Under-16 social media ban proposed in New Zealand
Prime Minister Chris Luxon has announced his party will back a private member's bill which will require social media companies verify a user's age as above 16 before they can access certain platforms.
The bill, to be introduced by backbench MP Catherine Wedd, does not list which platforms will be included, but includes maximum fines for non-compliance at $NZ2 million ($A1.8 million).
Ms Wedd said the "bill closely mirrors the approach taken in Australia".
"As a mother of four children I feel very strongly that families and parents should be better supported when it comes to overseeing their children's online exposure," the Hawke's Bay-based MP said.
While Australia's world first law passed with bipartisan support from the major parties, it is unclear whether National has the support needed to pass a similar Kiwi law.
Centre-left opposition Labour is warming to the idea but it's not over the line, with leader Chris Hipkins saying it is a "debate we need to have".
National's coalition partner NZ First holds a similar view, while the third coalition partner ACT, a libertarian party, won't offer support.
"Social media is doing enormous harm to young people (but) for every problem there is a solution that is simple, neat - and wrong," ACT leader David Seymour said.
"ACT opposes National's bill banning under-16s from social media because it is not workable.
"We would be better to learn from the Aussies' mistakes than make the same mistakes at the same time as them."
Without support from Labour, National's bill would require either the support of the Greens, or both NZ First and the Maori Party to become law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
22 minutes ago
- ABC News
UN climate chief urges Australia to 'go big' on 2035 emissions target
One of the world's top climate diplomats has urged the federal government to commit to an ambitious 2035 target to cut carbon emissions, saying Australia can reap "colossal" economic rewards if it embraces clean energy. The federal government is due to unveil its 2035 target by September this year, while the Coalition continues to be consumed by a furious internal debate on whether it should maintain its commitment to net zero by 2050. The Climate Change Authority is preparing advice on a 2035 target between 65 and 75 per cent, which will inform the target the government will submit to the UN's climate agency. UN climate change executive secretary Simon Stiell, who presides over the agency responsible for managing the Paris Agreement to limit global warming, is visiting Sydney and Canberra this week as he presses countries across the globe to ramp up their climate ambitions. Mr Stiell called the new climate target a "defining moment" for Australia, and said the government had "one shot to build a blueprint that protects Aussie workers and businesses by preparing them for a fast-changing global economy". Mr Stiell used a speech to a group of investors and clean energy representatives in Sydney to warn "unchecked climate change" would be an "economic wrecking ball" for the Australian and global economy, and that action was imperative. Mr Stiell said climate disasters were "already costing Australian homeowners $4 billion a year" and that unchecked climate change would "cripple Australia's food production" and drain trillions from national GDP by 2050. "You know half measures will destroy property and infrastructure, hammer households, bankrupt regions, and punch holes in public budgets," he said. "And you know that real action opens the door to real leadership and big rewards for this ambitious, capable country." Standing alongside Mr Stiell, the Climate Change Authority's (CCA) chair Matt Kean said the stakes "couldn't be higher" for Australia, but that pursuing net zero emissions also presented an opportunity for the sun-rich and mineral-rich nation. "'Shine, baby, shine' and 'store baby store' should carry an Australian trademark and be hollered from our rooftops — perhaps with an Aussie accent," Mr Kean said in a reference to United States President Donald Trump's "drill, baby, drill" remark. The CCA boss also said that, ahead of the next international climate conference, "maximum ambition should be the catch-cry". The United States has slashed clean energy subsidies and pulled out of the Paris Agreement under Mr Trump. However, Mr Stiell said investment in renewables in countries like India and China was "off the chart" and "trillions of dollars are shifting" globally. Mr Stiell said a "bog standard" 2035 target would be "beneath" Australia, and that government and business had the capacity to deliver transformational change. "This is the moment to get behind a climate plan that doesn't just write that vision into policy — but delivers in spades for your people," he said. "So don't settle for what's easy. Bog standard is beneath you. Go for what's smart by going big. "Go for what will build lasting wealth and national security. Go for what will change the game and stand the test of time."
News.com.au
32 minutes ago
- News.com.au
‘Do it immediately': Ray Hadley lashes out at shark net madness
Premier Chris Minns must act now to stop the removal of shark nets from Sydney beaches ahead of the summer season, starting September 1. Three councils, Waverley, Northern Beaches and Central Coast, have been given the option to trial one beach each without a shark net. The Greens are being blamed, but Central Coast Mayor Lawrie McKinna says he was not involved in the decision: 'That decision was taken by the administrator. We don't want to remove shark nets from our beaches'. He said people travelled to the area specifically because of the safety of its beaches. So who is playing Russian roulette with swimmers and surfers? According to McKinna, it's the Minns Labor government - and particularly the left faction led by Upper House MP Penny Sharpe. Chris Minns, with a stroke of the pen, you can stop this. You can say: 'No, the nets are staying'. If there is a shark attack on one of these beaches next summer after the nets are removed, the blame will fall squarely on your shoulders. Pick up the pen. Do it. You must act immediately.
Sky News AU
34 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Communications Minister once hailed YouTube as a place for kids — now she appears ready to ban it
Communications Minister Anika Wells once fawned over YouTube as a way to entertain her young children — now she appears ready to ban it as a legal furore erupts in the tech world. Minister wells is considering banning children under 16 from YouTube, but just a few years ago she praised the video sharing platform as a means for a young parent to navigate the "parliament hustle". "How do I handle the parliament hustle? Sturdy baby gates and The Wiggles on YouTube," she wrote in December, 2022, at a time she was sports minister. Minister Wells appeared to confirm for the first time publicly that she would formally adopt a push from eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to prohibit children from creating accounts on YouTube. 'The eSafety Commissioner made it clear in her advice to the Minister that the law relates to children under the age of 16 having their own social media accounts,' Minister Wells told 'eSafety's recommendation does not prevent children from watching videos like The Wiggles on YouTube Kids or on their parent's account.' Under this scenario, kids would still be able to access YouTube logged out, which means they would not be protected by Google's sophisticated parental controls. YouTube has argued this move would make the internet less safe, a clear contradiction with the original intent of the Act. A formal decision is expected as early as Thursday this week but the government has been criticised for confusion around the rollout of these new laws. And it isn't just parents confused by Labor's flip-flopping on the social media ban. The rushed implementation of the laws and the lack of industry clarity has infuriated multiple platforms involved in negotiations, leading to tense and highly complex legal discussions behind closed doors. TikTok is understood to have made a legal threat on constitutional grounds over the ban. TikTok denies this but in a submission to the government, the Chinese owned platform alleged the laws would be fundamentally unworkable and anti-competitive in nature, if YouTube was exempt. Labor appears to have listened to these warnings and could announce a major change to the child ban policy as early as next week. After learning Labor was preparing to U-turn on a pledge to exempt YouTube, Google also called in the lawyers. The video sharing platform argued the child ban breaches the implied constitutional protections Australians have to engage in political speech. In March, TikTok wrote a scathing submission to the government which focused almost entirely on lobbying for YouTube to also be banned. TikTok's submission alleged the laws were "unsupportable" and "anti-competitive" in nature, and accused Labor of reverse engineering legislation. "Excluding any major platform by name from the minimum age obligation on educative grounds is unsupportable without evidence," the submission said. "What is clear is that the Government has begun its analysis from the starting position that YouTube must be exempt and then attempted, half-heartedly, to reverse-engineer defensible supporting evidence. "Handing one major social media platform a sweetheart deal of this nature - while subjecting every other platform in Australia to stringent compliance obligations - would be illogical, anti-competitive, and short-sighted." TikTok also warned that an exemption for YouTube raised anti-competition legal issues which, it argued, had already been highlighted by the ACCC. 'That Google or any rational economic actor in its position would seek to lobby Government for favourable treatment is comprehensible. That the Government would accede to it, against the warnings of its own competition watchdog, is not,' the submission said. In a forward to the submission TikTok warned the government the laws "would not work" if YouTube was exempt. "For the reasons set out in this submission, we have grave concerns that the Rules, if implemented in their current form, would not work," TikTok said. "We are particularly concerned that carving out any major platform by name - in this case, YouTube - from the minimum age obligation would result in a law that is illogical, anti-competitive, and short-sighted." eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant was accused earlier this month of misleading Australians after her push to have children banned from the platform was not supported in her own research. It was revealed that even Ms Inman Grant's office used YouTube to educate children as part of her own publishing strategy, specifically targeting the demographic. In late 2022, while Ms Inman Grant was in charge of the body, a series of videos called 'eSafety Mighty Heroes' including characters such as Dusty the frilled neck lizard, River the sugar glider, Billie the bilby, and Wanda the echidna was released on the same day - content clearly published with the intent to educate children.
