Govt must ask tough questions before rushing in to help – Jonathan Ayling
Former US President Ronald Reagan once joked the thought of the Government rushing in to help should strike fear in the heart of the average citizen. Photo / AP
There is a sentence that should make voters nervous whenever a politician says it: “But we can’t do nothing.”
It sounds responsible, humane, possibly even courageous: action in the face of harm. But “something” can often mean anything. And the Government doing “anything” in the face of a challenge will likely only make it worse.
Ronald Reagan once joked that the nine most terrifying words in the English language were: “I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
Before the state regulates people’s lives, it must be able to answer a basic question: what, precisely, is the problem we’re trying to fix? Not what is the anxiety or what will grab a headline? Not what can ministers announce by Thursday afternoon?
If we are going to regulate people’s lives, the question must be more disciplined. What precise harm are we trying to prevent? What causes it? What can the state realistically do? What would count as measurable success?
These are not bureaucratic niceties. They are the first restraints on power. Good intentions are not enough. A law is not improved by the sincerity of those who pass it.
A bad diagnosis does not become better because the doctor means well. The phenomenon ‘to do something’ is sometimes called action bias. Like a goalkeeper diving left or right during a penalty, when staying central is the better statistical bet, politicians can feel that doing something visible is safer than standing still, because failure after action looks like effort.
Failure after restraint looks like neglect. Two current debates suffer from this confusion: the proposed under-16 social media ban and the plan to scrap the Broadcasting Standards Authority.
In both cases, “something must be done” is threatening to outrun the harder question: what’s the problem? Parents and teachers are right to worry about children online.
Bullying, pornography, self-harm content, exploitation, sleep loss, anxiety, distorted body image and commercialised attention are not imaginary concerns. But they are not all the same harm. A ban aimed at pornography is not the same as a law aimed at addiction. A policy designed to help parents is not the same as one designed to regulate platforms.
But bundle these problems together under the word “safety” and almost any intervention can be made to sound reasonable. If the goal is to actually stop under-16s from using social media, Australia’s experience casts doubt on what a ban can achieve (there, more than two-thirds of teens still access social media). Though if the goal is simply to reduce usage, perhaps a ban may achieve something.
But if the goal is to support parents, it may be counterproductive by giving the impression the state has solved a problem parents must address. The same policy can be declared a triumph or a failure depending on which problem it was meant to solve. And that may be part of its political attraction. If the problem is never precisely defined, no one can ever prove it has not been fixed.
When the Prime Minister says the Government is going to “die trying”, it sounds reassuring. But trying to do what? Each answer leads to a different policy solution. The BSA saga faces the same challenge.
New Zealand’s media regulation has been overtaken by technology. A broadcaster can now be online-only, a newspaper can be a video publisher, and a podcast can perform the function once performed by talkback radio.
So when the BSA asserts jurisdiction, is attacked, defended, and now faces abolition, the same question should come first: what is the problem it exists to fix? Was the issue BSA overreach? Obsolete legislation? Unequal treatment between old and new media? State-backed regulation chilling speech? Lack of accountability? The answer depends on the problem defined.
That is why recent work by former judge Dr David Harvey, an expert in media law, is useful. It doesn’t only propose a solution. It starts with a clear problem.
Harvey identifies a fragmented media and communications landscape: the Harmful Digital Communications Act, the BSA, the New Zealand Media Council and the Classification Office all operating with different mandates and limits, none designed for the digital age or clearly grounded in the problem they exist to address.
His proposals separate news media standards, professional content standards, and online harm, recognising the state has a role, but not every role. They rely largely on voluntary cooperation, reserve coercion for demonstrable harm and platform responsibility, and treat freedom of expression as the default condition.
“Safety” is a tempting word because surely no decent person is against it, especially concerning children. But safety can mean almost anything. Harm must be precisely defined and supported by evidence, proportionate in response, and clear about whether the state is the proper actor to address it.
This matters for public trust. A Government that defines the problem clearly can be held to account. Citizens can ask whether the harm was real, whether the response was proportionate, whether the policy worked, and whether the State stayed within its proper limits.
But when the problem is vague, accountability disappears into fog, and the idea of limited government with it.
Insisting we carefully define the problem is not indifference or a lack of compassion. It is the beginning of a serious response.
A serious Government should be able to tell citizens why the State is entering their lives, and what success or failure will actually mean.
Jonathan Ayling is a strategy consultant and professional director. He is the former chief executive of the Free Speech Union (NZ), an Act Party supporter and donor, and has worked as a ministerial staffer and senior Parliamentary adviser in both Government and Opposition.
Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.