RNZ Reid Research poll: Majority of Kiwis support social media ban for kids
Photo:
RNZ
Political parties can not agree on a social media ban, but more than half of New Zealanders support it for children under 16, according to the latest RNZ Reid Research poll.
It comes as the government looks into options to restrict social media for young people, after a National Party members bill was dismissed by the ACT party as unworkable.
National MP Catherine Wedd, with the backing of leader Christopher Luxon,
put forward a members' bill last month
which would follow Australia's lead on cracking down on the social media giants.
The proposed law would require age verification measures on social media platforms.
The ACT party
dismissed the proposal
, calling it hastily-drafted, simplistic and unworkable, meaning Luxon was prevented from pushing ahead with the policy as a government bill.
ACT MP Parmjeet Parmar instead proposed a select committee inquiry which would look at the harms of social media for young people.
Minister of Education Erica Stanford has been tasked with exploring options for legislation and implementation of possible restrictions and bringing those to Cabinet for consideration.
In the latest RNZ Reid Research poll, 1008 respondents were asked:
"Do you support banning under 16s from using social media?"
Overall, 57.8 percent of those polled said yes, while 31.6 percent said no. 10.6 percent said they did not know.
Taking a closer look according to party support, a significant majority of National voters agree with a ban - 75.1 percent, with only 18.8 percent of its voters saying no.
Despite the party being opposed to a simple ban, 55.5 percent of ACT voters do support a ban, while 35.9 percent of its voters do not.
The poll found 69.6 percent of NZ First voters supported a ban, while 23.4 percent of its voters do not.
Less than half of those who vote for Labour and the Greens support a ban, with 46.7 percent of Labour voters saying yes and 37.1 percent of its voters saying no.
Green voters are split with 43.7 percent saying yes, and 43.1 percent saying no.
Te Pāti Māori voters also had mixed feelings, with 42.2 percent saying yes and 49.8 percent saying no.
Luxon said parents, teachers and kids were calling for a ban on social media for under-16s, and he was confident National had the public's support on the issue.
"Yeah, absolutely, I think the feedback we've had from parents, and from you know, teachers, and even from kids themselves has actually been really positive. So I think it's important we do act, as I've said before, and we've got Erica Stanford leading that work for us."
ACT deputy leader Brooke van Velden argued any such ban should be enduring, and backed ACT's select committee investigation.
"We actually need a lot of in-depth analysis as to what are all of the things that could happen before we even go to a full ban for under-16s, or even if it's feasible - but there needs to be a lot of in-depth analysis cross party, because we'd like something that's actually long-standing."
Winston Peters said the idea needed serious study, with parents looking to lawmakers for help.
"We don't think we have all the answers but it's worth a serious study because every objection you raise with it is fine until you've got parents who say 'look, we need help, we want the lawmakers to help us', and we think it's worth a serious investigation as to whether we can do that.
"Whilst all the free marketeers and libertarians are making one argument out, [parents] still have the problem of trying to be a responsible parent where the utilities have been taken out of our hands and that's where we've got to step in."
On the other side of the aisle, Labour leader Chris Hipkins was still curious to see how a ban would be implemented.
More of Labour's supporters polled backed the idea than opposed it.
"That's proven to be a challenge in Australia as well where they've been trying to do this and they still haven't managed to implement what they're proposing to do there, but we think there is a legitimate debate to be had about how to keep kids safe online."
He said a lot of parents were concerned about what their kids were being exposed to online.
For the Greens, co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said a ban would be a blunt instrument and while there was real concern from parents, the focus needed to be on regulating the platforms.
"We're kind of missing the point if we're only focusing on users themselves. Of course there is disproportionate impacts that young people do face but again this is why we want to have this issue considered in the round."
She said people should realise social media algorithms were controlled by billionaires fixated on creating outrage and discontent.
Te Pāti Māori does not have a formal position on a ban, but co-leader Rawiri Waititi said tamariki and parents needed to be aware and educated about the risks of social media.
"The well-being and safety of our tamariki is the most important thing for us."
Members of the public in Christchurch also had mixed feelings.
Nicholas Steed said a ban could have some benefits, but the problem would be implementation because of the difficulty to regulate platforms.
"[It] could be very difficult to actually enforce that, and get people to follow the rules."
Ashton Owen said he had two young boys and navigating this issue as a parent was really hard.
"There's so many risks for young people getting on social media, with things like bullying."
Owen said a ban would be difficult, but the benefits would outweigh how hard it would be.
"The well-being of our young people is going to far outweigh the costs of trying to navigate and keep it in place and monitor it. Anything is better than nothing."
Fiona Cleve said a ban did not make any sense and would be incredibly difficult to implement.
"The way they're going about it is not productive, it's not going to solve the problem.
"It's going to be a whole lot of red tape for no actual gain."
Cleve pointed out that a lot of the social media companies were based overseas, and questioned how a verification measure to check someone's age would be enforced.
George and Harlan are aged under 16 and told RNZ young people would be able to get around the ban, but agreed there should be regulation.
"TikTok - yes get that banned, it's very damaging actually," said Harlan.
This poll of 1008 people was conducted by Reid Research, using quota sampling and weighting to ensure a representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between 23-30 March 2025 and has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. The report is available
here
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
New Zealand not part of 'trifecta' with Cook Islands and China, Winston Peters says
New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters, left, and Cook Islands Prime MinisterMark Brown. Photo: RNZ/Pacific Islands Forum/123RF Winston Peters says the Cook Islands has described its relationship with New Zealand as "part of a trifecta" when dealing with China. The comment from the New Zealand foreign minister comes at a time of increased tension between Cook Islands and New Zealand. At the heart of that tension is four agreements Cook Islands signed with China in February. Peters told Pacific Waves "there are things going wrong". He also rejected Cook Islands' Prime Minister Mark Brown's position that the two nations had a reciprocal relationship , therefore neither had to consult one another on foreign trade arrangements. "They were required under our arrangement and agreement to consult with us when these matters might affect more widely themselves but also other countries and our relationship," Peters said. "To describe us as part of a trifecta when we've got the special relationship for 60 years is utterly wrong." A spokesman for Peters clarified Peters was referring to the way New Zealand had effectively been described as a third-party by the Cook Islands in its agreements with China. Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand. Under that arrangement, implemented in 1965, the country governed its own affairs, but New Zealand provided assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief and defence. Despite that, the current diplomatic rift has resulted in a pause in funding of $18.2 million by the New Zealand government. That occurred last month. And while there have been ongoing discussions between the two nations, this week Prime Minister Mark Brown told a Cook Islands audience that if New Zealand could not afford to fund the country's national infrastructure investment plan - funding the development needs of the Cook Islands was a major motivator in signing the agreements with China. Peters' responded by challenging Brown to call a referendum - a position he doubled-down on when he spoke to Pacific Waves . "They can let us know whether they want the relationship or whether they want independence," he said. "Because if you behave like you want independence, then above all, that, should be up to the Cook Islands people to decide, not just a temporarily-empowered politician or government." The whole population of the Cook Islands should have a say, he said. "Politicians come and go, governments come and go, ministers come and go. But our purpose is to ensure the long-term, enduring relationship between the New Zealand people and the Cook Islands people." Peters also touched on previous disagreements with the Cook Islands over its sovereignty and foreign policy arrangements. "There were times in the past when this issue arose and we had agreements and pacts, declarations or statements … to give us the parameters of our future relationship, as we last did in [2001] under Helen Clark and [Terepai] Moate, who was then the prime minister of the Cook Islands. "And here we are, 24 years … on and that has been called into question. So we are saying… if it's going to change, then we are accountable to the Cook Islands people. Next month, the Cook Islands celebrates its 60th constitution anniversary. Governor-General Dame Cindy Kiro was due to attend as the New Zealand government's representative. Peters and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon have said they would not attend - a move that has been labelled a snub amidst the break-down in bilateral relations. Peters said Kiro was the appropriate representative from New Zealand. "We're sending the highest person constitutionally in our country to go… this is very fitting."
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Risks identified with Gumboot Friday's 'fee-for-service' model
Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey says the programme is meeting expectations. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Gumboot Friday's youth counselling initiative has had its $6m annual contract renewed , despite health officials identifying ongoing risks that practitioners could bill for services of poor quality or not delivered. Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey said the programme was meeting expectations, with more than 10,000 young people receiving free counselling in its first year, and the government was "backing Gumboot Friday to deliver more". A partially-redacted briefing to the Minister dated 30 May, released by the Health Ministry on Wednesday - along with [ other documents - noted "ongoing risk through this arrangement that practitioners invoice I Am Hope for services and do not deliver them". Some sections of the document were blanked out, citing the need to preserve "confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers and officials". The briefing - which recommended the contract be renewed with some changes - noted the risk of non-delivery was no different to other "fee for service" arrangements. It said the charity had "significantly improved and streamlined some of its processes since the contract was developed". These included spot checking, auditing, client surveys and an electronic system to pick up "any unusual invoicing". "To date, I Am Hope [the parent charity of Gumboot Friday] has identified two practitioners that have departed from the agreed procedures and has removed them from the platform." In total there were more than 700 qualified counsellors registered on the platform. In the same section, entitled "Delivery Risks", Health Ministry officials wrote there was also a risk that Gumboot Friday's practitioners could "act unprofessionally" or fail to deliver quality service. A Ministry of Health weekly report said I Am Hope had "enhanced" its vetting process to include mandatory police checks for all practitioners registered before October 2024, and updated its Practitioner (Policies) Handbook in March. The charity now used CV Checker to speed up its verification process, but had limited ability to "scrutinise practice" since client and practitioner sessions had to remain private and confidential. All practitioners were members of professional associations, and the Ministry had not been advised of any complaints to date. Gumboot Friday and I Am Hope were working on evaluations of service delivery and the experiences of young people, while the Ministry was preparing an evaluation framework. In a preface to the documents, the Health Ministry said demographic information from I Am Hope's platform may have produced "potential double counting" of clients, as individuals reappeared across months. "It nevertheless provides additional information about the groups that are engaged in Gumboot Friday." The 30 May briefing said the Gumboot Friday service was "operationally different" to the original design. It recommended some changes to the contract, including increasing the number of sessions and clients, and removing some performance measures "which divert resources and create barriers to maximum performance". The officials advocated for scrapping the monthly limit of $500,000 (to allow for higher demand in some months) and current measures of reporting on wait times, which were not being consistently recorded as some young people contacted counsellors directly rather than going through the website. The original contract required Gumboot Friday to ensure most people could receive services "within 24 to 48 hours of seeking support with 3 to 5 days as a maximum wait time for the first meeting with the person" and provide monthly reporting of wait times. The latest report showed the average wait time for young people across January and February this year was 9.04 days, with 186 young people waiting more than five days. That was up from 5.78 days in November and December. "This increase was in part due to the holiday period in January 2025, however, the longer wait times persisted into February. I Am Hope has highlighted to practitioners the importance of responding promptly to service requests." The briefing also suggested the government could consider funding emergency and crisis referrals, and providing more cash to support evaluation and "verification activities".
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
'A ray of sunshine': NZ litigants spurred on by international climate ruling
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone A landmark ruling by the United Nations' highest court puts further pressure on the New Zealand government over a large hole in its climate plans, a group of climate lawyers say. Another litigant taking on big polluters calls it a "a ray of sunshine" - while the climate minister will only say it's "long and complicated". The International Court of Justice (ICJ) found overnight that countries can be responsible for paying reparations for damage caused by their greenhouse gases. It also said governments are legally obliged to set climate targets that are consistent with keeping temperatures within 1.5C (not 2C) and that they must "pursue measures capable of achieving" those goals. The decision said states could be in breach of international law for failing to address fossil fuel consumption, granting fossil fuel exploration licenses, and providing fossil fuel subsidies, something the New Zealand government is doing with its $200 million fund for drilling . New Zealand is currently on track to be over 80 million tonnes of emissions short of meeting its 2030 climate target, because the coalition government has broken with plans by previous governments to meet the target largely by buying carbon credits from overseas. The coalition has been told there is no feasible way to meet the target purely inside this country, without some kind of offshore deal. While Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has acknowledged that this is true, he has so far ducked making any public commitment to closing any of the necessary deals beyond "exploring options". At times, ministers have explicitly said the government wouldn't spend money offshore to meet the target, despite officials warning them that their inability to explain how New Zealand would close the gap would lead to overseas scrutiny. Jessica Palairet, executive director of Lawyers for Climate Action, said the international ruling confirmed that paying lip service to international climate targets wasn't enough. Under the Paris Agreement, countries' targets are known as NDCs, or Nationally Determined Contributions. The first ones run from 2021-2030, and the second set from 2031-2035. "The judgment confirms that New Zealand can't just say it hopes it will meet the NDC and that it's committed to our targets, it has to take real and demonstrable steps towards meeting it, it has to demonstrate that intent to meet it. The judgment clarifies that, and I think in the face of an 89 million tonne hole, there are real questions about whether or not we're doing that," she said. "When we made the NDC commitment in the first place, we had a plan for how we were going to meet the gap, but the government is changing course and the ICJ starkly brings into focus whether that is lawful." Palairet said the ruling also sharpened questions over whether New Zealand's second Paris Agreement target , out to 2035 was aligned with curtailing heating within 1.5C. Watts has defended the new target of 51-55 percent reductions by 2035, saying the cuts were difficult to achieve and met the definition of ambition, but several experts - and independent advice - disagreed. "There have been real questions raised about whether our second NDC is 1.5 degrees aligned," Palairet said. "Put it this way, Simon Watts specially asked officials for the second NDC to align with domestic emissions budgets, to avoid having to pay offshore mitigation." "The problem is that our domestic emissions budgets are set according to a test that's different to the where that leaves us is we have an NDC that likely isn't 1.5 degrees-aligned likely doesn't reflect highest possible ambition and likely doesn't reflect our fair share," she said. "The ICJ opinion really draws into sharp focus whether that is lawful." Palairet said court's opinion that 1.5C was a binding target could also have implications for the government's plans to lower the country's methane target. The coalition has been considering lowering the goal for methane reductions from between a 24 and 47 per cent by 2050 to between 14 and 24 percent. "The ICJ opinion has crystalised 1.5C as the target states have to work towards," Palairet said. "The government is considering reducing our methane target to 14 percent," she said. "The problem is that government's own independent expert advisory panel said that a 14 percent target was consistent with 2C, so I think there's a real question if New Zealand reduces its methane target to 14 percent, whether that's consistent with international law." Palairet said the government's gas and oil exploration subsidies and backtracking on the ban on new offshore exploration might also be incompatible the court's statements. "The ICJ had really strong statements on those kind of subsidies and decisions being in breach of international legal obligations." "It's advisory only, it's non-binding but it is really authoritative and it holds significant legal and moral authority and it's very likely going to be used in court cases all around the world, including New Zealand court cases." That might include Lawyers' for Climate Action's existing judicial review against Watts, which argues there are glaring holes in the country's emissions reduction plans. The world's top greenhouse gas emitters denied they had any obligations beyond the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) and the 2015 Paris agreement. The court rejected that argument, saying a range of other treaties applied, including the UN convention on the law of the sea, the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer, the Montreal protocol, the convention on biological diversity and the UN convention to combat desertification. It also said states were obliged to cooperate to solve climate change. Asked to comment on the ruling, Watts sent a written statement noting the advisory opinion had been issued. "Climate change is an important issue in our region, and we know our Pacific Island neighbours are following this development closely," it said. "This is a long, complicated opinion, and New Zealand will study it carefully before commenting on the substance." Iwi climate leader Mike Smith said environmental lawyers were already discussing how to use the landmark ruling in New Zealand. Smith won the right in the Supreme Court last year to sue seven companies - including Z Energy, Genesis Energy, NZ Steel and Fonterra - for their role in causing climate change. He said the findings by the international court overnight offered hope in a time of worsening climate damage. "In all of that darkness this is a ray of sunshine, this is a beacon, it gives us hope that we can leverage these decisions and effect change," he said. "It strengthens [my case] in the sense that the decision confirmed that states are legally obligated to prevent climate harm and they must not support or subsidise emissions-intensive activities." "I've been talking to the lawyers from ELI, the Environmental Law Initiative, and they are all putting their minds to what falls out the bottom of this opinion and what opportunities are there now to bring further proceedings against the government."
