You know what the Government should do with this recommendation from a parliamentary select committee to ban under-16s from using social media? Ignore it.

With the Government thinking about copying Australia’s ban, a select committee has looked into it and it’s come back with a whole lot of recommendations relating to the online world - including a recommendation that we go ahead with a ban.

The committee says: “Harm to young New Zealanders from online platforms is severe and requires urgent responses.”

The key word there is “harm” and, as the ACT Party is saying today, banning under-16s from social media won’t fix that.

The Greens are opposed to the idea too - with both parties saying it could just lead to kids using what they’re calling “fringe websites”, instead.

So the harm will still be there and the kids will keep finding it, whether-or-not there’s a social media ban.

As to why I’m against this idea. Number One: the horse has already bolted. Number Two: the horse is going to keep on bolting. Because that’s what happens in the online world and the technology world.

If politicians think banning kids under-16 from Tik Tok and Insta and YouTube is the answer, they’re dreaming.

What’s more, if we’re totally honest with ourselves, a social media ban would just let parents off the hook.

Those parents at the supermarket, pushing their kids around in the trolley, and the kids all staring at screens - should the government be coming to their rescue because they either can’t be bothered or are too weak to say no?

Of course not.

Experts from Queensland University think banning under-16s from social media is a pipedream.

They say there is insufficient evidence to show social media is responsible for the increase in youth mental health problems. They say some marginalised young people actually benefit from social media. Example: I remember hearing someone who works with young members of the rainbow community saying that social media can be really valuable for the kids he works with.

These researchers in Australia also say there is a lack of clarity as to what social media actually is.

Nevertheless, a bunch of politicians who are already way behind the 8 ball on this think a social media ban for under-16s is the way to go.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nationals Vanessa Weenink and Labours Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.

They covered some of the biggest topics from the week from the Governments response to the strikes in Iran, a U-16 social media ban being backed by a Parliamentary select committee, and if Christchurch ratepayers should be footing a 10-million-dollar bill to reopen the Dux de Lux building.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Are we still living in the same country that told America what to do with its nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships?

Are we still living in the same country that declared itself a nuclear-free zone? Which had Washington throwing its toys and telling us that it wouldn’t be sharing intelligence with us if its ships weren’t welcome.

But that didn’t put us off and the no nukes policy has been in place ever since.

That was back in 1984. Fast-forward to 2026 and it is a completely different story.

Which is why we’ve got former foreign affairs minister Phil Goff saying today that Christopher Luxon and Winston Peters are scared of US president Donald Trump. He says the Government’s response to US and Israel attacking Iran has been “weak and uncertain”. Which it has.

Not only that. Phil Goff is also saying today that New Zealand no longer has the courage to speak freely on international matters.

He says the Government knows full well that Donald Trump’s claim he was just responding to an imminent threat from Iran is nonsense. Fake news.

Phil Goff says the Government also knows full well that the attacks on Iran are illegal. But it’s too scared to say so because it’s worried about what reaction it might get from, as Goff puts it, a president who is “volatile, unpredictable and vindictive”.

He’s not getting any argument on the volatile and unpredictable bit from former defence minister Wayne Mapp, who says that’s exactly why the Government should be careful what it says.

Because Trump is contrary and you never know what he’s going to do.

Wayne Mapp says: “You do something that really upsets President Trump, you’re likely to be slapped with a 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent tariff.”

And he says the way the Government is handling things protects New Zealand’s interests.

I disagree. Because, if we want to be an independent, confident country, we have to take a stand on things - just like we did back in the 1980s with the nuclear thing.

Christopher Luxon’s background as a CEO is his undoing in situations like this.

Because chief executives are terrified of chaos. They like to have all their ducks lined-up before they make a decision or before they take a position on something.

They are the people who run everything past HR and the legal team because uncertainty is no friend of your chief executive.

So, of course, Christopher Luxon is going to say wishy-washy things like New Zealand “acknowledges” the attacks on Iran. Of course, he’s going to say it’s up to the US and Israel to determine whether the attacks are legal or not, because they’re the ones with all the information in front of them.

Anyone expecting anything different is dreaming. And, because of that, Phil Goff is right.

We are running scared and we have lost the courage to speak freely on international matters. Courage we used to have in spades.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour Leader Chris Hipkins believes that the strikes on Iran from the US and Israel were illegal, and the Government needs to be clearer on its position.

Speaking to John MacDonald, The Leader of the Opposition said he thinks a regime change is required in Iran, but legal avenues should've been considered.

"It needs to be in adherence with international law, which this is not."

If you're talking about a regime change, you need to have a plan to affect that"

On the news that the Governments bootcamps for young offenders are restarting, Hipkins says he does not support them.

"The first one was an abject failure, all of the evidence suggests they don't work."

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Can you believe the Christchurch City Council is even entertaining the idea of pouring partially-treated wastewater into the sea to try and reduce the stench from the burnt-out wastewater treatment plant at Bromley?

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s shameful that the council has dropped the ball on this one in such a spectacular fashion. And don’t for a minute think that my empathy for the people living with that smell night and day is anything less than what it has been.

But this is a ridiculous idea cooked-up by mayor Phil Mauger.

As Christchurch East MP Reuben Davidson is saying, there’s a fair amount of hope but not a lot of evidence that this plan would work and not cause harm to the environment.

He’s right. The council is in panic mode and Phil Mauger is clutching at straws.

A bit of background. Last week, Environment Canterbury told the city council it hadn’t done enough to sort out the awful smell coming from the plant and said it had to come up with a plan within two weeks.

Hence, this idea of sending partially-treated wastewater out to sea to take the strain off the treatment plant. The council also wants to add chlorine to ensure bacteria levels are what it thinks will be safe before it reaches the ocean.

Since the big fire in November 2021, the ponds at the plant have been overloaded and aren’t in great shape. And, when we had all that rain the other week, things went next level and the smell was probably as bad as it’s ever been.

Phil Mauger is saying today: “We can’t sit back and expect conditions to improve on their own. Anyone who lives nearby knows the odour issues have become more intense, and we’ve been looking at all ways to help alleviate the stench.”

Yeah, but this isn’t how you should be doing it Phil.

E-Can says it’s surprised and concerned. My hope is that it will tell the city council to go back to the drawing board.

Because why would we do something that could add to the water pollution problems we’ve already got?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark hasn’t been slow in criticising our government’s response to the attacks on Iran.

She’s not just criticising it - she’s slamming it. Saying that it’s “a disgrace” for not condemning Israel and the United States and, instead, criticising Iran’s “indiscriminate” retaliatory attacks.

Helen Clark says the Government knows full well that Israel and the US are breaking international law with these strikes and the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister should be saying so.

She says the Government knows that negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear capability were underway and we should be ripping into Israel and the US for what they started on Saturday.

But here’s where I’m at. When I hear about people in Iran cheering and celebrating the demise of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who am I to criticise what’s happened?

Who am I to tell these people: “Oh no no, stop celebrating, it’s not right what’s happened. Israel and the US aren't playing by the rules.” Who am I to say that to those people?

And who is Helen Clark to say that?

This is the problem you get with people on the left side of the political spectrum, who seem to be incapable of seeing the bigger picture.

Has Helen Clark and the opposition MPs lining up to criticise the Government forgotten about the death sentences handed out to some of the people involved in the recent mass protests?

They want things done to the letter every time. But what if this brings a better life for the people of Iran?

It’s a big if. Because who knows whether this will be the end of the current regime running Iran or not?

Regime change is easy to talk about but very difficult to do. Because it’s not just the regime, it’s who fills the vacuum afterwards.

As we saw in Iraq. Yes, they got rid of Saddam Hussein, but then they got rid of the Iraqi army as well and that’s when it really hit the fan with other extremists and terror groups all wanting a piece of the action.

So, who knows how this is going to end up in the long term? But, when all is said and done, for me this is about the people of Iran.

Which is why you’re not going to hear me piling into our government the way Helen Clark is.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Isn’t it amazing that, after all the time spent wringing our hands over the price of electricity, we still haven’t bitten the bullet and gone full boar with solar energy?

You might have heard Chris Hipkins hinting yesterday that, if Labour forms the next government, solar will be on the agenda.

He isn’t giving too much away but says, yes, ramping up the use of solar power will be one of Labour’s election policies.

There’ll be no details, though, until after the Budget in May. That’s because he wants to get a better idea of how much money he’s got to play with.

But, if last election is anything to go by, it looks like Labour might be resurrecting the policy it had back then of providing $4,000 grants to help people install solar panels.

In my mind, it is ridiculous that we don’t require new houses to be fitted out with solar panels. It would add to the cost of the build but, long-term, I think it would be a game changer.

I’m not the only one who thinks this. Sir Ian Taylor is saying today that electrification is the future and solar is how we get there.

Solar on homes. Solar on farms. Solar on commercial buildings. And I couldn’t agree more.

He says the cheapest electricity is the electricity you don’t have to move.

So his version of full-boar solar includes storage capacity - not just solar panels - at our houses, on our farms and on our commercial buildings.

He says: “Every kilowatt generated where it is used is one that does not need to be transmitted across the country. that reduces losses. it reduces strain on the grid. and it reduces the need for expensive new transmission infrastructure that ultimately pushes power prices higher.”

No argument from me.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor tells me several things, one of which is how much the late Queen really dropped the ball on this one. And that’s putting it politely.

She was the one who protected him when all the stories started to emerge. She was the one who, apparently, helped him out with some of the hush money paid out to one of his accusers.

Which only fueled the impression - rightly or wrongly - that the Royal Family thought it was above everything and everyone else.

Which is why I think this development is a brilliant opportunity for the monarchy.

Because this takes the monarchy down a peg or two, which can only be a good thing in the public’s eyes.

King Charles obviously sees an opportunity. He hasn’t been slow in coming forward, saying “the law must take its course”.

We’ve also got the likes of Major General Alastair Bruce, who is a historian and a royal watcher for Sky News, saying that this is “the most shocking day for the British Crown, to have a former prince of the blood arrested”.

Other commentators are describing the arrest as “extraordinary”, “unprecedented”, “spectacular” and a “body blow”.

Whether it is a body blow remains to be seen. Because these developments overnight show that the monarchy is just as answerable as the rest of us. Which is no bad thing, is it?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.