We Can't Just Turn Off The Internet For Those Under 16
The bill's definition of social media is incredibly broad and includes any platform where the primary purpose is to 'enable social interactions between 2 or more end-users'. This would include the obvious contenders such as Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter/X, YouTube, and Instagram, but also describes a large range of other sites such as Reddit, Discord, hobbyist forums, support groups, and arguably even email.
'The New Zealand Bill of Rights guarantees us the right to freedom of expression, the ability to seek, send and receive information, and this applies to people under the age of 16 too. They have the right to communicate with each other, their friends, and their family, and the modern reality is that they use social media to do so.' says Thomas Beagle.
'But they're doing more than that: we've seen youth-led political movements such as JustSpeak, School Strike 4 Climate and the Make It 16 campaigns all use social media to organise political campaigns. This bill is a gross imposition on their rights and a terrible discouragement to just the sort of politically active people our country needs.'
The bill puts the responsibility on the platforms to determine the age of their users, and we are concerned that this might lead to New Zealanders being forced to provide identity documents and other evidence to both local and foreign platform providers, who already know far too much about us and are happy to sell that information to others. However, the bill is very light on detail with the tricky specifics to be developed in regulation (making the whole regulatory process susceptible to lobbying and corruption).
The New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties opposes this bill as unreasonable in principle and unworkable in practice and believes it should not be progressed if selected for introduction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
6 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Pretending the internet doesn't exist won't protect our young people from harm
As parliament's inquiry into the online harm encountered by young New Zealanders gets under way, there are concerns it will follow the same rushed process that resulted in Australia's social media ban for under-16s. New technologies that upend long-established ways of communicating often spark concern over how to ensure young people use these tools safely. We all want young people to be safe, and to grow up to be responsible citizens, but too often these concerns manifest in the form of punitive measures that seek to control young people, rather than teaching them the critical thinking and emotional skills they need to use new forms of media safely. From outlandish concerns that the Harry Potter books were bringing children into contact with drugs and the occult, to the (debunked) argument that video games make children violent, concerned adults, despite their best intentions, have historically been quick to blame new media and new trends for problems that almost always stem from an intersection of complicated social and economic factors. The most recent source of unease for parents and policy makers has been social media – a term vague enough so to allow policymakers to lump niche messaging applications like Telegram together with large gaming platforms like Steam, and other video platforms like YouTube and TikTok to create an all-encompassing monolith that poses a risk to young people. Driven by (thoroughly debunkable) claims that social media use is the direct cause for a generation of anxious youth, legislators across the globe have called for inquiries into the use of social media among society's 'most vulnerable' demographic. Aotearoa has recently followed this trend with the government's Education and Workforce Committee recently announcing an inquiry into the harm young New Zealanders (might) encounter online and how government, businesses and society should work to counteract these harms. The terms of reference for the inquiry solicited responses from people addressing 'the nature, severity, and prevalence of online harm experienced by young people in New Zealand, including but not limited to online bullying, exploitation, addictive use, mental health impacts, educational impacts, and exposure to harmful content', with a particular eye to develop practical, cost-effective solutions to counteract online harm. Written submissions closed on July 30, with the committee hearing invitation-only oral submissions this month. It plans to report its findings to parliament by the end of November. The concern with an inquiry of this nature is that it risks following the same rushed process to ban people under 16 from social media that the Australian government is set to implement at the end of 2025. The Australian approach was not only rushed, but was undertaken without seriously consulting the demographic that the bill claims to protect. Instead of teaching young people the skillset needed to be responsible, critically informed and safe digital citizens, the proposition to ban everyone under 16 from the vaguely defined monolith 'social media' instead takes the convenient route of simply pretending the internet does not exist. Out of sight, out of mind. But that approach is increasingly at odds with the reality of growing up in the 21st century for a range of reasons. Young people are taught using digital technologies, many of the skills they learn online will help them later in life to navigate increasingly digital economies and workplaces, culturally and linguistically diverse youths use social media to access and enhance their English, many of the civil services that they will need to grow up and navigate are offered online, and at a general level, the internet serves as a vital infrastructure for remote and disadvantaged youths to find solace with others in similar circumstances. Of course we all want to protect young people from harm – whether online, or in real life – but framing social media bans as a step taken to 'protect' young people from digital media actively works against the more realistic approach of working to protect them within the digital environment. This isn't just opinion, it's backed up by evidence. In the response that a group of colleagues and I submitted to the Education and Workforce Committee, we argued that Aotearoa would do well to take an evidence-based and potentially world-leading approach to the education of young people that will equip them with the tools they need to be responsible, sensible and ultimately safer within the context of the digital environment. In the response, we walked through some of the common charges brought against social media. Chief among these charges is the argument that social media is to blame for a generation of mentally ill youth. This is a claim that is easy – and often politically convenient – to agree with. But taking a closer look at the surrounding social and economic factors involved in youth mental health, the claim that social media is the root cause of mental illness in youth doesn't quite add up, especially in the New Zealand context. Instead, there are many competing issues at play in Aotearoa: a broken mental health system, the inability or unwillingness of politicians and large corporations to act to prevent the climate crisis, and a general feeling of malaise that is solidified through the erosion of democratic processes and expansion of the surveillance state. In some ways, social media actually provides young people with the infrastructure needed to begin countering these issues: there is evidence that engaging with political issues on social media translates into real-life civic engagements like showing up to protests, volunteering and contacting elected officials. But systematic issues remain firmly entrenched. For instance, in the case of Aotearoa's strained mental health system, a survey of 540 psychiatrists across Aotearoa revealed that 94% of respondents found that the mental health system was unfit for purpose, and that increased funding was needed to better understand the socio-economic drivers of mental health issues. This is not a unique finding: other studies have revealed similar dissatisfaction among practitioners and patients in the mental health systems in Aotearoa. Globally, young people face a set of crises. Climate change, declining socio-economic equality, an increasingly polarised political landscape premised on hate and homogeneity and the fact that it is increasingly unaffordable to be able to live are much more likely to be drivers of mental health issues among young people. A policy designed to keep young people off of the internet is not going to help solve any of them. Climate change, socio-economic inequality and the mental health crisis will not be solved by pretending the internet doesn't exist. It will actively harm young people and future generations. Many of the crises that we face today require policy that is not purely content with cost-effective, simple solutions that the Education and Workforce Committee is soliciting. Instead, policy can and should be designed to educate, empower and ultimately let young people have a say in decisions that directly impact them and their future.
NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Christopher Luxon needs to remember he is a politician and no longer a CEO
More to NZ rugby than Mo'unga Firstly, may I state that Richie Mo'unga is an excellent first five and I fully support him going overseas to earn good money to support him and his family in the future. New Zealand rugby has become obsessed with his absence as if the All Blacks' future lies fully in his hands. Mo'unga is a very good first five but will never rank up there with the likes of Dan Carter. Mo'unga enjoyed the benefits of playing behind the great Crusaders pack, which gives a first five the time and space to play expansive football. Let's not forget that the World Cup is still two years away and a lot can happen in that time. So can the All Blacks selectors stop obsessing over the loss of Mo'unga and get on with developing their local talent. Just watch some of the school First XV games and see the talent that is available, just waiting to be discovered. Jock MacVicar, Hauraki. Top marks NZ! Give tax breaks to the better-off. Cut funding for science. Sack civil servants. Remove environmental protections. Remove EV subsidies. Make it harder for disadvantaged people to vote. Deny public health advice. Promote drilling for oil and gas. Deny hand-ups to those needing help to achieve equality. Deny history. 10 out of 10 New Zealand! Bill Irwin, Nelson. Troubling trend for sports The article (August 9) on the termination of the Mountain Green Archery Club's lease of its base on Ōwairaka (Mt Albert) highlights a troubling trend in Auckland. As with speedway and Western Springs, council officials seem disconnected from the community, expecting volunteers to perform miracles while juggling jobs and personal lives. Fostering Olympic-level talent in sports like archery is becoming harder. Motorsport and speedway — once breeding grounds for champions such as Bruce McLaren and Liam Lawson — are being pushed out, possibly accessible only to the wealthy. Even golf and horse racing clubs face pressure to relocate or restructure. Meanwhile, football codes thrive with ample fields and support, producing future Warriors, All Blacks and All Whites. There's nothing wrong with football — but other sports risk drifting further from reach, even for school-aged kids. We're at risk of becoming a football-and-beer nation, losing the diversity that makes our sporting culture rich. The council should start listening and advocate for all sports, the community and the volunteers who keep them alive. John Riddell, Hobsonville. Green shoots? The idea of the Green Party leading the next (or any) Government is political positioning rather than political reality. Chlöe Swarbrick is right that most New Zealanders lament politics. Most New Zealanders also seem to have little enthusiasm for the kind of 'progressive' and 'transformational change' the Greens advocate. The revolution is unlikely to take place in 2026. Brendan Jarvis, Wellington. Make a climate stand George Williams (August 11) rejects the opinion of Emma Mackintosh (August 8) that we should be actively reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and says that a strong economy is more important. He is correct that our total emissions are but a drop in the bucket on a global scale, but does this give us the right to carry on our high per capita fossil fuel use? New Zealand has led the world in the past and we could make a stand now, at an individual and a government level to reduce our emissions. Our grandchildren will be living in a very unpleasant world. I hope they can look back with pride at our actions today. Linda McGrogan, Taupō.
NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Auckland: 5 paths to prosperity for a could-be super city
Auckland unemployment is 6.1% against New Zealand's 5.2%. Economic growth for the year to March was negative: -1.3% compared with –1.1%. Only 44% of businesses are optimistic, according to the Auckland Business Chamber, down from 51% in its previous survey. And in May, Auckland Council's outreach teams counted 809 people in the city who were 'unsheltered homeless': a 90% increase since September. Fix this now, says everyone. But how? Last week the Business Chamber's CEO Simon Bridges suggested that corporates need a tax cut. He has a fine sense of humour, that man, so perhaps he was joking. Corporate Auckland has done extremely well out of the last five years. No one else has. The banks, with their record profits, have the power to drive progress. But they don't. The big 'service' companies, aka the consultancies, have the influence to make a difference, but do they use it well? As for the big energy companies, where is their shame? These companies don't need a tax break, they need a conscience top-up. I did like the way Bridges phrased his suggestion, though. As BusinessDesk reported, he said the Government needs to stir up Auckland's 'animal spirits'. Tap into the superpowers of the Super City. Very cool. And he wasn't talking about mere movement in interest rates. 'I do think,' Bridges said, 'there is an argument for fiscal stimulus that's pretty strong, actually'. Finance Minister Nicola Willis has also taken to using the 's' word. She claims they are already 'stimulating' the economy; the recent re-announcement of $6 billion of infrastructure investments was designed to make the same point. I love it when centre-right politicians talk like they're Keynesians. But what they're proposing is not enough: we need fresh thinking and a much stronger, future-focused plan. Such a thing would include a decent regional deal, which is now in negotiation, to unlock new sources of funding. And a much better working relationship with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei: the iwi has $1.5b in assets and its own 100-year plan, but is not integrated into economic planning for the city in anything like the way Tainui or Ngai Tahu are on their whenua. Why is Auckland dragging its heels on that? What about a programme to learn from kura kaupapa, which produce academic, social and cultural results that many schools in poor parts of the city would love to match? And a stronger climate-resilience strategy, because more floods are coming. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told RNZ on Monday he didn't see how a special package could be applied to Auckland. Really? As well as all the above, here you are, boss, a five-point plan for a prosperous Auckland you can have for free. All it needs is a spot of courage. 1. Fast-tracked transit Prime Minister Christopher Luxon (left) with NZ First leader Winston Peters and Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, about to ride the CRL under central Auckland. Photo / Michael Craig Luxon rode a train through the City Rail Link last week and was reportedly thrilled. Also last week, the managing director of KiwiSaver fund Simplicity, Sam Stubbs, revealed that by his calculation, 30% of all KiwiSaver funds are invested locally. That's $295b available for productive investment over the next 25 years. Luxon called the CRL 'a major, major feat' that would spur $12b of investment in the economic life of the city. It was 'a bit like Star Trek', he added. And Stubbs' news effectively meant there's enough money to build many more rapid-transit lines. Imagine it: faster travel times and less congestion, boosting economic life all over the city. There are many options for new transit routes, including a second North Shore line, city centre to the airport, Botany to the airport, Westgate to Albany, Avondale to Onehunga, not to mention faster progress on the already-planned Northwest Busway and the under-construction Eastern Busway. There are also mode options for all these routes: light rail, rapid bus, even gondolas. I don't have a fixed view on which should be built first or what modes of transport they should be, except to say tunnels are too expensive, too slow to build and use too much concrete. The Labour Government failed to grasp that we need more transit as quickly as possible. What's holding National back? By the way, I mention gondolas because they are easy, fast and relatively cheap to build, the technology is proven, and they might serve very well on second-tier routes. Te Atatu to New Lynn, perhaps, or Browns Bay to Takapuna to Devonport? Set up a route, for only few million, and see if it creates proof of concept. Fresh thinking. 2. A new energy deal Bridges has been blunt about energy too. 'Energy today is a severe handbrake on business and the economy,' he wrote in the Herald. 'Before 2018, long-term energy contracts averaged $70-$80 per MWh. But since 2021 the average has been $150-plus per MWh and over the last year it's averaged a whopping $190 per MWh.' This is a nightmare for businesses and a government that tolerates it is a government that simply isn't taking economic development seriously. Bridges called for the big gentailers to have their generation and retail functions separated. Almost everyone else agrees, except the gentailers themselves. But while that's needed, it's not all we need and it's not the quickest way to a fix. Solar is now the cheapest way to generate power and batteries make it easy to store, and Auckland is perfect for it. Vast swathes of the city are covered in warehouse and factory roofs. Where are the solar panels? What about residential solar? The Government could supercharge the industry, creating jobs, providing cheap energy and shoring up supply. In Melbourne, around a third of electricity comes from solar; in Auckland, it's less than 2%. 3. Kickstart homebuilding Remember this? Houses being built in Auckland. How did a Government committed to growth allow the momentum of this to collapse? Crashing residential construction will go down as one of the biggest blunders of this Government, especially as it was triggered by the destruction of Kāinga Ora's social and affordable housing programme. Communities were undermined, many people's hopes of a new home vanished, and over the last 18 months the country has lost 17,000 construction workers. Most of the pain has been felt in Auckland. Kāinga Ora needed fixing, to be sure, but not by wrecking an entire industry. As the economy shrank in the post-Covid world, the Government should have stimulated, not retrenched. Now there's a lot to do. Incentives for the return of at least some of those workers. Ramped-up education and training, fast-tracked new projects, new life for off-site production, industry reforms to bring down construction costs. Most of all, the reinstatement of projects cancelled or 'put on hold'. Parallel importing of construction products is now allowed. That's great, but what about the rest? 4. Modern freight management Empty containers hanging about in Wiri. Photo / Alex Burton Some of our freight companies are among the most go-ahead outfits in the country, but the Government's grasp of how their industry works is stuck in the 1980s. Auckland should not be using valuable waterfront land as a freight depot, let alone for storing empty containers. And trucks should not be clogging the highways, making those roads less efficient and more dangerous for everyone else. The freight industry itself is onto this, despite a lack of leadership from the Government, the mayor or even Port of Auckland. The future of freight logistics is now located in Hamilton, where the vast Ruakura Inland Port sits alongside the main trunk line and the Waikato Expressway. It's an initiative of Port of Tauranga and Waikato-Tainui. And it won't be long before a rail line to Northport, at Marsden Point in Northland, unlocks the potential of that port. Auckland shouldn't be worried about these things. It's good that freight management in the upper North Island is evolving. But we do need a coordinated plan and Auckland needs to be part of it. We need a far more functional rail network, including a fourth rail line to get goods to inland ports and off the waterfront quickly and efficiently. Instead, most Government ministers are focused myopically on spending billions on more roads. It's a colossal waste of money. We need roads. But we could have a good road to Northland without it being a super-expensive four-lane expressway. And we certainly don't need the proposed East-West Link, a highway to link Penrose to Ōtāhuhu, replacing Neilson St. The Northern Expressway and the EW Link are both are 'roads of national significance' (RONS). But the only 'significance' of the EW Link is that it will manage the freight traffic at Port of Tauranga's MetroPort facility, located along the route. Moving MetroPort away and freeing the isthmus land for housing is a far better option. RONS like those two are to National what tunnelled light rail was to Labour: absurdly expensive, going nowhere slowly, a pointless distraction from the realistic options we have to solve our transport crisis. 5. Big events Metallica is returning to New Zealand in November. But what about all the other events we should have? Events are vital to the life of a city, for the visitors who come to spend money and for the vibe. Never underestimate the vibe. Auckland's current schedule of events includes a Springbok test, SailGP and Metallica, but the programme is light and getting lighter. This can't be turned around in a hurry, what with the long-term planning of sports world cups and the like, and especially as the council has eviscerated its own budget for big events. Which is why this needs urgent attention. None of these five things is wacky or weird. They're little more than what we should be able to expect from any government, even a business-as-usual one. So why aren't they happening?
