Serious issue needs serious response, not half-baked policy

ACT has lodged a differing view on Parliament’s social media inquiry, warning that the Committee’s recommendations fail to clearly define the harm they are trying to address and risk undermining privacy and free expression.

ACT MP Dr Parmjeet Parmar initiated the inquiry through the Education and Workforce Committee in 2025.

“ACT supported this inquiry because Parliament should clearly define the problem, test the evidence, and consider the real-world consequences before rushing into regulation,” says Dr Parmar.

“Unfortunately, the Committee has not done that. Instead, it has moved toward sweeping recommendations without adequate analysis.”

One of ACT’s key concerns is that the Committee has recommended progressing a ban on social media for under 16s without proper consideration of whether it's workable.

“Protecting young people online is a goal we all support. The question is how to do it effectively, proportionately, and without creating a surveillance-by-default internet for everyone else,” Dr Parmar says.

“In practice, a ban currently means New Zealanders routinely proving their age to access everyday online services. Not just young people, but adults as well. That represents a major shift toward online identification and surveillance, and would put New Zealanders' private details at an increased risk of hacks, like the UK has recently experienced with Discord.

“ACT does not support any move that forces New Zealanders to hand over personal identification to social media companies.

“Protecting young people must not come at the cost of reduced privacy or increased state overreach.”

“The Committee was tasked with exploring all options, but instead it appears Committee members preferred a predetermined approach. A social media ban was prioritised over a more balanced and carefully considered response.

“If we are going to consider restrictions, Parliament needs to consider all the options and the evidence for what has and hasn’t worked in other parts of the world. Whether that’s stronger enforcement of existing settings, better transparency from platforms, tools and education for parents and schools, or targeted interventions for genuinely harmful content and behaviour.

“The last thing we want is a knee-jerk response that leaves young people less safe, pushes them to unregulated platforms, or forces everyone to hand over more personal information to tech companies.

“ACT is also concerned by a recommendation that a future regulator explore restrictions on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

“VPNs are legitimate privacy and cybersecurity tools used by businesses, journalists, and everyday New Zealanders,” Dr Parmar says. “The suggestion that a regulator should have authority over their use goes well beyond the scope of the inquiry.

“ACT firmly rejects the proposal to create a new national regulator, arguing that New Zealand already has extensive rules covering online content, privacy, and digital safety.

“International examples such as Ofcom in the United Kingdom and Australia’s eSafety Commissioner have faced significant criticism for overreach and unclear processes.

“Before creating a powerful new regulator with authority over speech and privacy, Parliament must clearly demonstrate that existing frameworks are inadequate. That case has not been made.

“New Zealand should not be a fast follower into policies that erode privacy or expand the state’s reach into legitimate online behaviour.”

“Some of the Committee’s recommendations would limit New Zealanders’ rights to free speech. ACT fundamentally opposes this.”

Editor's note: Dr Parmar's letter urging the Committee to seek advice on a social media ban can be found here.

ACT's differing view on the Education and Workforce Committee's Social Media Inquiry

Please find attached ACT’s differing view on the final report of the Social Media Inquiry:

“In 2025, ACT MP Dr Parmjeet Parmar wrote to the Education and Workforce Committee seeking an inquiry into the impacts of social media on young people. ACT supported this inquiry because we believe Parliament should take the time to clearly define the problem, test the evidence, and consider the real-world consequences of any proposed solution before rushing into regulation.

The Committee was tasked with examining the harm that young New Zealanders encounter online and identifying proportional and actionable interventions to address those harms. This Committee, in its recommendations, has substantially failed to do this and, worse, has proposed measures that expand government overreach through new regulators with unclear mandates, effectively endorsing a framework requiring New Zealanders to provide their ID digitally, and raising the spectre of regulating the very tools that protect New Zealanders’ privacy.

The concept of a ban is a simple one; the breadth of the recommendations underlines the lack of seriousness this Committee has taken in looking at the workability of such a ban.

Australia’s ban, despite its relatively simple approach, has had the unintended consequence of weakening existing safety protections for young people. YouTube offered to share its experience with the Committee, but that offer was unfortunately and unwisely declined.

ACT is deeply concerned that the Committee declined to seek advice from the Department of Internal Affairs on age restrictions for social media platforms, despite the inquiry being centred on that very issue. ACT is disappointed and embarrassed that the Committee had a lack of understanding in the role of Select Committees and their relationship with the executive. The legislature’s responsibility is to scrutinise and hold the executive to account. Whether or not the Government was reportedly progressing legislation in this area should have been irrelevant and given that the Committee’s final report included a recommendation to ban social media for under-16s, it should have been incumbent on members to obtain the relevant departmental advice. The refusal to do so reflects a lack of seriousness and diligence of an inquiry with significant and far-reaching implications.

ACT believes that there is real potential harm on social media for young people. We understand the concerns parents have when it comes to young people online. ACT believes those concerns deserve to be taken seriously and deserve to be explored thoroughly.

Recommendation to Ban Social Media for Under-16s and “Age Verification”

ACT is concerned by recommendations that moves towards banning social media for those under 16. While the intention to protect young people is well meant, the evidence presented to the Committee, along with international experience, shows that such a ban would be difficult to enforce without requiring widespread age verification.

In practice, enforcing an age-based social media ban would require all New Zealanders to prove their age online, something the report notes where it says such a ban would “likely involve sharing proof of identity.” This would not be limited to young people. Adults would also be required to verify their identity in order to access everyday online services.

ACT is concerned that this approach represents a significant step towards requiring people to provide identity online. ACT does not support any move that would require New Zealanders to provide identification to social media companies routinely. Protecting young people online must not come at the cost of reduced privacy, increased surveillance, or the erosion of personal freedoms for everyone else.

ACT believes that working on responses requiring the likes of digital ID for age verification should not be the priority of the Government, and instead the Government should focus on a sophisticated and carefully considered response. Addressing these issues effectively is likely to require a combination of measures, potentially including strengthened digital literacy in schools, better support and education for parents, and, where appropriate, proportionate regulatory settings.

ACT also believes education should extend to young people so that when they access social media, they are able to recognise the potential harms and avoid them while also being able to recognise the potential benefits.

However, ACT does not consider that sufficient time or analysis has been devoted to investigating and fully evaluating these alternative approaches. Instead, it seems the Committee reached a predetermined approach prior to any evidence being presented. Before adopting a significant intervention such as banning social media for under-16s requiring age verification including potentially a digital ID system, the Government should ensure that a full range of options has been properly explored and assessed.

VPNs

ACT is concerned with the Committee's recommendation that the Regulator explore how to stop the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). VPNs are legitimate privacy and security tools used by businesses, journalists and everyday New Zealanders to protect their data online. They are an essential tool for cybersecurity.

Proposals to look at the regulation of VPNs or to establish a new regulator should be seen as what they are – a failure to properly engage with how a ban would work in practice and proportionally balance a ban against the rights of New Zealanders.

The idea that the Government should explore a Regulator having any authority over VPN use shows the lack of seriousness some Committee members took regarding the inquiry. The ability to restrict New Zealanders' access to the internet is not something the Committee was asked to explore, nor should it have.

ACT believes the Committee members who support such a move should recognise that the countries that have placed restrictions on VPNs include North Korea, China, Russia, Turkmenistan, and Iran. These countries use these restrictions to suppress their citizens' free speech, often in the name of protecting from online harm.

If these Committee members truly believe that these countries are a good example of internet safety, it shows the lack of direction the Committee took when exploring its options. Rather than focusing on a ban or even broadly what the Committee was asked to do, it sought to push forward untested ideas that simply take away New Zealanders' privacy with no clear reason provided.

National Regulator

ACT firmly rejects the idea that the answer to the simple concept of a social media ban is a complex Regulator.

New Zealand is already governed by a maze of regulations in this space. While the Committee proposes some fixes to make it clearer and concise, it seems the Committee's instinct was not protection for young people, but rather to build a new feel-good bureaucratic mess because regulation is easier than good leadership.

The international examples given in the Report should have given members of the Committee some concern about whether a national regulator was the right approach, but instead, these examples seem to have been conveniently ignored, even when submitters from those countries laid them out plainly.

In both the United Kingdom, with Ofcom and Australia, with the eSafety Commissioner, there have been clear and consistent criticisms of overstepping and opaque processes, which have eroded public trust that the Government’s goal is to uphold free expression. The Free Speech Union in the United Kingdom made a serious effort to be heard, yet the recommendation doesn’t heed any concerns and instead says that New Zealand could borrow design features from those jurisdictions. It’s unclear if the report means New Zealand should borrow the serious breach of free speech or the massive crackdown on freedom of expression.

Before Parliament creates a powerful new regulator with the authority to police speech and take away New Zealanders' privacy, there must be a clearly defined problem that cannot be addressed through existing frameworks. ACT has not seen that case made.

Banning Deepfake Apps

ACT unequivocally opposes the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes. We find the practice abhorrent and believe those who create and distribute non-consensual deepfake material should face serious consequences.

However, ACT is concerned that the Committee’s recommendation focuses on banning so-called “nudify apps”, a term that has not been clearly defined. Attempting to prohibit software categories without precise definitions risks unintended consequences and legal uncertainty.

The appropriate response is to criminalise harmful behaviour, namely, the creation and distribution of non-consensual sexually explicit content, rather than attempting to ban technology itself. Laws should target those who misuse technology to harm others, not the underlying tools that have legitimate applications.

Mandating Algorithm Transparency

ACT is concerned that the recommendation to give a Regulator power to require information from platforms relating to their algorithms, as well as provide researchers with information about algorithmic design, is unnecessary and risks compromising commercially sensitive information. Algorithmic systems are often proprietary technologies that companies have invested heavily in developing. Forcing disclosure may undermine competitiveness and discourage investment in New Zealand’s digital economy.

Overall

ACT believes that the Committee's recommendations steer away from protecting young people and, unfortunately, towards proposing a requirement for people to share their ID digitally and new regulation to fix the issues. The goal of protecting young people should not come at the expense of all New Zealanders' right to privacy.

ACT believes that the Committee’s terms of reference for the inquiry made it clear what the goal was. We believe that the Committee has categorically and embarrassingly failed in this, going well beyond its remit, seeking solutions before identifying the true problem. An exploration of a social media ban is simple, yet the Committee made a complete mess of it.

It is easy for the Committee to say in its report that it does “not take this lightly” when it comes to free speech and expression, but it is clear these words were an afterthought rather than central to the Committee's recommendations.

New Zealand should utterly reject being a ‘fast follower’ if we are heading towards the erosion of privacy and expansion of the state peering into the legitimate online behaviour of our citizens.”