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, who speaks for Labour on science and technology matters, 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 other Labour MPs. 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 give Davidson a copy, citing unspecified legal reasons. RNZ

Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said if the government wanted Labour's support for the bill, it would need to engage more "fulsomely" — meaning more thoroughly and in good faith. Hipkins said his understanding was that Stanford was "not negotiating," meaning Labour could read the bill but would have to agree to vote for it without changes first. Any changes would have to wait until the bill goes to a select committee — a small group of MPs from different parties who examine a proposed law in detail and take public submissions before it gets voted on. RNZ

Davidson confirmed one notable detail: the bill does not include a ban on VPNs. VPNs (virtual private networks) are tools that let people hide their location and identity online, which could make it possible for young people to get around age restrictions. That question has been a live one among commentators comparing the New Zealand approach to Australia's, which Stanford has separately addressed in rejecting unspecified claims about the comparison. RNZ; RNZ

The bill has been on hold since May. Stanford put the original proposal — introduced by National MP Catherine Wedd as a member's bill, meaning a bill put forward by an individual MP rather than the government as a whole — on hold to look at wider law changes beyond what the first draft covered. RNZ; RNZ

Stanford has been running a tight internal process on the policy. Her published diaries 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 stance on the ban has been consistent even as the details have shifted. At a press conference after a Cabinet meeting 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 another post-cabinet press conference on 6 October 2025, a journalist noted that social media companies were telling the government to "taihoa" — a te reo Māori word meaning to slow down or hold off — on the ban. A visiting Meta executive proposed verifying age when people buy smartphones, 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, a youth support organisation, 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 come together. 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 the bill is introduced suggests she is trying to hold the government's own partners together before seeking support from other parties. Letting opposition MPs view but not copy the bill is unusual but not unheard of before a bill is formally introduced. It reflects the government's desire to keep control over how the bill is framed and what changes are possible before it reaches the select committee stage, where Labour and other parties will have formal input regardless.

What is still unclear is whether Stanford's offer of a viewing session for Labour MPs will be enough for Hipkins, or whether the "not negotiating" stance will push Labour further away from supporting the bill before it reaches Parliament. The fact that there is no VPN ban in the legislation, as Davidson confirmed, also raises practical questions about how the ban would actually be enforced — questions the select committee process will have to deal with, especially given the comparisons being drawn with Australia's scheme.