Members of Parliament from all sides of the political spectrum continue to paint a rather confusing picture when it comes to protecting young people. On one hand, they are keen to develop new protections for our youth, and yet on the other, many MPs continue to support harmful or contradictory ideas that directly harm young people.
Family First has been calling for more protections for young people around social media for many years, including having Dr Jonathan Haidt address last year’s Forum on the Family.
In recent months, there has been widespread political support for some form of legislation to address internet and social media use by 16-year-olds and younger. The exact way this might work is unclear, but work is underway by ministers. The prime minister is also keen to be seen with various celebrities and society figures who are calling for this change.
This is a positive step, and yet when we look wider, we also see a government (and parliamentarians) unwilling to acknowledge the harm of so-called ‘gender affirming care’. Despite building evidence of the harm of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and mutilating surgeries, the minister responsible (Matt Doocey) is silent. On one hand, supporting social media bans for under 16-year-olds, but supporting their abuse via ‘gender affirming care’ on the other.
We can also query why change relating to under 16s and social media is taking so long when the government has moved swiftly around requiring online casinos to have age verification (to ensure someone is 18 years or older). It is hard to make sense of why age verification is apparently a challenge for one group but not for another.
It gets worse when we consider the likes of abortion. There are no age restrictions in New Zealand, with the only requirement being that a person has enough knowledge to consent. So young people (including those we would call children) can easily and readily access abortion. So again, on one hand, children and youth can end a baby’s life, but according to MPs, they shouldn’t be allowed to access social media.
Finally, and more specific to certain political parties, are calls for 16-year-olds to be allowed to vote while the same MPs simultaneously argue that they are not old enough to access some websites and apps.
As we say, it’s a very confusing picture!
This article was originally published by Family First New Zealand.
