Why the government wants to ban under-16s from social media — and why its own partners won't back it

The National Party wants to ban people under 16 from using social media. But the two other parties it governs with — New Zealand First and ACT — do not support the plan.

Under New Zealand's voting system, parties often need to team up to form a government. There is a rule that lets parties in a government disagree on a specific policy without the government falling apart. Both New Zealand First and ACT have used that rule here.

Education Minister Erica Stanford brought the bill to Cabinet knowing National did not have enough votes to pass it. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has admitted the bill will not be voted on before the election, with only 11 working days left in Parliament's term. The bill was still announced as a government bill. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters stressed it was a National bill, not a government bill. ACT leader David Seymour said it was National's right to put the bill forward before the election but he did not think it was a serious solution.

The bill would ban under-16s from social media and make technology companies do more. Platforms would need to check users' ages. A new online safety regulator would be set up. Companies that do not follow the rules could be fined up to 10% of their global income. The government first signalled this direction in May 2025, when it added social media restrictions for under-16s to its work programme.

The opposition Labour Party has not rejected the bill. Leader Chris Hipkins said his party would engage with National in good faith. But Labour has released a list of 79 questions it wants answered about the bill. Those questions cover how age checks would work, how the rules would be enforced, and what the penalties would cover.

Not everyone agrees a ban is the right approach. Youthline, a youth counselling service, opposed an under-16 social media ban, according to a press conference in May 2025. Some worry a ban could push young people toward less safe parts of the internet.

The political picture here matters. National gets to tell voters it has taken action on children's online safety. The bill's failure to pass before the election can be blamed on running out of time in Parliament, rather than a lack of effort. For New Zealand First and ACT, disagreeing publicly lets them avoid being tied to a policy they have doubts about, while staying in government on everything else. Peters's insistence that this is a National bill, not a government bill, is a way of keeping the political risk to one party.

For Labour, the 79 questions send two messages. They show a willingness to work with National, which Hipkins emphasised. They also show the bill has big gaps that National has not yet filled. Whether those gaps can be closed after the election — and whether a future government would have the votes to pass it — depends on the make-up of the next Parliament.

The bill, as written, takes one of the toughest approaches to social media regulation in New Zealand. The 10% of global income penalty is among the harshest in the world. But a bill that cannot get voted on before an election is, for now, a statement of intent rather than a change in the law. What happens next depends on whether National comes back after the election with enough support to pass it, or whether it quietly disappears between terms.