John MacDonald: You won't get me liking any social media ban

Australia pressed go yesterday on the social media ban for kids under-16 and a Parliamentary select committee here thinks we should do the same.

I don’t. Nor does retired district court judge David Harvey, who is saying today that a ban would be a cop-out for parents. He says it would be another example of outsourcing parental authority to the state.

He might have a point, but I think a lot of parents are to blame for the problem people seem to be expecting Parliament to fix. Because a lot of parents have been pushovers when it comes to social media. You go anywhere today, and you’ll see the next generation of pushover parents letting their kids on devices anytime, anywhere.

I’m anti a ban because I just don’t think it’s practical. I don’t see it working.

I know the counterargument to that is that people get around all sorts of laws, so does that mean we shouldn’t have any? Underage kids get their hands on alcohol even though it’s illegal. People on learner licences drive with passengers, even though it’s illegal.

I get that, but it’s still not a very good argument for a law that sounds great, but which I don’t see being great in reality.

The other reason I’m against a social media ban is that the under-16s who would be impacted have already grown up with social media.

It’s ingrained in their lives. It’s a genuine communication tool – schools use it, sports clubs use it.

Tell that though to the MPs on Parliament’s Education and Workforce select committee, which has been looking into the idea of a social media ban for under-16s here in New Zealand.

The committee’s interim report, its final report will be out early in the new year, its interim view is that we need something like that here. The committee also thinks we would need to have a social media regulator to make sure people and the social media companies follow the rules.

Back to retired judge David Harvey, who thinks banning under-16s from social media would be a cop-out for parents.

He says: “Supporters of the ban increasingly frame it as a tool for parents – an additional “lever” to help them say “no” to persistent children. That rationale reflects a growing trend: shifting parental responsibility onto the state.”

He says: “Telling children ‘the law says no’ is not parenting. It is outsourcing authority.”

And I agree.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from News Talk ZB Australia.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Australia pressed go yesterday on the social media ban for
kids under sixteen, and a Parliamentary select committee over here
has given its interim beyond the matter interim and it
thinks we should do the same. I don't at all,
nor does retired District Court judge David Harvey. He's saying

(00:35):
today that a ban get this. He says, a social
media ban for six sixteen and under would be a
cop out for parents. He says a band like the
one in Australia would just be another example of out
sourcing parental authority to the state. I really might have
a point on that. But in relation to parents, I

(00:57):
reckon a lot of parents are to blame for the
problem that people seem to be expecting Parliament to fix.
Why is that because a lot of parents have been
absolute pushovers when it comes to social media and you
you go anywhere today and you will see the next
generation of pushover pearents letting their kids on devices anytime, anywhere,

(01:20):
any age. I'm anti the idea of an under sixteen
social media ban because a I just don't think it's practical.
I don't see it working. And I know the counter
argument to that is that people get around all sorts
of laws. That does that mean we shouldn't have any
laws at all? You know, underage kids get their hands
on alcohol even though it's illegal. People on learning licenses,

(01:44):
they still drive with passengers even though that's illegal. When
I get that, I get that, but it's still not
a very good argument for a ban or for a
law that I think sounds great but which I don't
see being great in reality. That's how I see it.
The other reason I'm anti a social media ban is

(02:04):
it the under sixteens who would be impact? Did they
have already grown up with social media? Haven't they? It
is ingrained in their lives and it's a genuine communication tool.
You know, it's not just not just the yo bro,
not just you know. Oh, look at this next bit
of useless information. Social media is a genuine communication tools.

(02:27):
Schools use it, sports clubs use it, the kids use it.
Tell that though to the MPs on Parliament's Education and
Workforce Committee, which is how the job of looking into
the idea of a social media ban for under sixteens
here in New Zealand. And as I say, it's released
its interim report, it's final report. It's going to be
up pretty soon. It's going to be up early in

(02:48):
the new year. But the committee's interim view is yes,
we need something like Australia's got here. Karl Bates is
the acting chair of the committee. You might have heard
him this morning. Get told Heather that the majority of
MPs on the committee support the idea of protecting kids
from social media and the majority of MP's on the

(03:09):
committee support the idea of a ban and going down
the route that Australia's gone down. The committee also thinks
that we this is here in New Zealand, thinks that
we would need to have a social media regulator to
make sure people and the social media companies follow the rules.

(03:30):
Really back to then we go back to retire Judge
David Harvey, who was saying today that banning under sixteens
from social media would be a cop out for parents.
He says, quote supporters of the ban increasingly frame it
as a tool for parents, an additional lever to help
them say no to persistent children. He says that rationale

(03:53):
reflects a growing trend shifting parental responsibility onto the state.
He says telling telling children the law says no, isn't parenting.
He says it's outsourcing authority. And David Harvey says families,
not Parliament a best place to assess maturity and to

(04:16):
set boundaries. He says a one size fits all mandate
removes parental discretion and disregards young people's differing needs. And
I agree with them on that. But now I want
to know we used stand. What's your reaction to MPs
here saying that we need to do something like Straining
has done and that we need a social media ban

(04:37):
for under sixteen. So what's your reaction to that, And
what's your response to Judge David Harvey saying today that
a band, if we went ahead with it, would just
be a cop out for parents and another example of
outsourcing parental authority to the state.

Speaker 1 (04:53):
For more from Category Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news Talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.