Matua Kahurangi
Just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes.
The ACT Party’s opposition to the government’s proposed social media ban for under-16s is a welcome stance at a time when heavy-handed policy risks doing more harm than good. While there is no denying the concern many parents and educators feel about the effects of social media on young people, it ultimately should be up to parents if they allow their children to use social media or not – not the government.
ACT Leader David Seymour summed it up clearly in a statement today, saying:
“ACT shares the concern of many parents, teachers and experts: social media is doing enormous harm to young people. We also know what HL Menken meant in saying: For every problem there is a solution that is simple, neat – and wrong.”
This proposed ban is exactly that. While well-intentioned, it is not a practical solution. Seymour pointed out several critical flaws in the bill, including its broad and vague definition of social media, which could capture large swathes of the internet, not just platforms like Instagram or TikTok. According to Seymour, the bill defines social media as anything that “allow[s] end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end users”, a scope so wide it could include almost any website with interactive features.
The ACT Party is instead calling for an open and transparent inquiry through the Education and Workforce Committee to examine the issue properly and gather input from a broad range of voices. This approach respects both the complexity of the problem and the importance of parental responsibility.
Another major concern raised by ACT is the privacy implications of enforcing such a ban. Requiring all users to submit government-issued ID to social media platforms would create significant data security risks and raise questions about surveillance and control in a free society.
Seymour also noted that although similar legislation has been passed in Australia, it has not yet come into force and no one knows how it will be implemented. New Zealand would be wise to observe how things play out across the Tasman before rushing to replicate the same mistakes.
With ACT standing firmly against this flawed bill, all eyes will now be on New Zealand First and its leader, Winston Peters. It will be particularly interesting to see whether Peters, known for his populist instincts and defence of individual freedoms, chooses to join ACT in opposing the bill.
In a political landscape often dominated by knee-jerk solutions and headline-chasing policy, ACT’s response is a welcome call for clarity, practicality and genuine consultation.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack.
