Parents are ‘frantic’, but coalition divisions threatens to stall the under-16 social media ban

Thursday, 21 May 2026

The Government faces a June 3 deadline to respond to a select committee inquiry that recommends a comprehensive overhaul of online safety regulations, including a ban on social media for children.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon backs the under-16 ban and transferred responsibility to Education Minister Erica Stanford.

The legislation's future remains uncertain as both ACT and NZ First refuse to pledge their support, raising sharp concerns over privacy regarding digital government IDs and the ease of bypassing bans via VPNs.

Stuff is this week reporting in-depth on the need to regulate social media platforms who are not doing enough. You can read Editor-in-Chief Keith Lynch's oped here.

The clock is ticking on the government’s need to respond to a select committee inquiry into social media which recommended an age restriction to be introduced for accessing social media platforms.

In March a select committee inquiry into the harm young New Zealanders encounter online, made a raft of recommendations ranging from a complete review of the legislation underpinning social media to the removal of “safe harbour” provisions which protect platforms from liability for harmful content that others post.

It recommended a ban on advertising alcohol, tobacco and gambling online, a ban on ‘nudify’ apps that enable the creation of deepfake sexual imagery of real people, the establishment of an online safety regulator, along with education and research campaigns and the ban on social media for children.

The inquiry was launched following National’s indication last year it wanted to ban social media for under 16s.

National first climbed into the issue through a Members Bill in the name of Catherine Wedd - announced the same day that the government revealed it would be significantly changing the pay equity scheme. (That bill has now been paused.)

It riled up the founders of an advocacy group B416 who’d planned to launch a major campaign to ban social media for under 16s on Saturday May 11 last year, but National got the jump on them announcing the members bill days before.

At the launch, Christopher Luxon announced he’d also adopt the issue as a government-led process rather than relying on the parliamentary process that backbenchers have to work through.

It’s understood the policy work was initially supposed to be undertaken by the Department of Internal Affairs, however its minister, Act’s Brooke van Velden was deeply opposed to the policy so did not want to progress it.

So the Prime Minister found a work around - carving responsibility for the issue out to one of his own ministers - Education Minister Erica Stanford.

The government has until June 3 to respond to the select committee inquiry, which Stanford told Stuff she was confident she could meet.

“Yes, we will. It's coming through the house. It's going to be reported on.”

But for National to progress with any legislation it may need to reach across the aisle.

Both the Act party and New Zealand First raised concern about Wedd’s members bill, and the Act member of the select committee entered a scathing alternative view to the committee’s proposal, accusing it of a “lack of seriousness” for not requesting departmental advice on the topic or allowing YouTube to submit in person to share the experience the company had with the Australian government’s ban.

It listed problems with the committee’s recommendations to ban Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) which are seen as an easy way to evade restrictions and concerns about privacy if a ban required people to supply official identification online.

The leaders of both NZ First and Act told Stuff the concerns they have with the government getting involved in the issue have not yet been allayed by Stanford’s work either.

David Seymour said his party remained sceptical about the ban’s workability because teens could find their way around bans by connecting to VPNs or moving to unregulated platforms.

He says as it stands Act won’t be supporting the government bill without significant change.

“Well, it depends where she arrives with it. So we believe there's a real problem. Parents are frantic out there, they feel like they're under siege from these apps and these phones, but the ban, we said it wasn't well thought through,” Seymour said.

“Look, where she is right now, we're still pretty sceptical. It doesn't mean that we won't get to a solution, because there is a big problem. But you know, I would say if something's worth doing, it's worth doing right.”

Winston Peters’ main concern is the potential wider implication of introducing a digital government ID that everyone would need to access the platforms.

“We have expressed our concern that something that sounds like it's got a smart plan for parents ends up being a massive challenge to freedom, and we're going to be watching with the greatest of care.”

He also told us his party is not yet on board.

“Not at this point in time, no,” he said. “She may come up with an answer to this, but in the meantime, our caveats and our codicils still stand.”

Labour has indicated it is open to working with the government on a ban.

“I've been working on this legislation for a while. I have already briefed Labour once on it, because there is, you know, general interest in this, and we will continue to do that. I will work with any party in this parliament who's willing to support this work,” Stanford says.

Behind the scenes when the bill was first proposed and concerns were raised, National’s view was that it was similar to the phone ban in schools - that a government direction may help shift behaviour more than the legislative tools.

Since then Australia’s world first legislation banning under 16s from social media came into force, and the government, while still supportive in principle, has been less proactive in its support for a ban, perhaps wishing to wait for the lessons of Australia’s attempts.

Surveys have shown that two thirds of teens banned from the platforms have still managed to get or keep accounts despite the ban.

Many European countries are proposing some form of ban or action on social media for young people.

The EU is considering an age limit alongside a Digital Fairness Act that will take aim at “addictive and harmful design practices”.

The United States is looking at a Kids Online Safety Act which would put the onus on big tech to design products that prioritise children’s safety, including strict parental controls and preventing content that promoted harmful behaviours like self harm and eating disorders.

A political hurdle on this was crossed this week with Republican Senator Ted Cruz expressing support for the bill.

There is a push from Stanford for her officials to monitor and work with other jurisdictions tackling the same problem.

“It's important that we are in sync with the rest of the world as much as we can be, because the way that you change the behaviour of social media giants to protect our kids is to make sure that there is a worldwide collective effort heading in the same direction.”

The minister says she will have legislation introduced to Parliament this term.

This week Stuff is reporting in-depth on the proposed social media ban. Are you a parent, a teacher, or a teenager with a view? We want to hear from you about the harms of social media. Let us know what you think in the comments or you can provide a more expansive take in the Form below. We’ll publish a selection of the best comments.