National is looking for new
friends to support a
ban on children under 16 using social media.
The
party has put a member’s bill into the ballot which could
see New Zealand follow in Australia’s footsteps.
But
coalition partner ACT says the proposal is hastily drafted,
simplistic and unworkable.
Online law expert Judge
David Harvey said it would breach the Bill of Rights Act, a
claim denied by the bill’s sponsor, National MP Catherine
Wedd.
If it became law it would empower parents, she
said.
Judge Harvey said the breach would occur because
of the right to freedom of expression.
“They [Under
16s] would be basically offline as far as that means of
communication is concerned, remembering of course that the
internet is primarily a system for communication so any
attempt to regulate the internet has implications for
freedom of expression.”
He said some of the social
media harms, such as cyberbullying, concerns over body
image, anxiety and depression, did not apply to all
youngsters.
It was possible that some, perhaps through
“a lack of resilience” or “difficulties to adjusting” in
messaging, “suffer some sort of problem as far as social
media is concerned”.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
But it was an issue that should
be dealt with by their families.
He pointed out the
irony that on the same day the bill was announced, the
Censor’s office released a report on harmful digital
content.
The Censor had pointed out that young people
were finding it difficult to share their concerns about
online content with someone else.
“And what the Censor
suggests is there should be an opportunity for educating
parents ….so that kids can feel comfortable going to their
parents to say ‘look I’ve got a problem’.”
The state
shouldn’t be taking over the role of parents, he
said.
“Do you want the government to solve every
problem?”
Nor did the retired judge agree that the
internet platforms were using algorithms to make their
content addictive.
He said people needed to be careful
using that word, he preferred to call it
“habit-forming”.
Young people were communicating with
their constant use of their phones, and it was part of a
dramatic change brought about by digital
technology.
“That’s the way they live their
lives.”
‘It’s empowering parents’
MP Catherine
Wedd who is behind the bill said it didn’t breach the Bill
of Rights, as claimed by Judge Harvey.
As a mother of
four, she was “living and breathing the negative impacts of
social media in our communities every day”.
Parents
were “grappling and struggling” to combat its negative
aspects and the government needed to do more to support
them.
Parents and principals were regularly
complaining about its harm, which included cyber bullying,
inappropriate content being shared, exploitation and its
impact on mental health.
“We have restrictions in the
physical world to protect our kids, we should have them in
the online world as well.”
Asked if it restricted the
freedom of expression of those under 16, she said the main
responsibility was to protect them from harm.
As for
encroaching on parental responsibility, “responsible parents
can’t necessarily control what is being served up to their
kids by the social media companies, what’s being shared
online by others …”, Wedd said.
“We’re taking a
responsibility …. It’s giving more control to parents,
it’s empowering parents, it’s creating a level playing field
for parents.”
Regarding controls on gaming sites, Wedd
said her bill mirrored what was being proposed in Australia,
so it would target platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X
(formerly Twitter), TikTok and Snapchat.
“These are
the traditional platforms where we are seeing kids and we
are seeing a lot of the online harm caused by these
platforms.”
The need for restrictions to gaming sites
access would need to be explored.
Asked about not
getting support from ACT, she said it was a complex issue
that she had been working on for over a year and she had the
support of the National caucus, including the prime
minister.