The Prime Minister says he's open to following Australia's lead in looking into banning social media for children.
Law-makers across the Tasman will legislate a blanket a ban on social media for children under 16 – including the likes of TikTok, Facebook and X.
Christopher Luxon says there's merit to the plan, especially given the incidence of cyber-bullying he's heard about in New Zealand.
But Newstalk ZB senior political commentator Barry Soper told Heather du Plessis-Allan he has questions over how it’ll be implemented.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Barry Soper, Senior Political Correspondence with US. Hey Barry, Good afternoon, Heathery.
So what does Luxon sound like? Does he sound like
he's keen on following the example of the Aussies with
the social media.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Yes, well I will. I'll play him in a sect,
but yes he does. And like you said in your introduction, Heather,
that the tech giants would be responsible for banning kids
under sixteen, it'd be a revolutionary task to take on
because no one else in the world does it at
(00:29):
that age. Anyway, the new laws were presented to the
state and territory leaders in Australia this week and they'll
be introduced to Parliament in late November, so they're going
ahead with it. It'll be interesting to see how it works. Meta,
the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, they say that
(00:51):
they'll respect any age limitation the government wants to introduce.
Now they're being very cooperative here, and if they are,
you'd think that would be the battle one. But I
think it'll be a pretty hard one to implement. Neverth
you were going to say it's something, but.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Nevertheless you think it will be hard to imply, well.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
You know, I mean, how a kid can hit a
button saying yes, I am sixteen years old, and.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
That's not how you do it. So how you do it?
There are a bunch of ways that you can do
it right. But what you essentially want to do is
you want to have a third party, like let's say
the government that verifies your age. So I'm going to
use you as an example. So you Barry Sober, you
send in. The government knows how old you are, right,
you're above the age of eighteen. It's you have a
verified token or something like that online that says this
(01:37):
account user is over the age of eighteen, which allows
you then to have a social media account do all
these things right, So that's what you do for the kids.
And if they're not over the age of eighteen, then
they're not age verified. They don't get to have it. Now.
This also will solve a whole bunch of other problems
for us potentially, where we have thirteen year old kids
and younger eight year old kids going on porn websites.
(01:58):
Now you can start to prohibit that as well. We've
we've got to get on top of the totally freedom
and look, the tech solution is out there. They just
don't want to find it because these guys.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Don't get wound up here.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Social media companies want the kids hooked on their product, don't.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Yeah, no, I to only agree. Well, the idea was
put to Chris Luckson today and I've got to say
he seems quite keen on it, listened to it.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
But I've got some interest in that idea actually, you know,
just with respect to what we've seen with respect to
cyber bullying in particular in New Zealand, and we've seen
some real advantage of the cell phone band across the schools.
But that's something that frankly Cabinet hasn't discussed in detail.
But that's something that I'd be open to discussing in
the future.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
So certainly there are other issues that are probably more
pressing for the government at.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
The moment, but cyber bullying is the least emergent.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
I would imagine that it will be before Cabinet before too.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
I would love to and you know what, kudos to
the Aussies for having the bulls to Actually, now I'm
a little bit disappointed to see the Order to General
doesn't want to get involved in the Casey Costello stuff.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Well, look, technically it's not the Order to General's job. Now,
Aischeverel made a big deal about calling the Order to
General in Well, I think the letter that she got
back is pretty self explanatory. Actually, it came from the
Deputy Order to General Andrew McConnell. He said that the
(03:20):
office can hold public organizations to account for their performance
and use of public money, but was unable to express
views on the merits of government policy decisions. I mean,
if you want to really take it further, you go
to the Ombudsman and talk about, you know, whether something
is okay or not. They can include examining a decision
(03:46):
maker basically whether it's appropriate on an agreed process that
has taken place, but they can't when a government makes
a decision on policy. It's not the Order to General's job.
And to me it just shows the Aischa Viral, being
a relatively new MP, should really understand what the role
of the Order to generally.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
I'm only disappointed because I thought that if the AG
got involved, at least we could put one of the
world's most boring stories to bed.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Well.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
I could more with that, and you know, and not
a great deal has been made by the media. I
think that Aischa Viral's sister in law was unbeknown what
she was un costello in her Now you know, honestly,
this has been a mess from start to finish.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Hey what about Seymour having a crack at the nets.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Yeah, it's really interesting, isn't it. I mean, look, they
can beg to differ and that's part of their coalition
agreement with varying parties. But I think you know, what
David Seymour doing is showing that we can make the
hard decisions. We've bought the Treaty Principal's Bill into parliament. Well,
you know, you go. And he says that the government
is essentially averse to taking on hard issues. Well he
(05:02):
said it on Hosking this morning. When you look at
outlawing gang patches, it's not a hard issue. Well it's
pretty hard. That's good, you're really Well, it's popular. Are
scrapping the Moley Health Authority, that's.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
A hard that's a hard decision.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
The tunnel decision in Wellington.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
That's a hard decision.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Well, I think it's a pretty hard decision. Really. Well
he's got a point.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
He's got a point. But Luxon and the people who
are advising him are terrified of dealing with the treaty
issue right, either either they don't understand it, or that terrified.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Of being because I think we should be having the debate.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
Or that terrified of being labeled racists or whatever. But
Chris Luckson has not mounted a coherent and convincing argument
as to why he doesn't want to go here, because
actually there is a there is a convincing argument as
to the way we should.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
David Seeman would think that Hope is still alive because
you know he's going on social media. Dear I say it,
and really appealing to the public over and above the
politicians at this overwhelming support on this and submissions to
the Select Committee. Who knows what the government might do.
Although I'd say that it's too late for the National
(06:12):
Party to back down.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Now Lackson's painted himself and bloody awkward call it on
this one. I think. Okay, Barry, thanks, I really appreciate it.
We'll wrap the political week that was with you later
on quarter past six. It's Barry Sober, Senior Political correspondent.
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news Talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Barry Soper, Senior Political Correspondence with US. Hey Barry, Good afternoon, Heathery.
So what does Luxon sound like? Does he sound like
he's keen on following the example of the Aussies with
the social media.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Yes, well I will. I'll play him in a sect,
but yes he does. And like you said in your introduction, Heather,
that the tech giants would be responsible for banning kids
under sixteen, it'd be a revolutionary task to take on
because no one else in the world does it at
(00:29):
that age. Anyway, the new laws were presented to the
state and territory leaders in Australia this week and they'll
be introduced to Parliament in late November, so they're going
ahead with it. It'll be interesting to see how it works. Meta,
the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, they say that
(00:51):
they'll respect any age limitation the government wants to introduce.
Now they're being very cooperative here, and if they are,
you'd think that would be the battle one. But I
think it'll be a pretty hard one to implement. Neverth
you were going to say it's something, but.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Nevertheless you think it will be hard to imply, well.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
You know, I mean, how a kid can hit a
button saying yes, I am sixteen years old, and.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
That's not how you do it. So how you do it?
There are a bunch of ways that you can do
it right. But what you essentially want to do is
you want to have a third party, like let's say
the government that verifies your age. So I'm going to
use you as an example. So you Barry Sober, you
send in. The government knows how old you are, right,
you're above the age of eighteen. It's you have a
verified token or something like that online that says this
(01:37):
account user is over the age of eighteen, which allows
you then to have a social media account do all
these things right, So that's what you do for the kids.
And if they're not over the age of eighteen, then
they're not age verified. They don't get to have it. Now.
This also will solve a whole bunch of other problems
for us potentially, where we have thirteen year old kids
and younger eight year old kids going on porn websites.
(01:58):
Now you can start to prohibit that as well. We've
we've got to get on top of the totally freedom
and look, the tech solution is out there. They just
don't want to find it because these guys.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Don't get wound up here.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Social media companies want the kids hooked on their product, don't.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Yeah, no, I to only agree. Well, the idea was
put to Chris Luckson today and I've got to say
he seems quite keen on it, listened to it.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
But I've got some interest in that idea actually, you know,
just with respect to what we've seen with respect to
cyber bullying in particular in New Zealand, and we've seen
some real advantage of the cell phone band across the schools.
But that's something that frankly Cabinet hasn't discussed in detail.
But that's something that I'd be open to discussing in
the future.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
So certainly there are other issues that are probably more
pressing for the government at.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
The moment, but cyber bullying is the least emergent.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
I would imagine that it will be before Cabinet before too.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
I would love to and you know what, kudos to
the Aussies for having the bulls to Actually, now I'm
a little bit disappointed to see the Order to General
doesn't want to get involved in the Casey Costello stuff.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Well, look, technically it's not the Order to General's job. Now,
Aischeverel made a big deal about calling the Order to
General in Well, I think the letter that she got
back is pretty self explanatory. Actually, it came from the
Deputy Order to General Andrew McConnell. He said that the
(03:20):
office can hold public organizations to account for their performance
and use of public money, but was unable to express
views on the merits of government policy decisions. I mean,
if you want to really take it further, you go
to the Ombudsman and talk about, you know, whether something
is okay or not. They can include examining a decision
(03:46):
maker basically whether it's appropriate on an agreed process that
has taken place, but they can't when a government makes
a decision on policy. It's not the Order to General's job.
And to me it just shows the Aischa Viral, being
a relatively new MP, should really understand what the role
of the Order to generally.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
I'm only disappointed because I thought that if the AG
got involved, at least we could put one of the
world's most boring stories to bed.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Well.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
I could more with that, and you know, and not
a great deal has been made by the media. I
think that Aischa Viral's sister in law was unbeknown what
she was un costello in her Now you know, honestly,
this has been a mess from start to finish.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
Hey what about Seymour having a crack at the nets.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Yeah, it's really interesting, isn't it. I mean, look, they
can beg to differ and that's part of their coalition
agreement with varying parties. But I think you know, what
David Seymour doing is showing that we can make the
hard decisions. We've bought the Treaty Principal's Bill into parliament. Well,
you know, you go. And he says that the government
is essentially averse to taking on hard issues. Well he
(05:02):
said it on Hosking this morning. When you look at
outlawing gang patches, it's not a hard issue. Well it's
pretty hard. That's good, you're really Well, it's popular. Are
scrapping the Moley Health Authority, that's.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
A hard that's a hard decision.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
The tunnel decision in Wellington.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
That's a hard decision.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Well, I think it's a pretty hard decision. Really. Well
he's got a point.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
He's got a point. But Luxon and the people who
are advising him are terrified of dealing with the treaty
issue right, either either they don't understand it, or that terrified.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Of being because I think we should be having the debate.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
Or that terrified of being labeled racists or whatever. But
Chris Luckson has not mounted a coherent and convincing argument
as to why he doesn't want to go here, because
actually there is a there is a convincing argument as
to the way we should.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
David Seeman would think that Hope is still alive because
you know he's going on social media. Dear I say it,
and really appealing to the public over and above the
politicians at this overwhelming support on this and submissions to
the Select Committee. Who knows what the government might do.
Although I'd say that it's too late for the National
(06:12):
Party to back down.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Now Lackson's painted himself and bloody awkward call it on
this one. I think. Okay, Barry, thanks, I really appreciate it.
We'll wrap the political week that was with you later
on quarter past six. It's Barry Sober, Senior Political correspondent.
For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news Talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com