When Bad Laws Teach the Wrong Lessons

Our Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, has said he will introduce a social media ban for young people. The ban is based on Australian laws that are already not working and, many people would argue, are not helpful.

There is something fundamentally flawed about laws of this kind. When restrictions are easily ignored, they risk not protecting children, but teaching them that it is okay, even normal, to ignore the law. That is a dangerous lesson to be sending to young people. Is it okay to break the law, if you can get away with it?

When rules are seen as unrealistic or disconnected from everyday reality, they quickly lose their authority. In fact, they can become an invitation to challenge and ignore them. I remember as a young teenager that whenever I saw a sign saying things like "keep off the grass," my instinct was to do exactly the opposite, and I often acted upon that urge. That is simply human nature, particularly in young people who are wired to explore, test boundaries, and assert independence. As I enter my "second childhood", I feel a renewed rebellious urge welling up from deep inside me to break stupid rules.

Our Prime Minister's proposed law is going to be easily defeated. It also encourages dishonesty. Young people quickly learn how to work around the system, often with the quiet acceptance of those around them. In doing so, we risk normalising behaviour that undermines respect for both the law and personal responsibility. That is not the kind of foundation we want for young people growing up in New Zealand.

Now, let me be clear. Protecting children is important — of course it is! There are real risks online, and they deserve to be taken seriously. But the answer is not blunt, one-size-fits-all legislation that fails in practice. The answer is to raise capable, grounded young people who can think for themselves.

This is where the freerangers approach comes in. We do not raise strong young people by wrapping them in cotton wool or trying to control every aspect of their environment, and even do all the thinking for them. We teach them how to assess risk, make good choices, and take responsibility for their actions. That includes how they engage with social media.

Young people need to learn discernment. They need to understand moderation. They need to develop the confidence and the judgement to navigate what they see and hear, rather than being shielded from it until they are suddenly expected to cope on their own. That is how resilience is built. Less laws, used wisely and only when they are needed, will always be better than a growing set of rules that are not respected or enforced. Good laws support the safe and efficient functioning of society. Bad laws undermine it.

If we want strong families, resilient communities, and a country that stands on its own two feet, then we must focus less on controlling behaviour and more on developing capability.

If we want to raise smart, resilient young New Zealanders, we need to stop making laws that are meant to be defeated. We need to start building people who have the strength and judgement to live life responsibly and safely, without "Nanny State" always watching over them.

We should always be careful, indeed highly suspicious, of any law that begins to encroach upon freedom of expression or the freedom to choose, whether that be in relation to social media, what people read, write, or say, or how they engage with the world around them. Once those lines begin to blur, they rarely return to where they once were.

Any reasonable New Zealander who values responsibility, resilience, and the principles of free-range living would be right to oppose legislation of this kind, particularly when it mirrors approaches already proving to be ineffective and, in many respects, counterproductive elsewhere.