A push to protect young users
A new member’s bill looks to ban children aged 16 and under from social media to protect them from online harm.
“Social media is an extraordinary resource, but it comes with risks, and right now we aren’t managing the risks for our young people well,” Tukituki MP Catherine Wedd says, who put forward the bill.
She says the Social Media Age-Appropriate Users Bill is about protecting young people from bullying, inappropriate content and social media addiction.
“The Bill puts the onus on social media companies to verify that someone is over the age of 16 before they access social media platforms.
“Currently, there are no legally enforceable age verification measures for social media platforms in New Zealand.”
The Bill closely mirrors the approach taken in Australia, which passed a similar social media ban at the end of last year.
The Beehive reacts
The National Party introduced the proposal as a member’s bill after the ACT Party blocked exploring it as a “broader government bill” as Prime Minister Christopher Luxon wanted.
ACT Party leader David Seymour labelled the bill simplistic and unworkable. He emphasised the need for a comprehensive public inquiry involving parents, educators, psychologists, and tech companies to address the complexities of online harm.
He said New Zealand should learn from Australia’s mistakes instead of making the same mistakes.
Across Parliament, Labour expressed cautious support, NZ First showed enthusiasm, while the Greens remained sceptical.
Netsafe reviews proposed Bill
National online safety organisation Netsafe says it is considering the content of the Bill and reviewing the proposal.
“While we note the Bill has the initial support of the Prime Minister and the National Party, we will be interested to understand the coalition Government’s position on the Bill and ways to engage with proposals to keep young people safer online,” says CEO Brent Carey.
He went on to say Netsafe continues to monitor how other countries regulate online platforms and behaviour, focusing on what could work in New Zealand.
“We are particularly interested in the challenges related to enforcing Australia’s upcoming social media ban,” says Carey.
“We remain focused on keeping all New Zealanders safe online. As this debate progresses, we will use our 25 years of expertise to contribute to the debate. Our key concern is to ensure that any legislative change gets this right for everyone.
“There is no argument that more needs to be done to keep young people safe online. However, the issues are nuanced and complex, and we need to do this in a multifaceted and cooperative way, building on data and clear evidence-based solutions.”
Bill too broad, Civil Liberties Council says
The New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties, which advocates for rights and freedoms in Aotearoa New Zealand, opposes the Bill, saying its definition of social media is incredibly broad.
It “includes any platform where the primary purpose is to ‘enable social interactions between two or more end-users’. This would include the obvious contenders such as Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter/X, YouTube, and Instagram, but also describes a large range of other sites such as Reddit, Discord, hobbyist forums, support groups, and arguably even email,” the organisation said in a statement.
“The New Zealand Bill of Rights guarantees us the right to freedom of expression, the ability to seek, send and receive information, and this applies to people under the age of 16 too,” says chairperson Thomas Beagle.
“They have the right to communicate with each other, their friends, and their family, and the modern reality is that they use social media to do so.
“But they’re doing more than that: we’ve seen youth-led political movements such as JustSpeak, School Strike 4 Climate, and the Make It 16 campaigns all use social media to organise political campaigns.
“This Bill is a gross imposition on their rights and a terrible discouragement to just the sort of politically active people our country needs.
“The Bill puts the responsibility on the platforms to determine the age of their users, and we are concerned that this might lead to New Zealanders being forced to provide identity documents and other evidence to both local and foreign platform providers, who already know far too much about us and are happy to sell that information to others.
“However, the Bill is very light on detail, with the tricky specifics to be developed in regulation (making the whole regulatory process susceptible to lobbying and corruption).”
Australia’s world-first ban
Australia’s world-first law banning under-16s from social media, set to take effect in late 2025, has sparked both support and criticism, paralleling New Zealand’s debate.
“Social media is doing harm to our kids, and I’m calling time on it,” Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters last year.
He says young people should be out on the footy field instead of on their devices, consuming negative social media content.
“If you’re a 14-year-old kid getting this stuff, at a time where you’re going through life’s changes and maturing, it can be a really difficult time, and what we’re doing is listening and then acting.”
The law puts the pressure on companies like TikTok and Instagram to keep underage users off—and hits them with big fines if they don’t.
Critics say it’s too harsh and might make things worse by pushing kids’ online activity into secret corners where it’s harder to help them.
Some argue that banning social media doesn’t teach young people how to use it safely; it just delays the problem.
Others say it could stop teens from connecting with friends or finding support when they need it most.
The debate continues: should governments limit access, or should they focus on education and platform regulation to create safer online environments for young people?
