Australia’s social media ban for under-16-year-olds has taken effect, and New Zealanders have eagerly watched the rollout across the ditch.
A member’s bill on the topic was submitted to the biscuit tin in May, and the Education and Workforce Committee just reported on youth online harm.
But could New Zealand actually implement such a ban right now? Experts say a stronger web of cyber support must be built first.
Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X, YouTube and streaming platforms Kick and Twitch are banned for under-16s in Australia. Existing accounts are being deactivated, and they cannot make new accounts.
Per a PHCC report, one in five New Zealand teens meets the criteria for problematic use that mirrors behavioural addiction.
Half of teens feel they gained access to social media too young, and 39% said they wished social media had never been invented.
77% of caregivers and about half of teens support a minimum age of 16. One in four teens opposes the policy change.
An issue that needs its own solution
Dr Alex Beattie, senior lecturer in information management from Victoria University, says it’s a misconception that social media can be regulated like alcohol or tobacco, because, instead, it’s become infrastructural technology.
He says there are very few credible voices that deny that social media can cause harm. “The problem lies not in the technology itself, but in the business model that drives it: algorithmic targeting, addictive design, minimal content moderation, and relentless engagement metrics.
“We should be asking: What digital rights do children need? What literacies and communication skills will they miss out on if we remove them from these spaces? And who will be most affected by a ban?”
This infrastructural use is embedded in Kiwi teens’ lives at home, at school, and beyond. Health associate professor Cara Swit from the University of Canterbury says that how young people spend large parts of their day online because schools require it is an important point that’s often missing from the conversation.
“Their learning, their homework, their communication with teachers, almost everything is mediated through digital devices. That digital load impacts their wellbeing too: their sleep, their ability to concentrate, their stress levels.
“If we’re serious about supporting young people’s digital wellbeing, we have to look at the whole digital ecology they’re navigating, not just social media.”
Australia ahead on progress
Comparing New Zealand to Australia is almost apples and oranges: our Tasman neighbours are much further along on social media protections.
Law senior lecturer above the bar, Dr Cassandra Mudgway, says Australia’s ban is being introduced within a much more developed regulatory system than New Zealand’s.
“The ban sits on top of an existing digital safety infrastructure,” she says. “Importantly, the ban is only one part of a wider package that has been rolled out over the past year or so.
“Australia is simultaneously strengthening rules against harmful content (including action against ‘nudifier’ apps and websites), increasing eSafety enforcement powers, and investing in education for young people and parents.”
She says that, as it stands, a New Zealand ban is unlikely to achieve its intended outcomes as the country currently lacks minimum safety standards for online platforms, a dedicated regulator with proactive oversight powers, and a modern enforcement system.
Without this foundational framework, a ban risks driving young people toward less visible, less regulated spaces online, while creating a misleading sense of safety.
This dynamic has already played out in the UK, where age-verification requirements for pornographic sites led to a dramatic traffic drop for compliant platforms like Pornhub but an increase for riskier, non-compliant sites and VPN use.
Mudgway adds that such a ban raises human rights concerns, as it bluntly restricts children’s rights to participate in public and cultural life online and limits freedom of expression, often requiring intrusive measures such as facial recognition or ID uploads for enforcement.
“Instead of focusing on restricting access, New Zealand should prioritise regulating the platforms themselves: establishing legal duties of care, requiring transparency about algorithmic systems, and ensuring credible penalties for non-compliance.”
Young people also told us what would help when introducing an age restriction in New Zealand: safer platforms for younger teens, more offline opportunities, and clearer guidance for parents and schools to support teens through the transition.”
Interim report prompts debate
The Education and Workforce Committee’s interim report suggests that age restrictions alone are unlikely to address the scale or complexity of online harm facing young people. Instead, it points to a layered approach that combines platform regulation, education, and targeted support.
Young people who made submissions to the committee echoed this view. Many said an age restriction could only work if it were paired with safer, age-appropriate online spaces for younger teens, greater investment in offline social and recreational opportunities, and clearer guidance for parents and schools navigating the transition. Without these supports, they warned, a ban would feel punitive rather than protective.
The committee’s report has already sparked debate across the political spectrum, particularly around how broadly online harm should be defined and who regulation should protect.
The ACT Party has publicly expressed concern about the scope of the regulation under consideration, warning against measures that could restrict free expression or impose compliance costs on digital services without clear evidence of effectiveness.
“The proposal to simply ban social media for those under the age of 16 is unlikely to solve the problem. Technologically, it’s a mine field. Morally, it is a Government solution that does not involve parents. Its unintended consequences could do more harm than good,” says ACT MP Dr Parmjeet Pamar.
The Government has not yet indicated whether it will advance age-based restrictions in the short term. Still, ministers have signalled that platform accountability and online safety standards are likely to feature in future digital policy work.
Advocating for youth
“We note that content harm should include incitement to violence towards particular communities, said Anjum Rahman from Tāhono Trust. “This is a specific form of harm that is beyond young people viewing violent content, such as the livestream of a mass murder attack.”
They say that while youth are a particularly vulnerable part of our communities, other groups also deserve protection, for example, some older persons who scammers are targeting.
“The focus on platform design is critical,” says Lisa Woods from Amnesty International Aotearoa New Zealand. “This requires transparency on the impacts of platform design, as well as accountability for platforms when the design knowingly causes harm.
“The best way to achieve these results is the appointment of a statutorily independent regulator who would develop codes using a co-design approach with impacted communities.”
Principals Today has followed this story all year, from when the ban was first discussed in Australia https://principalstoday.co.nz/kiwi-teens-social-media-ban/ to its entry into the biscuit tin in New Zealand https://principalstoday.co.nz/bill-proposes-social-media-ban-under-16s/
Digital wellness is a common thread sure to continue making news. Phones within classrooms are another key conversation: https://principalstoday.co.nz/ero-review-supports-phone-ban-classrooms/
