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.”

Note:

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

Home Page | Parliament | Previous Story | Next Story

Copyright (c) Scoop Media