The other day, Member’s Bill Ballot Cake Tin became richer – a Social Media (Age-Restricted Users) Bill was submitted. A name which, like most things coming out of Wellington these days, sounds like it was generated by a mildly concussed AI intern on a sugar crash.
This legislation boldly proposes to criminalise teenagers for existing on the internet. Children under 16 shall not pass go, shall not collect followers, and shall definitely not upload any dance videos without government-approved identity documents and a retinal scan administered by a beady-eyed bureaucrat from the Department of Censorship and Mirth Suppression.
Here’s the essence of the bill. If you're 15 years and 364 days old, having a Facebook account is now criminal. If you run a tech platform and fail to detect a cunning teen posing as their older sibling? You face jail. And if you’re a company director who once smiled vaguely at a server room? You're liable too.
It's comforting to know that while housing, healthcare, and education spiral like a flushed toilet, our Parliament has focused on what really matters: making sure 15-year-olds can't comment "slay queen" on each other’s selfies.
One can only imagine what Sir Robert Muldoon would say. Probably something like: “If you want to stop teenagers from being teenagers, you might as well criminalise puberty. You’ll have fewer offenders but a lot more confused parents.” Even Muldoon, patron saint of political pugilism, wouldn’t have touched this nonsense with a cattle prod. But alas, today’s bureaucratic Puritans believe the only way to protect young people from social media... is to turn them into criminals.
Imagine it now: “This just in—15-year-old caught watching a cat video on YouTube. Armed police descended on his bedroom. TikTok evidence seized. Family devastated. Bail denied.”
Sir Bob Jones, ever the gambler, would probably bet a few thousand on every 14-year-old in New Zealand outsmarting this ban within a week. After all, these are the same kids who bypass school firewalls to watch pirated anime and mine cryptocurrency in the school library. You think they can’t fake a date of birth? Please.
And while we’re at it, why stop at social media? Should we raid grandparents’ basements for unrated VHS tapes of The Goonies? Should the state press criminal charges when a 13-year-old reads a copy of Cosmopolitan found in a dentist’s waiting room? Is it time to microchip all children to monitor their eyeballs for exposure to non-approved content?
And let’s not forget the wider vision. This government, in its maternalistic magnificence, seems determined to offer a warm bureaucratic tit from birth to 16 years—a full-service teat of state-approved education, worldview, and supervised screen time—lest any dangerous parent get funny ideas about raising their own children. Can’t have mum or dad encouraging independent thought, or worse, Christian values. No, no. Leave that to the state. It knows best. It always does.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protects freedom of expression, including receiving information and opinions. Apparently, that’s now subject to the Minister’s Mood and whatever passed through Cabinet after their fourth flat white.
This bill is not protection. It’s performance politics, wrapped in a tear-streaked press release about “online harm” and tossed like a flaming paper bag onto the doorstep of tech companies. It won’t protect the vulnerable. It will, however, push kids to sketchier platforms beyond parental supervision. It will criminalise well-meaning families and innovators. And it sets a precedent for state intrusion so absurd, Orwell would’ve dropped his typewriter in horror.
The same Parliament that legalised cannabis referenda, public nudity, and vaping behind dairies is now saying that teenagers can’t have an Instagram account—but only until they turn 16, at which point their brains allegedly undergo a magical transformation rendering them immune to bad decisions.
If this bill passes, don’t be surprised when we start prosecuting 12-year-olds for borrowing Margaret Mahy or Judy Blume books. Or raiding school libraries for The Outsiders on suspicion of “unverified emotional content.” At this rate, we’ll need a new government ministry: The Ministry of Juvenile Thought Control and Algorithmic Conformity.
But fret not—New Zealand may not be able to build enough houses, or staff enough nurses, but by God, we’ll make sure a teenager never posts a meme again.
Liked this piece? Share before they ban satire too.
Zoran Rakovic is a structural engineer with nearly 30 years of experience, who has helped design and strengthen buildings across New Zealand—particularly in Christchurch’s earthquake recovery - while balancing life as a dad, granddad, and outdoor enthusiast. He blogs HERE.
11 comments:
The point is: How will they attempt to enforce this? Of course!!! Everyone who wants to access social media will require a government approved digital ID. The proposal will not affect minors so much as everyone else!!
An extension of the Orwellian state. Proof again the National party is just as woke and controlling as the marxists on the other side.
They will also pass a law prohibiting bad breath, passing wind in public and looking at a women’s torso. They will succeed.
If it's possible to have alcohol delivered to my door at the press of the button labeled " 18+" with no further proof, how do they think they can control social media access ?
Dreamers !
What a waste of Parliamentary time.
While Rome burns the National Govt fiddles.
They've obviously never heard of the 'forbidden fruit syndrome'.
This Social Media (Age-Restricted Users) Bill is a distraction to the greater threat to our freedom and rights. Another “trojan horse” misdirection from the foreign agent masquerading as our government.
Stats NZ’s ‘Everything Database’: RCR investigation reveals real-time citizen tracking, raising concerns over privacy and accountability.
https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/news/stats-nzs-everything-database-rcr-investigation-reveals-real-time-citizen-tracking-raising-concerns-over-privacy-and-accountability/#comments
At least it is an effort towards recognising risk to youngsters such as cyberbullying even if not actually the answer.
I observed the TV One news article on this matter during the week in which they interviewed 6 south Auckland school boys. Four of them in particular spoke English with that particular South Auckland nature that would severely handicap their future career advancement. These 4 boys generally acknowledged social media time of about 3 to 4 hours a day but one boy admitted to 7 or 8 hours per day.
Auckland University's Dr Sam Marsh is one of NZ's leading experts in this area and she would say screen use times a small fraction of this does severe harm to the educational and social outcomes of teenagers.
So our greater society just hands these issues over to over to Mr Zuckerberg and whatever he sees fit to do ?
But it is our greater society will have to pay for the outcomes, the teenage depression and suicide from cyber bullying, the unemployment , drug use , gang membership, crime, fatherless children, numerous other social ills all created at the whim and fancy of Zuckerberg's addictive algorithms.
At least this Act will give parents when confronted by a child's comment, " you can't stop me getting a smart phone" the ability to say , " Oh yes we can "
And I believe it was Dr Marsh who said this week that she wouldn't allow her children to have a smart phone till they were 18 and could pay for it themselves.
And I note though teachers widely proclaimed this Governments restrictions on cell phone use in schools was both nonsensical and unenforceable it has proved to be both effortless and highly successful.
A child was torn to pieces and killed and another severely mauled by family dogs at a Katikati marae just a few weeks ago. A repeat of a similar event in the Hawkes Bay last year.
Are we not able to legislate to defend helpless young kids from such attacks. I know in Britain and the USA the owners of such dogs are held criminally liable for such attacks. To legislate in a similar way here would be too much of a restriction on dog owners rights would it ?
And so young kids a should be free to access mobile phones and we the taxpayers left to pick up all the pieces ?
Dr Marsh's work i widely available online and is well worth a read
Education is the key not prohibition!
Why does Luxon always back the wrong horse and since when did National decide that marxism is inherently good.
Something has to be done about this addiction to social media by teenagers. These new proposals are not a silver bullet, but they are a start. Education only works if someone wants to change. The problems with children and social media have been known and highlighted for many years but the problem has got worse
Luxon backing a wrong horse - now there is a novel concept ...
Post a Comment