Politicians come and go, governments come and go, ministers come and go. But our purpose is to ensure the long-term, enduring relationship between the New Zealand people and the Cook Islands people." Peters also touched on previous disagreements with the Cook Islands over its sovereignty and foreign policy arrangements. "There were times in the past when this issue arose and we had agreements and pacts, declarations or statements … to give us the parameters of our future relationship, as we last did in [2001] under Helen Clark and [Terepai] Moate, who was then the prime minister of the Cook Islands. "And here we are, 24 years … on and that has been called into question. So we are saying… if it's going to change, then we are accountable to the Cook Islands people. Next month, the Cook Islands celebrates its 60th constitution anniversary. Governor-General Dame Cindy Kiro was due to attend as the New Zealand government's representative. Peters and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon have said they would not attend - a move that has been labelled a snub amidst the break-down in bilateral relations. Peters said Kiro was the appropriate representative from New Zealand. "We're sending the highest person constitutionally in our country to go… this is very fitting."
RNZ News
20 hours ago
- RNZ News
'A ray of sunshine': NZ litigants spurred on by international climate ruling
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone A landmark ruling by the United Nations' highest court puts further pressure on the New Zealand government over a large hole in its climate plans, a group of climate lawyers say. Another litigant taking on big polluters calls it a "a ray of sunshine" - while the climate minister will only say it's "long and complicated". The International Court of Justice (ICJ) found overnight that countries can be responsible for paying reparations for damage caused by their greenhouse gases. It also said governments are legally obliged to set climate targets that are consistent with keeping temperatures within 1.5C (not 2C) and that they must "pursue measures capable of achieving" those goals. The decision said states could be in breach of international law for failing to address fossil fuel consumption, granting fossil fuel exploration licenses, and providing fossil fuel subsidies, something the New Zealand government is doing with its $200 million fund for drilling . New Zealand is currently on track to be over 80 million tonnes of emissions short of meeting its 2030 climate target, because the coalition government has broken with plans by previous governments to meet the target largely by buying carbon credits from overseas. The coalition has been told there is no feasible way to meet the target purely inside this country, without some kind of offshore deal. While Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has acknowledged that this is true, he has so far ducked making any public commitment to closing any of the necessary deals beyond "exploring options". At times, ministers have explicitly said the government wouldn't spend money offshore to meet the target, despite officials warning them that their inability to explain how New Zealand would close the gap would lead to overseas scrutiny. Jessica Palairet, executive director of Lawyers for Climate Action, said the international ruling confirmed that paying lip service to international climate targets wasn't enough. Under the Paris Agreement, countries' targets are known as NDCs, or Nationally Determined Contributions. The first ones run from 2021-2030, and the second set from 2031-2035. "The judgment confirms that New Zealand can't just say it hopes it will meet the NDC and that it's committed to our targets, it has to take real and demonstrable steps towards meeting it, it has to demonstrate that intent to meet it. The judgment clarifies that, and I think in the face of an 89 million tonne hole, there are real questions about whether or not we're doing that," she said. "When we made the NDC commitment in the first place, we had a plan for how we were going to meet the gap, but the government is changing course and the ICJ starkly brings into focus whether that is lawful." Palairet said the ruling also sharpened questions over whether New Zealand's second Paris Agreement target , out to 2035 was aligned with curtailing heating within 1.5C. Watts has defended the new target of 51-55 percent reductions by 2035, saying the cuts were difficult to achieve and met the definition of ambition, but several experts - and independent advice - disagreed. "There have been real questions raised about whether our second NDC is 1.5 degrees aligned," Palairet said. "Put it this way, Simon Watts specially asked officials for the second NDC to align with domestic emissions budgets, to avoid having to pay offshore mitigation." "The problem is that our domestic emissions budgets are set according to a test that's different to the where that leaves us is we have an NDC that likely isn't 1.5 degrees-aligned likely doesn't reflect highest possible ambition and likely doesn't reflect our fair share," she said. "The ICJ opinion really draws into sharp focus whether that is lawful." Palairet said court's opinion that 1.5C was a binding target could also have implications for the government's plans to lower the country's methane target. The coalition has been considering lowering the goal for methane reductions from between a 24 and 47 per cent by 2050 to between 14 and 24 percent. "The ICJ opinion has crystalised 1.5C as the target states have to work towards," Palairet said. "The government is considering reducing our methane target to 14 percent," she said. "The problem is that government's own independent expert advisory panel said that a 14 percent target was consistent with 2C, so I think there's a real question if New Zealand reduces its methane target to 14 percent, whether that's consistent with international law." Palairet said the government's gas and oil exploration subsidies and backtracking on the ban on new offshore exploration might also be incompatible the court's statements. "The ICJ had really strong statements on those kind of subsidies and decisions being in breach of international legal obligations." "It's advisory only, it's non-binding but it is really authoritative and it holds significant legal and moral authority and it's very likely going to be used in court cases all around the world, including New Zealand court cases." That might include Lawyers' for Climate Action's existing judicial review against Watts, which argues there are glaring holes in the country's emissions reduction plans. The world's top greenhouse gas emitters denied they had any obligations beyond the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) and the 2015 Paris agreement. The court rejected that argument, saying a range of other treaties applied, including the UN convention on the law of the sea, the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer, the Montreal protocol, the convention on biological diversity and the UN convention to combat desertification. It also said states were obliged to cooperate to solve climate change. Asked to comment on the ruling, Watts sent a written statement noting the advisory opinion had been issued. "Climate change is an important issue in our region, and we know our Pacific Island neighbours are following this development closely," it said. "This is a long, complicated opinion, and New Zealand will study it carefully before commenting on the substance." Iwi climate leader Mike Smith said environmental lawyers were already discussing how to use the landmark ruling in New Zealand. Smith won the right in the Supreme Court last year to sue seven companies - including Z Energy, Genesis Energy, NZ Steel and Fonterra - for their role in causing climate change. He said the findings by the international court overnight offered hope in a time of worsening climate damage. "In all of that darkness this is a ray of sunshine, this is a beacon, it gives us hope that we can leverage these decisions and effect change," he said. "It strengthens [my case] in the sense that the decision confirmed that states are legally obligated to prevent climate harm and they must not support or subsidise emissions-intensive activities." "I've been talking to the lawyers from ELI, the Environmental Law Initiative, and they are all putting their minds to what falls out the bottom of this opinion and what opportunities are there now to bring further proceedings against the government."
