Giles Dexter of RNZ, Lauren Crimp of RNZ
The prime minister and education minister’s announcement the government has introduced a bill to ban social media for under-16s has caused two of the three parties in government to distance themselves from it, while it also appears to have caught Labour on the hop.
National is progressing its efforts to ban under-16 year olds from social media platforms, but so far is going it alone, unable to gather the support of its coalition partners, and Labour holding its support until it gets some more answers.
The bill puts the pressure on social media companies to take “reasonable steps” to check users are of-age, and includes the establishment of an online safety regulator and penalty regime.
The bill was introduced to Parliament on Monday as a government bill, and announced through a government press release, even though New Zealand First and ACT confirmed they had invoked the agree to disagree provision.
With 11 sitting days to go, the prime minister admitted the bill would not get its first reading before the election.
“We’ve got a lot of important bills to get out the door, but then we’ll pick this up on the other side of the election. But I think now this is the right thing to do,” Christopher Luxon said on Monday.
With New Zealand First and ACT long making it clear they opposed a ban, and without Labour’s guaranteed support, it meant Erica Stanford brought the bill to Cabinet for sign-off knowing that National did not currently have the numbers to progress it past first reading.
It leaft Labour free to push out its decision on the bill until after November, or for New Zealand First and ACT to fight against it should there be another round of coalition negotiations.
Labour, which had released a list of 79 questions it wanted answered, was likely to discuss the bill further at Tuesday’s caucus meeting, with leader Chris Hipkins open to coming to a position before the election.
Hipkins said his party would continue to engage with National on the bill “in good faith”, even though the prime minister’s admission the bill would not get its day in Parliament any time soon came as a surprise.
“We were working on the basis that we thought they were asking us to support it before the election. It’s clear, I now understand from the press conference, not from any communication with them on it, that they don’t intend to progress it,” Hipkins said.
National’s coalition partners were even more unimpressed with the way the bill was announced, with New Zealand First leader Winston Peters going through great pains to stress it was a National bill, not a government bill.
“Here we are having to tell a coalition partner how MMP works, and this is not how it works on this occasion. You’ve got two parties that aren’t agreeing,” he said.
David Seymour, meanwhile, said it was National’s right to “go it alone” and put the bill out before the election, and wished the party luck, but he did not believe it was a serious solution.
“I think people can judge for themselves, one party pushing through what is really an election campaign policy for themselves, at exactly the time the government needs to stick together,” he said.
Luxon said it was “perfectly reasonable” that parties formed their own view of the bill, but insisted the bill was “not a political thing”.
“It’s actually a Kiwi thing, and that’s what this is really about, and that’s what we really want the other parties to think about too.”
Stanford rejected an allegation from Peters that New Zealand First had only been made aware National wanted to introduce the bill on Friday, and had first seen the Cabinet paper over the weekend.
“The bill has been circulated for a number of weeks. It’s been with all parties. In fact, I offered New Zealand First a full briefing with my officials, which they accepted, so they certainly have had the Cabinet papers for a really long time.”
Hipkins said it had been “difficult” to get information out of the minister, but he did not want the matter to become a political football.
“My comments here are relatively moderate. I’m a little frustrated, but they’re moderate because I do want to find a way forward.”
Luxon and Stanford were also keen to put politics aside, with Stanford saying Labour would get a response to its questions shortly.
“It was quite a long, detailed list. Nothing particularly insurmountable. They’re just actually intelligent questions, but nothing of serious concern,” she said.
“We’re happy to engage with any political party on this, because it’s about the kids, not about political parties per se,” Luxon added.
Despite the political back-and-forth, the policy is popular with the public, even amongst supporters of parties that oppose it.
A RNZ-Reid Research poll from June 2025 had 57.8 percent of respondents say they supported a ban, with 31.6 percent opposed.
National supporters overwhelmingly agreed with a ban – 75.1 percent – while even ACT and New Zealand First supporters were also in favour.
Those invited to the announcement included students, principals, and members of the B416 campaign group, which has lobbied the government extensively for a ban.
Whangaparāoa College principal Steve McCracken, who is also chair of the Secondary Principals’ Council, said there had been some success in Australia of children disengaging with social media, which he said was a good sign.
“This is a step towards trying to help our young people actually just reconnect with each other, and become better citizens overall.”
A government fact sheet released alongside the announcement said around three in 10 children in Australia no longer had social media accounts.
The prime minister said the government was trying to make it the new normal.
“I came through an era in schooling where actually you didn’t have to have a bike helmet in primary and intermediate school, and then eventually at intermediate school it became a law, or became normal, that actually everyone wears their bike helmet, and then it became abnormal when you didn’t have a bike helmet on, and it’s no different here.”
Dr Maneesh Deva, a paediatrician but also an adviser for the B416 group, said he welcomed any action to protect children against big tech.
“We’ve moved from a play-based generation to a phone-based generation. What we’re seeing is really high rates of anxiety, self-harm presentations, sleep disturbance, and attention problems,” he said.
“I think the kids describe it well when they say that, what are you seeing on social media? They call it brain rot. And I think they’ve pretty much got it right.”
Not everyone in attendance was convinced.
“I don’t think it’s going to work. I strongly believe that people are going to find ways around it,” said Naenae College student Josiah Scott.
“I think a ban is quite a privileged stance. People that can’t interact, like marginalised communities, a big part of their ability to interact with each other. Disabled people who can’t get out of the house as easily as most people, people who can’t afford to do extra activities, aren’t going to be able to connect with these people anymore,” said student Lily Sang.
She said a better step would be to fund ‘third spaces’ better, and give teenagers a place to go and build connection.
“If you’re going to take away one form of connection, you need to be able to build up spaces and make them more accessible for people.”
But Queen Margaret College (QMC) student Biju Kim said she often found herself scrolling instead of studying.
Fellow QMC student Ana Bareta agreed, saying while social media could bring good things like connection, she also found herself scrolling without realising how long she had been scrolling for.
“I could have been doing study, I could have been outside, I could have been hanging out with my friends. But no, I’ve just been scrolling, or just on social media.”
Attendees received a short heads up, with Stanford’s office confirming to RNZ they were invited to an “update to the work being done to reduce online harm” late last week.
RNZ has approached TikTok and Meta for comment, but Stanford pre-emptively dismissed any opposition the ban was likely to get.
“I’ve met with some of the tech companies, and they make all the same excuses that you would expect them to make: ‘oh, but we’re trying, oh, but there’s worse things out there’. At which point, I say, ‘what? Worse than learning how to self-harm on your platform?’.
“At which point, you know, they sort of walk out with a tail between their legs because they know the harms that their platforms are causing.”
This story was first published on rnz.co.nz
