Education Minister Erica Stanford plans to update on a social media ban for under-16s next month. Photo / Mark Mitchell
By Russell Palmer of RNZ
Education Minister Erica Stanford promises an update on the Government’s plans for a social media ban for under-16s next month.
Coalition partner Act says the situation remains a “mess that needs to be tidied up”, meaning the future of the project remains in some doubt.
Stanford told RNZ papers for her wider programme of work on countering the harms of social media were going through Cabinet and the Government would have more to say “next month”.
“The Government is steadily progressing with work on social media and online harm policy and, due to this, Catherine Wedd’s member’s bill is being deprioritised in place of wider work,” she said.
“Parents and New Zealanders are acutely aware of the potential harms of social media. We share these concerns and will have more to say on the work that is progressing in due course.”
She said she was still “aiming to introduce legislation this year”.
That ambition falls short of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s previous commitment to introduce something before the election.
“Certainly before the term, yes, we’ll have our first go at making sure we can put the ban for under-16s in place and then I suspect it will be one of those issues that require ongoing work as well,” Luxon told RNZ in November.
RNZ approached the PM’s office for comment clarifying whether his commitment still held true, and whether it was merely a commitment to introduce legislation or to have the ban “in place” before the election.
“The Prime Minister was referring to the introduction of legislation,” a spokesperson said. “It is still the government’s aim to do that before the election – that has not changed.”
ACT’s opposition to a ban had prevented National from passing it as a government bill, resulting in Wedd’s member’s bill.
If Stanford’s work will make Wedd’s bill redundant – as seems likely from the public comments so far – she and National will still need to work out how to get her government bill through Cabinet, potentially without the Act Party.
The National MP whose member’s bill was designed to progress that work – Catherine Wedd – also sent a statement to RNZ.
“My bill has been put on hold, while the minister is progressing a government bill and a broader piece of work,” she said. “This bill is aiming to be introduced this year,” she said.
“I’m very happy the minister is progressing this work to ban social media for under-16s. Please contact the minister’s office for further comment.
“Thanks for your interest in this issue.”
She did not respond to questions about whether she would lodge a new bill, given her current one would be superseded by Stanford’s work.
Stanford’s office also would not say whether Wedd’s member’s bill – which remained on Parliament’s order paper this week – would be withdrawn or when.
Labour had offered tentative support for Wedd’s bill. Spokesperson Reuben Davidson had lodged his own member’s bill, pushing for greater regulation of social media in New Zealand, more transparency and “safety by design”.
He told RNZ Labour had not been approached by anyone from National about the matter and, with Wedd’s member’s bill on hold, the plan for legislation was unclear.
“It seems really confused at the moment, as to what they’re doing and why,” he said. “They had a plan, apparently it’s changed, but it’s a confusing process.
“Age restriction is part of the solution – there are lots of other tools and levers that we can put into legislation.”
Act Party spokesperson Parmjeet Parmar told RNZ the work at the select committee “was not done properly” and the party would not “jump to conclusions without doing that work properly”.
“It is clear that Erica Stanford had not thought through this properly before, so it’s good that it is put on hold for more work to be done on this and it is actually their own backbencher’s mess that needs to be tidied up, because we had this real opportunity to do this work on select committee and it didn’t happen.”
Parmar said Act’s objections to the ban included that it could erode privacy and freedoms.
“The goal of the ban is to protect people from the harm they experience online, right? If people are still going to stay online, that means we will not be protecting them.
“Actually, we will be pushing them into darker corners of internet, where [there] are fewer safeguards, and they will also not be sharing their experience if they encounter anything that’s harmful.
“In reports from Australia and the UK, we have seen young girls using makeup to bypass restrictions. In the UK, we have seen reports of young boys drawing moustache to bypass restrictions and staying online.”
Stanford’s wider programme of work has been going on some time. In December, just two months after Wedd’s bill was introduced, the minister said it would provide “real teeth” to back up a simple ban, which children could easily evade.
She was considering options like a new regulator or child protection legislation in line with some other countries.
Those comments responded to an interim report from the select committee inquiry. The final report was delivered last week, prompting a lengthy debate in Parliament – with 18 speeches from various parties providing their views.
Green MP Tamatha Paul had attended a separate hearing at the Waitangi Tribunal to bring attention to the online abuse faced by young people and women in politics.
She told Midday Report it was not as simple as having an age limit like there is for purchasing alcohol, “because you have to go into a shop and they are regulated, and there are rules”.
“You do need to provide things like IDs and go in there to access it, whereas with a phone and with the internet, that’s an unregulated beast. Whether it’s social media, even whether it’s things like Roblox or Minecraft that young people are on, those are unregulated beasts.”
She said minority groups like rainbow or disability communities also used social media to connect to each other, and an outright ban would not recognise those positive aspects.
“There has to be something done, but I think an outright ban wouldn’t have been effective, especially talking to under-16-year-olds. It’s about holding those platforms to account and expecting them to have stricter rules, if they want to operate.”
Paul said that could involve having a conversation with social media platforms and laying out the conditions they would be expected to operate under, including facing regulation – and not just for young people.
“Online spaces are not safe,” she said. “There might be some opponents out there that say, ‘Oh, you know, just toughen up and don’t go online’.
“Well, that’s not fair that entire cohorts of young people or women can’t engage in one of the primary ways that humans connect these days, because it’s not safe for them.”
Stanford’s work appears to agree, aiming to bring about a more systemic change that a ban alone could not achieve. Paul did not respond to questions about whether the Greens could support a bill with all their desired regulation, if it still included a ban.
Labour’s Reuben Davidson reaffirmed his party’s support for Wedd’s bill, but noted it would not be a silver bullet.
“On its own, we could support it, but we wouldn’t expect it to solve all of the issues, and that’s why we’ve talked about the need for an independent regulator for transparency and for safety by design.”
Parmar refused to say whether the party backed any additional regulation for social media companies, saying any “new policies come from our leader”.
“Act Party stands for fewer regulations, but we also know that regulation should be proportionate,” she said. “We will see what is being proposed.
“We are not able to make any comment, but again, we will be taking into consideration people’s privacy freedom and, of course, balancing that with young people’s safety online.”
Parmar – who is not in Cabinet – said she had no insights from National on what Stanford would propose.
- RNZ