Formal Opposition to
Inquiry into the Harm Young New Zealanders Encounter Online

(Education and Workforce Committee – 23 July 2025)

From: Ukes Baha | 30 July 2025

Submitted in response to the call for public submissions on the Inquiry into the Harm Young New Zealanders Encounter Online

Summary of Position

I oppose the direction, structure, and likely outcomes of this inquiry.

Despite its stated aim of protecting young people, this inquiry lays the foundation for increased online censorship, state overreach, and selective information control. It mimics the same authoritarian patterns seen during the COVID-19 period — vague definitions, technocratic framing, and exclusion of dissenting voices.

It risks normalising digital paternalism, reducing youth to passive subjects of state protection while empowering private platforms and political actors to determine what information is acceptable.

1. Vague Definitions Enable Future Censorship

The terms “online harm,” “harmful content,” and “mental health impacts” are not clearly defined (Terms of Reference, para. 1). This allows authorities or corporations to interpret them subjectively — potentially including content that challenges official narratives, critiques government policy, or explores sensitive social topics.

Problem: Without fixed legal definitions, this becomes a blank cheque for censorship. During COVID-19, similar ambiguity enabled mass suppression of lawful speech, expert dissent, and even personal testimony — all labelled “misinformation.”

2. Invitation-Only Hearings Exclude Independent or Dissenting Voices

The inquiry will initially “hold hearings by invitation only” (Main Notice, para. 7). This makes it structurally exclusive and prone to echo chambers, privileging government-funded entities, approved NGOs, and commercial tech actors.

Problem: A public inquiry should be open to public voices. Excluding critics, whistleblowers, or alternative researchers undermines legitimacy and reinforces pre-decided conclusions.

3. Normalises State-Corporate Partnership to Control Youth Access

The inquiry elevates the roles of Government, business, and social media companies (Terms of Reference, “Consideration” and “Approach” sections) while relegating society — including parents and youth — to passive roles.

Problem: This frames the solution as top-down governance of digital life, rather than education, family involvement, or youth empowerment. It promotes a technocratic guardianship model with little democratic input.

4. Frames Safety Without Protecting Freedom

The inquiry references the “proportionality” of any recommendations (ToR, Aims, para. 2), yet gives no guarantees of:

Problem: The language of “balance” is cosmetic without enforceable rights or thresholds. History shows that safety narratives can easily become tools of political suppression.

5. Ignores Government’s Own Role in Online Harm

The inquiry makes no reference to policy-induced harm — such as prolonged school closures, screen addiction from online learning mandates, or censorship during COVID-19 (ToR, “Context”).

Problem: This creates a selective narrative, protecting institutions while scapegoating content and platforms. Youth online dependency is a structural outcome of policy, not just social media design.

6. Lacks Cultural Safeguards and Te Tiriti Acknowledgement

There is no mention of:

Problem: Any inquiry into public harm that excludes tangata whenua perspectives risks violating Te Tiriti o Waitangi and deepening digital colonialism.

7. Opens Door to Foreign Influence via Tech Industry

The inquiry invites “social media companies” and “overseas policymakers” (ToR, “Approach”), potentially including global actors like Meta, TikTok, Google, or WHO-aligned bodies.

Problem: This creates space for policy outsourcing, where foreign norms and global governance models shape local law — often bypassing democratic consent.

8. Fails to Distinguish Between Protection and Control

The inquiry conflates care with control — asking how others can “protect” youth without asking how to equip them to think, assess, and grow.

Problem: This infantilises youth while emboldening state-corporate actors to dictate content access. It shifts digital education from growth-based models to restriction-based models.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This inquiry reflects a dangerous trend: public concern used to justify increased censorship, information control, and centralised power.

It offers no serious protections for rights, culture, or open dialogue — only vague aspirations masked as action.

I recommend that the Committee:

  1. Explicitly protect freedom of expression in any future proposals.
  2. Remove “invitation-only” limitations on hearings and ensure public transparency.
  3. Reject any platform censorship model not independently reviewed and rights-tested.
  4. Acknowledge the government's own role in creating digital harm (e.g., screen dependency).
  5. Ensure full compliance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi — including Māori digital sovereignty and youth participation.
  6. Prohibit foreign policy influence unless publicly debated and locally endorsed.
  7. Empower families and schools — not corporations — as the front line of youth digital education.
  8. Centre digital literacy and discernment, not algorithmic filtering, as the long-term safeguard.

Safety should never come at the cost of sovereignty.
And care should never be used to justify control.

Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com