The legislation will oblige social media platforms to take “reasonable steps” to check users are over 16 years old, introduce an online safety regulator and create financial penalties for companies that don’t comply. These include Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and Facebook.
“There is a risk that the onus is put on keeping young people off platforms as opposed to making platforms safer,” Davidson said.
“If there is a bill that goes to select committee and we don’t have all of the considerations that we want, there is a risk that those things will be out of scope [for discussion] at select committee.”
Davidson said Labour had submitted more than 70 questions to Stanford. Labour had received answers late last night – which spanned more than 100 pages – and would be considering that information at caucus.
The National bill was revealed at an event in Parliament’s Grand Hall on Monday, attended by high school students. An emotive video was played featuring high school students telling Stanford the graphic content they had seen online, which included people being killed.
Several methods could be used, including “using existing account information, facial age estimation, digital ID services and formal ID”.
Age-restricted platforms are defined by the Government as internet services accessible in New Zealand that enable users to exchange content and have one or more specified features. These include “endless-scrolling, algorithmic recommendations, feedback features and time-limited features”.
The legislation will not include services primarily used for messaging, email, voice or video calling, reviews, online multiplayer games, music, podcasts, professional networking, or education and health services. Artificial intelligence chatbots are also out of scope.
On Monday, Stanford did not rule out introducing more age-restricted platforms.
She said there was a range of interventions the regulator could impose, including warnings. When asked if a social media company would care about a warning from a regulator, she pointed to being in “lockstep with every other country”.
New Zealand has been watching closely as Australia rolls out its ban, which includes hefty fines of A$49.5 million ($56.8m) for firms that don’t weed out ineligible users. Australia’s ban captures popular apps Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and some elements of YouTube.
Winston Peters, the leader of National’s coalition partner New Zealand First, has been critical of how National had gone about the legislation – saying it was not a “Government” ban that his party was in agreement with – but a “National Party” ban.
NZ First and Act, National’s other coalition partner, have both invoked their “agree to disagree” clauses over the bill. This means National will need to look across the House for support getting it passed.
“The fact is, no matter how laudable the intent is of introducing laws to address this serious issue, there is no method that would fulfil that intent without banning VPNs [virtual private networks] or the use of digital ID to enforce the law,” Peters said.
“This has been proven with the colossal failure of Australia bringing in similar measures that National want to bring in now,” he said.
Peters said tools of this kind would “lead to a Soviet-era outcome that would be guaranteed to take New Zealanders’ freedoms and privacy away”.
Julia Gabel is a Wellington-based political reporter. She joined the Herald in 2020 and has most recently focused on data journalism.