How would the Government ban social media for Kiwi kids?

Tuesday, 6 May 2025

The National Party wants to ban children and young teenagers from using social media. But how would that work? Political reporter Glenn McConnell explains.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the Government could ban social media for Kiwi kids, following a similar move in Australia.

He made that suggestion on Tuesday, as a National Party MP introduced a private bill to ban social media for children and teenagers aged under 16. As a private bill, this is not Government policy - so it’s unclear if, or when, such a ban would come into force.

The timing is just one complication in a rather complicated proposal. Its announcement raised immediate questions about how the New Zealand government would enforce such a ban - and which companies would be forced to comply.

What’s going on?

Luxon held a press conference on Tuesday with National backbencher Catherine Wedd, who is proposing a bill which promises to stop kids using social media.

This is not a Government bill, meaning it is not Government policy. It is just an idea that has come from a National Party MP, but Luxon says he likes the idea and is looking at how to make it become a reality.

Wedd said her proposal, called the Social Media Age-Restricted Users Bill, would require social media companies to verify the age of users. Anyone under 16 wouldn’t be able to legally access social media under the proposal.

Social media companies would need to take “reasonable verification measures” to check users’ ages, otherwise New Zealand courts could impose financial penalties on them.

Which sites would be blocked?

A key question for this law change would be what, exactly, meets the definition of “social media”.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins questioned that on Tuesday, soon after National announced its idea. He pointed out that Roblox, a popular online game for children, involved a social element - with players talking to each other. Minecraft, Fortnite, and many other popular games also involve social interaction.

Then there’s other online media sites, such as YouTube or even Stuff - which allow audiences to comment on posts and interact with content. Is that social media?

And what about messaging apps? iMessage - installed on every iPhone - has been expanding its features beyond just text messaging. WhatsApp and Snapchat, which had been used for person-to-person conversation, have also expanded to do much more.

Stuff asked Luxon and Wedd what their definitions would be.

She said that was still an open question.

“Look, we’ll be looking at all platforms. Naturally, it will cover traditional platforms - Snapchat, Meta accounts Facebook and Instagram, and TikTok - but further platforms will certainly be explored,” Wedd said.

A draft of the bill defined social media as a platform where “the sole or primary purpose of the platform is to enable online social interaction”.

ACT leader David Seymour said he thought the bill could open the door to Wikipedia being banned.

“Editing Wikipedia would certainly count. I don’t think they had that in mind, it’s a great place for young people to learn stuff. At the moment, YouTube, with its comment section, [would also count],” he said.

Why does National want to limit social media use?

Luxon said banning cellphones in schools had been positive for young people and this could bring further benefits for social life and mental health.

He said he first started thinking about this in 2018, after reading The Coddling of the American Mind by US social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, which raises concerns about younger generations losing tolerance and the ability to debate.

Wedd said she was concerned about bullying.

“My Social Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill is about protecting young people from bullying, inappropriate content and social media addiction by restricting access for under 16-year-olds,” she said.

Hipkins said he agreed that many online platforms were causing real harm, and he offered to work with the Government on this issue.

He said talk of a “ban” was simplistic, and called for the Government to form its own work programme to address online harm.

“The first thing we've got to do is education for kids. Because no matter what you do in terms of safeguards, we know kids find ways around it,” he said.

How’s the ban going in Australia?

Luxon said he had spoken to Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese about this.

In Australia, the online safety bill became law the end of 2024.

Google lobbied the Australian Government to secure a YouTube exemption from the ban, which it received.

The Greens and NZ First all said they wanted to see how the ban went in Australia before committing to support something similar in New Zealand.

Is this actually going to happen?

Maybe, but maybe not.

As a private members’ bill (rather than Government policy), the bill will go into what’s called “the biscuit tin”. The biscuit tin is a ballot process, and only if it wins the lucky draw will this bill be debated and voted on. That could happen soon, or it could never happen.

It’s unclear why this was introduced as a members’ bill, and not Government policy, given Luxon said he would look to pick it up as a Government bill.

But here’s the problem - not all of the coalition Government supports this bill.

In a statement, Seymour said his party opposed the bill because “it is not workable”.

Later on Tuesday, Luxon said National would look to get support from the Opposition to support the bill. Hipkins said he would be happy to work with National on this.

“I'd like to see the Government taking leadership on this issue, rather than a National Party backbencher,” Hipkins said.

He said he was concerned that this issue would not be debated, given it had been sent to the biscuit tin.