Education Minister Erica Stanford says she cannot give Labour MP Reuben Davidson a copy of the under-16 social media ban bill for "legal reasons," but has arranged further opportunities for Labour MPs to view it.

Davidson, Labour's science, technology and innovation spokesperson, told media on a Tuesday that he saw the bill in Stanford's office but was not allowed to take a copy to share with the wider Labour caucus. Davidson said he first saw a copy of the bill "some time last month" relative to the date of the report. RNZ

Stanford said she had set up a meeting for Thursday of the same week so other Labour MPs could also view the bill. She declined to provide Davidson with a physical copy, citing unspecified legal reasons. RNZ

The Labour leadership has pressed for more substantive engagement. Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said if the government wanted Labour's support for the bill, it would need to engage more "fulsomely." Hipkins said his understanding was that Stanford's position was she was "not negotiating," meaning Labour could read the bill but would have to agree to vote for it without pre-committee changes. Changes could be considered through the select committee process. RNZ

Davidson confirmed a notable policy detail: no VPN ban is included in the proposed legislation. That question has been a live one among commentators comparing the New Zealand approach to Australia's implementation, which Stanford has separately addressed in rejecting unspecified claims about the comparison. RNZ; RNZ

The bill has been on hold since May, when Stanford put the original proposal — introduced as a member's bill by National MP Catherine Wedd — on hold to look at wider law changes beyond the scope of the initial draft. RNZ; RNZ

Stanford has been running a tight internal process on the policy. Proactive diary releases show meetings with officials on the U16 social media work in October, November and December 2025, including a "U16 Social Media Sprint Team" meeting on 10 October 2025. Beehive; Beehive; Beehive

The government's public posture on the ban has been consistent even as the legislative mechanics have shifted. At a post-cabinet press conference on 10 November 2025, a government representative said the government was "very attracted to the idea" but that "the devil is in the detail" and policy work was ongoing. Beehive

Social media platforms have pushed back. At the post-cabinet press conference on 6 October 2025, a journalist noted that social media companies were telling the government to "taihoa" on the ban. A visiting Meta executive proposed verifying age at the point of smartphone purchase as an alternative to legislated restrictions. Stanford said Cabinet's mind was already made up and told social media companies to "clean up your act." She has referred to tech companies as "insidious" and told Parliament that social media algorithms are feeding destructive self-harm behaviours to New Zealand children. NZ Herald; Stuff; NZ Herald; Stuff

Stanford said age-related restrictions were "too important" for her not to try to progress to legislation. NZ Herald

Youthline came out in opposition to the ban, according to notes from the 12 May 2025 post-cabinet press conference. Beehive

The broader context here is a government managing a politically sensitive piece of legislation through a coalition that has not yet fully coalesced. Act and NZ First were reported in mid-June as "not quite on board" with the bill, and Stanford's refusal to negotiate with Labour before introduction suggests she is trying to hold the government's own bloc together before seeking cross-party support. The approach of letting opposition MPs view but not copy the bill is unusual but not unprecedented in the lead-up to introduction; it reflects the government's desire to maintain control over framing and amendment scope before the bill enters the public select committee phase, where Labour and other parties will have formal input regardless.

What remains unresolved is whether Stanford's offer of a viewing session for Labour MPs will satisfy Hipkins's call for more fulsome engagement, or whether the "not negotiating" stance hardens Labour's position against the bill before it reaches the House. The absence of a VPN ban from the legislation, as confirmed by Davidson, also raises practical enforcement questions that the select committee process will have to grapple with, particularly given the comparisons being drawn with Australia's scheme.