Accessible News

Top storiesNew ZealandPoliticsBusinessEntertainmentSportsWorld

Fate of social media ban in Labour’s hands, ACT hints

Wednesday, 20 May 2026

ACT party leader David Seymour hints his party would use the “agree to disagree” provision to oppose the Government’s proposed social media ban.
ACT party leader David Seymour hints his party would use the “agree to disagree” provision to oppose the Government’s proposed social media ban.

ACT leader David Seymour is signalling his party may use the “agree to disagree” provision to oppose the Government’s proposed social media ban, saying he remains “pretty skeptical” of the plan in its current form.

This would mean ACT could oppose the bill but National could still pass it if it could win support from Labour, which has signalled it wants to go further than a simple age limit.

It comes after National dropped National MP Catherine Wedd’s members bill, which was due to be debated in the House on Wednesday, in favour of progressing wider work by Education Minister Erica Stanford.

Stanford was tasked by the Prime Minister last year to bring options to Cabinet and has been working on separate legislation for a social media ban ever since.

Read more:

Stanford has said the bill would have its first reading before the election and she would have more to say in June.

Seymour said he seen draft papers of Stanford’s legislation and was unconvinced a blunt ban for teens was the right approach.

He pointed to the impasse over the India Free Trade Agreement - which coalition partner NZ First is voting against but Labour is supporting - as a potential scenario that might play out for the social media ban legislation.

“The India Free Trade Agreement, for example, two parties support it, one doesn't, it’s still being voted through with the help of another party.

“The parents of New Zealand and the children, for that matter, deserve a quality solution. I just don't know that we're getting one yet.”

A debate on the proposal in the House last week saw both National and Labour signal that a ban could only be the beginning of a much wider suite of online regulations.

Both parties backed recommendations from a formal select committee inquiry, which included banning VPNs used to evade restrictions, as well as “nudify” apps and non-consensual deepfake sexual imagery.

Labour’s science, technology and innovation spokesperson, Rueben Davidson, said age restriction was just one of the tools available to make online spaces safer.

Labour supported that but wanted to go further, saying there wasn’t a single solution.

“There are so many other tools that we need to be looking at - an independent regulator, algorithmic transparency, safety by design. There isn't a single solution to making online spaces safer.”

National MP Carl Bates mirrored Davidson’s words in the debate last week, saying a social media ban was just one component of a wider set of measures.

It was not an issue that could be solved through a single bill, a narrow legislative response, or a focus on one platform or one technology, he said.

Seymour questioned where exactly regulation would stop.

“The internet is ultimately just a whole web of people connected by wires. Where exactly are you going to stop banning?”

He pointed to the gaming platform Roblox, which was being used by adults to target children online and argued banning the game missed a wider point that different platforms would continue to emerge.

Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said her party wanted to see regulations extend past just young people, saying online harm impacted all ages.

She believed the ban would undermine privacy and was concerned young people would be driven to “deeper and darker” corners of the internet in the absence of social media.

Recommendations from Parliament’s Education and Workforce select committee inquiry into the harms young New Zealanders encounter online: