Australia pressed go yesterday on the social media ban for kids under-16 and a Parliamentary select committee here thinks we should do the same.

I don’t. Nor does retired district court judge David Harvey, who is saying today that a ban would be a cop-out for parents. He says it would be another example of outsourcing parental authority to the state.

He might have a point, but I think a lot of parents are to blame for the problem people seem to be expecting Parliament to fix. Because a lot of parents have been pushovers when it comes to social media. You go anywhere today, and you’ll see the next generation of pushover parents letting their kids on devices anytime, anywhere.

I’m anti a ban because I just don’t think it’s practical. I don’t see it working.

I know the counterargument to that is that people get around all sorts of laws, so does that mean we shouldn’t have any? Underage kids get their hands on alcohol even though it’s illegal. People on learner licences drive with passengers, even though it’s illegal.

I get that, but it’s still not a very good argument for a law that sounds great, but which I don’t see being great in reality.

The other reason I’m against a social media ban is that the under-16s who would be impacted have already grown up with social media.

It’s ingrained in their lives. It’s a genuine communication tool – schools use it, sports clubs use it.

Tell that though to the MPs on Parliament’s Education and Workforce select committee, which has been looking into the idea of a social media ban for under-16s here in New Zealand.

The committee’s interim report, its final report will be out early in the new year, its interim view is that we need something like that here. The committee also thinks we would need to have a social media regulator to make sure people and the social media companies follow the rules.

Back to retired judge David Harvey, who thinks banning under-16s from social media would be a cop-out for parents.

He says: “Supporters of the ban increasingly frame it as a tool for parents – an additional “lever” to help them say “no” to persistent children. That rationale reflects a growing trend: shifting parental responsibility onto the state.”

He says: “Telling children ‘the law says no’ is not parenting. It is outsourcing authority.”

And I agree.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chris Hipkins is hitting out at the Taxpayers' Union as it prepares to launch a campaign against Finance Minister Nicola Willis.

The lobby group is questioning Willis's track record on the economy.

Willis has responded, challenging chair and former finance minister Ruth Richardson to a debate.

The Labour Leader told John MacDonald the Taxpayers' Union has a view of "entrenched privilege".

He claims the organisation is funded by a group of rich people who want to keep all of their money.

Hipkins is also unimpressed by Willis’ decision to agree to the debate, which he says shows deep divisions among the National Party.

He calls it petty and says Willis should be focused on things like creating jobs.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There’s a lot to take in with these planning law changes. But what it comes down to is the Government wants people to be able to do more with their own property with less red tape.

If you want to do something that has no impact on anyone else, you’ll be able to do it. Your house, your castle.

That’s where there could be a few sticking points, because who determines what impacts others and what doesn’t? But overall, I like what the Government is doing.

And I know it will have looked for some of the most extreme examples of the current planning laws to sell the changes it’s making. Which is to ditch the Resource Management Act and replace it with a planning act and a natural environment act.

But you can’t argue with the minister responsible, Chris Bishop, when he says we need to see the end of developers being told one thing by one council planner and something different by another – such as one planner saying front doors have to face the street and another saying they can’t.

What the Government is saying is that the days of council planners playing god are over. And amen to that.

So the sorts of things it’s going to let us do without needing consents are things like adding a balcony or a deck or building a garage.

Chris Bishop says he knows of a guy who wanted to replace a garage on his property but spent nine months arguing with the council, because the council didn’t like the look of the garage.

It seems a lot of people are saying the devil will be in the detail. And one of the sticking points or potential bones of contention I see is where do you draw the line at what impacts others and what doesn’t.

For example: the Government wants me to be able to build a deck at my place without a consent, providing it has no impact on others. But what if building that deck means I can see over the fence more easily?

Overall, though, I’m in favour of letting people do more with their own property with less red tape.

But how do you feel about it?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.