This week, two interesting news items emerged from Australia and New Zealand that have raised the question of government overreach.

First, was Australia, with the Senate passing the social media ban for under-16s. A “world-first law”, the Social Media Minimum Age Bill was passed with great support and poses hefty fines on social media platforms should they fail to meet the criteria. Given there are more than 100 social media platforms out there, exactly how it will be policed and enforced is unclear to me, but there are greater questions still.

For example, is this form of government intervention going too far? On the one hand, yes, there’s a need to protect kids from the content, commentary, opinions and profiteering that they’re likely too mentally and emotionally immature to consume and process. Younger people are more vulnerable to online predators, bullies and influences they may not recognise until it’s too late.

On the other hand, freedoms and access to information are being restricted. Is it the state’s place to do what is undeniably a parent’s job?

That’s just scratching the surface; the deeper you go, the muddier the water becomes. I’m not entirely against it. Mental health advocates say it will prevent kids from getting the help they need, but I’d venture the opinion that a major reason society today is grappling with high levels of mental health problems among younger people is the rapid rise of social media in the first instance.

We limit access to alcohol, smoking and gambling for the protection of kids – isn’t the spirit of this bill similar? In all honesty, does a 12-year-old really need a $2000 smart phone to begin with? Maybe that one’s an entirely different debate… Like I said, it’s muddy water, and it’ll be interesting to see the outcomes after a couple of years.

On the local front, the first report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 response has been issued and made public. It’s a 730-page report, and I’m pretty sure most Kiwis won’t care enough to read it – I certainly won’t – but The Spinoff has compiled a pretty good summary.

Reading that, what’s interesting is the apparent regression in the public’s appreciation and approval of the government’s response from the early stages of the pandemic to the ending of mandates more than three years later. Of course, we didn’t need a report to bring that to light; it was obvious at the time.

Combine this with lockdowns that many agree went on too long and stimulus packages the country will be paying for well into the foreseeable future and it’s probably fair to say the report points to excessive government overreach in the Covid-19 response.

So, two examples of government overreach? Maybe. Laws can always be amended or repealed, and a reaction to something like a pandemic – while plans may be in place – can only happen in the moment. I suppose what the inquiry shows is that adapting to changing circumstances carries just as much weight in the final outcome. But I recall that being a common comment at the time, too.

Still, it could be worse. Such levels of government overreach wouldn’t even qualify in certain parts of the world.

Take care out there,

Gavin Myers
Editor