Sarah McMillan/cvnznews.com
Labour’s proposal to ban social media for under-16s has ignited debate across the political spectrum, with all major parties agreeing online harms are a serious issue but sharply divided on how far the Government should go to address them.
Labour has pledged to introduce restrictions aimed at preventing children under 16 from accessing social media platforms, arguing stronger protections are needed to shield young people from harmful content, online exploitation, cyberbullying and addictive digital environments.
The party says parents should not be left to fight powerful technology companies alone and has proposed placing greater legal responsibility on social media platforms to protect children online.
However, the proposal has drawn criticism from both New Zealand First and ACT, who argue the policy risks creating new problems while failing to solve the existing ones.
New Zealand First says the proposal amounts to “a naive solution to a genuine issue,” warning that any effective ban would likely require either widespread age-verification systems, digital identification requirements or restrictions on technologies such as VPNs. The party argues such measures could threaten privacy rights and lead to increased government intrusion into family life.
“Ultimately, we as a country need to decide whether it is the right path for any government to take over the responsibility of parents,” New Zealand First said.
ACT shares concerns about children’s online safety but says National’s proposed approach is unworkable. Party leader David Seymour has argued that while online harms are real, banning access is the wrong solution and could have unintended consequences. He has described National’s proposal as a “terrible solution” and questioned whether enforcement measures against global technology giants would be practical.
Meanwhile, National remains firmly committed to pursuing restrictions. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Education Minister Erica Stanford have argued that social media companies must bear greater responsibility for protecting children, with proposed legislation placing legal obligations on platforms rather than parents or young people.
National’s proposal has already exposed divisions within the governing coalition, with both ACT and New Zealand First invoking the coalition’s “agree to disagree” provisions rather than supporting the legislation.
The political battle ultimately highlights a question many parents are wrestling with themselves: how do we protect children from genuine online harms without sacrificing privacy, personal freedom and parental responsibility?
As the election campaign intensifies, that debate is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
