DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER

CO-LEADER, TE PĀTI MĀORI

How important is social media for your interactions with constituents and the public?

For us as Māori, people who are so face-to-face, you need to be able to eyeball the people that you’re representing. Social media plays a crucial part for us in being able to maintain our authenticity via distance. There are some things on socials you can’t cover, especially when you belong to a pretty humble party like ours. For instance, during our first live on Insta, Rawiri’s son disclosed that he was in his undies. So, it’s a critical part of relating to our people, but you have to do it yourself so that it’s genuine.

What’s an example of a positive interaction or engagement you’ve had with constituents through social media?

Most of my experiences with social media are really positive, such as being able to mobilise people to a particular kaupapa. I use our platform to educate and inform. For example, during COVID, we were able to comfort each other and say what was happening. Recently, Rawiri [Waititi] and I did a national tour, and we had one thousand people turn up. And social media was a critical tool in reaching out to our people.

What’s an example of a positive interaction or engagement you’ve had with constituents through social media?

With traditional forms of criticism that you would take to your face, the person giving it would need to stand there and wear the consequence of giving that feedback, whether it’s constructive or not. But there is a cowardly cult that comes from online criticism because you could have no profile and no name. I’ve learned that you don’t need to heed the nasty stuff online. Now, I’m relatively calm about receiving those sorts of things, but I have seen smarter people than me really triggered, and I have seen particularly rangatahi harmed.

Do you think social media has helped bridge the gap between generations?

There were times when we could sit down with our koros and our nans and give them the time they deserve. Now we’ve got families of our own, everyone’s working two or three jobs. You just don’t get to do that anymore. Social media plays a critical part in helping us stay connected. I love it, but it’s risky: my dad puts stuff up, and I literally can’t breathe because it’s so cringe. But that’s the consequence of not living next door to each other and being able to pop over the fence.

What steps can be taken to ensure that social media remains a constructive tool for political engagement rather than a source of division?

So much is put on social media, and I think some of the discussions we have need to happen in real life. I know there’s been some really revolting politicking around what divides us versus what unites us. But I see more pushback against the politically divisive in real life, and that needs to be reflected in social media. We should only behave on these platforms as we would in real life. When it comes to the kind of covert, underbelly behaviour we see online, then I think users should be traceable and trackable. I also think there are some loose aspects of social media that could be tidied up, not in a stifling way, but in a way that everyone can live without fear and without hate or violence.

TEANAU TUIONO

LIST MEMBER, GREEN PARTY

How has social media impacted the media landscape?

Social media is part of the media landscape now, so you’ve got to have a presence on the various platforms. I’m of the age where I remember when there weren’t any social media platforms—when you only had a couple of TV channels and a few newspapers. So, it’s had a massive impact. My concern is that these social media companies are geared solely toward making a profit. I wonder about the impact of social media here in rural provinces where you have hardly any rural journalists because it isn’t “profitable.” Real people reporting on real stories is so important for our local democracy, which, of course, has an impact on our national democracy.

How has social media influenced the political discourse in New Zealand?

I prefer face-to-face engagements. Particularly when resolving a conflict or disagreement. Social media isn’t really a good place to have these discussions because it’s all about engagement. Often, controversial or negative things are incredibly engaging but not necessarily informative. When you engage with people in person, you get the full suite of communication: you can see their body language and how they talk, and because of that, you can have a more fulsome conversation. That’s the downside of social media and its influence on political engagement because it can take away from these in-person interactions.

How do you think criticism on social media differs from more traditional forms?

With more traditional forms of criticism, if someone doesn’t agree with me and I’m sitting across the kitchen table from them, we can talk it out meaningfully and constructively. With social media, sometimes you don’t even know whether you’re engaging with a real person. You could be talking to a troll or responding to a bot, so you have to be discerning with the kinds of criticism you engage with and figure out whether beginning or continuing dialogue would actually help resolve whatever issue is at hand and whether it would leave you both in a better place.

Do you think social media has helped bring people together politically, or has it exacerbated the divide?

I think social media has exacerbated the differences that were already there. People who are incredibly vocal but not necessarily big in number and have a particular agenda can wreak havoc. Some people are off the charts with what they believe, and for some, it moves them to be aggressive. An example would be what we saw at Capitol Hill in the United States, where they tried to overthrow the government. Even in New Zealand, with what happened on the lawn at Parliament, we have examples of how fractured realities can play out.

What steps can be taken to ensure that social media remains a constructive tool for political engagement rather than a source of division?

One thing we could do is have a civics education like what they’re doing in Finland, making sure that we are better educated about misinformation and disinformation. It’s important that we give people the tools to actually decipher and discern what is fact and what is fiction. I also think there needs to be some accountability on the part of social media companies as there have been overseas, especially when it comes to hate speech.

NICOLA GRIGG

MEMBER FOR SELWYN, NATIONAL PARTY

How has social media changed the way you interact with your constituents and the public?

I’ve only been an MP for the past three years, so for me, the social media aspect of it has always been the dominant player. Within my electorate, there are multiple demographics. So, it’s important for me to be across all the platforms, like traditional print media, newsletters, and e-newsletters. I try to strike a balance between being across the platforms. However, because of simplicity and cost-effectiveness, I probably have a more dominant presence on my social media.

In what ways do you think social media has influenced the political discourse and public opinion in New Zealand?

The immediacy of social media is really important. We want instant gratification; we want instant news straight to our devices, yet you still have 700,000 people watching the six o’clock news. My Facebook page is nowhere near those numbers, and I would imagine it probably never will be. I think people also have a reasonable distrust of politicians; they are more likely to believe what they see on the news as opposed to a Facebook page. But there’s also a demographic shift, particularly around age groups, where we see younger people gravitating towards Instagram and the like.

Do you think the impact of online criticism differs from traditional forms of critique?

Comments on social media are more immediate, and they tend to be more feral. Traditionally, you might have a letter to the editor of a newspaper from a disgruntled writer or a letter to your office complaining about your conduct or your performance or whatever. But with social media, it is really easy to become a keyboard warrior. You’re faceless and nameless. People say, “To be a politician, you have to have thick skin.” But I say, “I have a thick skin over my sensitive soul.” Oftentimes, you need to differentiate in your mind whether the criticism is justified and move on.

What steps can be taken to ensure that social media remains a constructive tool for political engagement rather than a source of division?

I try to keep my social media use really high level, in the sense that I only deal in facts, I only deal in my perspective, and I never personally criticise people. It’s like the great saying, “You play the ball, not the man.” And you know, if I want to write a post criticising the government, I will, but I will back it up, and I won’t target specific people. By setting an example of that tone and content, I think that helps to ensure social media is a constructive tool. But it’s hard to tell what impact that has because it’s a bit of a “Wild West” out there.

Have you observed any changes in voter behaviour due to social media?

I wonder about some of the really negative, nasty stuff that you see on social media and whether they’d say that to my face. I suspect not. The one thing I have noticed is people talk a lot about gender-based abuse, but I have to say, the worst social media insults are from women. They never criticise the policy, but generally, me personally or my intellect. That’s the sort of stuff you just have to switch off to. If you would like to have a robust discussion, then bring it on. But if this is the game you’re going to play, then I’m not engaging.

WILLIE JACKSON

LIST MEMBER, LABOUR PARTY

How do you think social media influences political discourse?

Social media has a major influence on political discourse, but you have to be a bit discerning because you will get differing views from the left and right. Social media is used so much because it’s so easy—you just turn on a device. You only have to look at the American context to understand how politicians use social media. For us in the New Zealand context, we’ve been able to use social media really positively to communicate the content of our policies and the concerns we have about inequity and the cost of living.

Do you think social media has helped bridge the gap or the divide between generations?

I think social media has helped in bringing people together, including older people. I was a late convert, but I know it has helped friends and families stay in touch regardless of where they are in the world. It’s also free to keep in contact with the people you know so you can see each other and engage with them in a way that was impossible before social media. In that respect, it’s an amazing tool.

How do you think social media has influenced the political climate in New Zealand?

Anyone on social media can voice their opinions or persuade people of a certain position. You have to remember that 15-20 years ago, you didn’t have access to this level of information or the variety of voices because the people who had influence were a select and small few in what we now call “legacy media.” Now, ordinary people can have their say. Old Tom Jones out in the garden could come out with the most brilliant piece on politics or whatever. So, the ability to influence and be an influencer of thought, for good or ill, is much greater than in previous decades.

What steps can be taken to ensure that social media remains a constructive tool for political engagement rather than a source of division?

We need to be careful when it comes to social media that there are standards. So, I think there has to be some monitoring, but you also don’t want to regulate everything. There definitely have to be some rules, though, because some people misuse and take advantage of social media, so there have to be some rules around that. The trick is trying to find the balance so it isn’t too prescriptive and people can engage in a free-flowing way.

Have you observed any changes in voter behaviour or political participation due to social media?

People change their minds because social media provides an opportunity to see another side and really get into a subject. In the Māori world, there are always lots of debates over women’s rights, Māori rights, when women should talk, and when Pakeha should talk; and so, you’re really able to get into a topic by hearing people from quite different viewpoints express their opinions. So, in that way, social media can be a tool for real change as people consider different arguments.

How do you strike a balance between sharing your personal life on social media to connect with voters and maintaining a professional political image?

I don’t tend to talk about my personal life or family too much on my public profile. I have a private account for that. But it’s a tricky one as a politician because you have to strike a balance between being authentic and an example and protecting the privacy of myself and my family. As a minister for Māori trying to set a positive example, I do speak about my family to encourage and activate my own people. Whether I like it or not, people look at me as a public figure. Every now and then, for things that are really special in terms of our culture, say around tangi or treaty settlements, my family will feature on my public profile. But as a rule, I generally try to avoid having the whanau or the wife on there.

KAREN CHHOUR

LIST MEMBER, ACT PARTY

How do you think social media has influenced political discourse?

Like all good things, social media comes with its pitfalls. People can say anything online, something they may not necessarily say to a person’s face. The term ‘keyboard warrior’ comes to mind. What someone has said can be taken in unintended ways, which can cause a real problem, especially when people can communicate anything without consequences. I have noticed more recently that people are quick to shut down those they disagree with. There is not the same willingness to have open, adult conversations about complex issues.

What is one positive experience you have had with social media?

One positive experience I’ve had with social media was sharing my maiden speech, where I shared my journey to Parliament and what I wanted to achieve. It was hard to give that speech because it was pretty personal. But to see the positive feedback online and hear people say, “That sounds like my life journey, and I’m glad someone with real-life experience in these areas is giving us a voice in Parliament,” that was encouraging.

Do you think social media has facilitated greater transparency or has it caused more polarisation?

I think social media has led to more transparency. People can see how hard you are working (or not working) by what they see online. But it can also lead to a lot of anger if people feel they are not being heard. There can be a boil-over of rage when people interpret your policies or what you have said in a way that leads them to believe they will be adversely affected. It’s pretty easy for people to just see you as evil rather than engage with what you are saying.

How do you handle online criticism and negative comments?

I think people have the right to say and feel how they like. So, I do take criticism on board because sometimes it’s actually constructive, and you can change your thinking or behaviour if you have been convinced of a particular point of view. When it gets quite abusive or racist, that’s where I think problems arise with social media. But freedom of speech has consequences. That’s where the ‘block’ button comes in handy. It allows you to stop hatred in its tracks.

Do you think social media impacts political discourse differently compared to more traditional modes of engagement?

People tend to be more reasonable face-to-face. They’ll come and ask you a question and listen to the answer, and generally, they are not as aggressive as they might be behind a keyboard. So, I think the most significant difference between interactions on social media compared to in real life is the level of consequence people think they will face for their actions. There is a sense of a safety barrier between you and the other person online that does not exist in person, which means people are less inclined to act with restraint.