I often end up doing the after-rugby run, shuttling three or four boys home every Tuesday and Thursday. When they get in the car, I want them to talk to me, I want to hear the sounds of life. Silence is often a sign of endless scrolling, and it’s driving me to distraction. It also makes me feel uneasy.
This particular Tuesday drive home struck me as a perfect opportunity to get a straight answer out of them about their daily phone usage. After all, it’s a simple matter of checking their devices. The boy who went first almost stopped the conversation. I won’t name him, to spare any embarrassment, but as he hesitantly passed his phone to my lad in the front seat, a sheepish grin on his face, I thought something might be up.
My son glanced at the screen and went quiet. Then his jaw dropped. He announced that his friend’s total screen time over the last seven days had been 112 hours – 16 hours a day, on average, mostly spent gaming, and on social media sites like Instagram and Roblox. There are 168 hours in the week, 30 of them at school, where phones are supposedly off limits. Is he really only sleeping a total of 26 hours a week? It hardly seems possible.
Just when I thought that was the worst bit, a closer look at his usage revealed that last Sunday, he spent an unbelievable 22 hours on his phone. This grim statistic appears to confirm that he’s surviving without sleep, with every other minute dominated by his phone. This is not just excessive, it’s ludicrous, an addiction that demands the strongest possible response. While some might dismiss this as a parenting issue, it’s far more complex. Try confiscating a teenager’s phone when all their mates have them and it’s their main form of connecting.
I doubt this young man is alone when it comes to the time spent on his phone, and I suspect many parents are unaware of the extent of this problem. Should they be more aware? Absolutely, but many have likely become resigned to it or are simply preoccupied with work, maybe doing evening and night shifts, and genuinely don’t know.
If this boy were spending 22 hours eating, it would be considered a problem requiring intervention. The same would be true if he were at the gym, sleeping, gambling, drinking or watching pornography for that length of time. We would recognise these as unhealthy extremes and act. Even if he were simply isolated in his room for 22 hours, we’d urge him to go outside and engage with the world.
Yet, because his focus is on a phone, the unseen content occupying his mind often goes unaddressed. I know instinctively that it can’t be beneficial. Even the boy himself showed a flicker of embarrassment when I abruptly stopped the car, expressing my disbelief.
It’s become a significant problem screaming for a solution, to the extent that a decisive measure, like a ban on social media for those under 16, appears to be the most effective approach. The implementation and workings of any ban don’t concern me as much as the urgency of action. If the initial attempts aren’t flawless, so be it, we can refine them. If teenagers find ways around the ban, we can keep trying.
It’s telling that Christopher Luxon and the National Party have done a massive pivot on the issue. Initially, it was a passive observer of Australia’s move to implement a ban by December, then it was a Private Member’s Bill, put forward by Tukituki MP Catherine Wedd.
Now, the government is working on restrictions to social media for New Zealanders under the age of 16 as part of its official programme. It’s spearheaded by one of Luxon’s most impressive if not overworked senior ministers, Erica Stanford. Luxon says he’d like to see a ban in place by the end of this parliamentary term.
What prompted this sudden shift? The answer is likely B416, the pressure group launched this month to lobby for a ban, and growing awareness of the harm social media is doing to young people. To those behind B416, I salute you for giving a stuff. Well done and good work in waking our politicians up from their slumber.
Luxon, perhaps belatedly, recognised the momentum and now appears a staunch advocate for this cause. Finally, he stands for something – even if he did need to be sat down and told why he was about to hold such a strong view. But well done, Christopher Luxon for realising you had to move. Now you have to make it happen. One million Kiwi parents are watching to see what you come up with. No pressure.
Act leader David Seymour says his party won’t support a blanket ban. He’s right when he says parents must critically examine their own phone habits and set a better example, and he’s likely to make some points worth reflecting on during any debate. But I hope he changes his mind and supports the legislation.
I agree that a law change alone won’t solve everything, but it’s a crucial step. Any law here can largely follow the lead set by Australia, which is considerably more advanced in this area. The least we can do is adopt the best aspects of their legislation, research, trials and technology to suit our own context. Ultimately, we all stand to gain. And if social media platforms experience a temporary dip in user engagement, so be it.
So, the only “c-word” I want to focus on is “change.” Something has to change, because we are losing our kids down these big black holes. We’ve allowed this situation to develop under our watch, and now it’s our responsibility to pull them out.
