Seymour and Peters hit back as Luxon moves on under-16s social media ban

The National-led Government has introduced legislation to ban under-16s from social media, but it won't reach a vote before the election with its coalition partners opposed.

The bill's fate is remarkably uncertain, with both ACT and NZ First opposed to it and Labour far from declaring their support for legislation.

The Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill, introduced to Parliament today, would require platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and Facebook to take reasonable steps to check that users are over 16.

The legislation said penalties would amount to up to 10% of a company's global revenue. Meta, owner of Facebook, had revenue of more than US$200 billion in 2025.

The proposed system would also exclude a wide range of digital services.

Speaking to media, National leader Christopher Luxon confirmed he had no support from his coalition partners and that the legislation wouldn't even reach the first step on the way to becoming law before Parliament rises for the election.

"We've got 11 days to go. We've got a big legislative agenda. The reality is, we're not going to get through to first reading," he told media.

"We'll pick this up on the other side of the election."

Labour has not committed its support, and in a letter last week set out two matters it wants addressed first — including access to key assessments of the draft bill and answers to 79 questions about the legislation.

As of Monday, Labour said it had not received a response.

The Greens have also previously been sceptical of a ban.

ACT leader David Seymour told 1News he had been under the impression National already had Labour on board for the bill when the legislation went to Cabinet.

Seymour said he was shocked to learn it would not reach its first reading before the election, saying he had been unaware of this and was surprised Luxon had announced it.

Luxon said the harm being done to children could not be accepted any longer.

"One in three children aged between 13 and 17 are now spending at least five hours on social media a day," he said.

"Social media is exposing them to harmful content, addictive technology and pressures they are not equipped to deal with and it's affecting their family life, mental health, sleep, and education."

But with only four weeks until Parliament rises for November's election, the legislation could be legislation won't progress further.

Both of the National Party's coalition partners in Government came out against the bill within minutes of its announcement.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said his party would "never support this".

"The Government is not moving to ban under-16s from social media. The National Party is," he said in a statement.

"We have communicated our concerns to National over the past year. Our stance has not changed. We have been concerned with the proposed legislation and the direction and slippery slope that legislation like this will inevitably take our country.

"The fact is, no matter how laudable the intent is of introducing laws to address this serious issue, there is no method that would fulfil that intent without banning VPNs or the use of digital ID to enforce the law.

"This has been proven with the colossal failure of Australia bringing in similar measures that National want to bring in now."

Meanwhile ACT's Seymour said his party would exercise its "agree to disagree" provision and vote against the ban.

"Protecting children online is a serious problem. Unfortunately, the National Party have hitched their wagon to a terrible solution. The ban they propose won't work, and the side effects will leave us worse off," Seymour said.

"Any Government trying to implement a ban faces two basic choices. They can make it so strong that adults are caught up in it, like France, where the government is going back to the drawing board after their top court struck the law out.

"Or, they can make the law so weak that is makes little difference, as Australia has found with nearly all children still on social media as if there is no ban."

For relevant social media platforms, the bill would require age checks for all users using methods including existing account information, digital ID services, formal ID, and facial age estimation. Self-declared dates of birth would not be enough on their own.

But a range of digital services are officially excluded from the under-16s rule.

The bill would apply to the same platforms in Australia and social AI companions.

Those specifically named and excluded by the Government today included Discord, WhatsApp, Roblox, Spotify, LinkedIn, and AI chatbots such as ChatGPT.

Services used mainly for messaging, email, voice or video calling are out of scope, as are online multiplayer games, music and podcast services, professional networking sites, and education and health services.

Platforms for product reviews, support and advice are also excluded.

AI chatbots used "primarily for responding to information queries and/or supporting productivity", such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot, are exempt too.

But AI companions, designed to simulate an emotional connection or personal relationship with a user, are captured by the bill.

Education Minister Erica Stanford said the obligations fell on companies.

"The bill places legal obligations on platforms. No penalties are proposed for children, their parents or caregivers," she said.

“It doesn’t just introduce a minimum age requirement. It creates an enduring framework that can evolve alongside technology and holds platforms responsible for understanding and reducing the risks they create for children."

Companies that fail to meet their obligations face penalties of up to 10% of global revenue, enforced by a new regulator within the Department of Internal Affairs.

"We know that we will not get every single child off social media, but early evidence from Australia shows minimum age requirements are already changing behaviour.

"This is about making a meaningful difference now and changing the norm for future generations," Christopher Luxon said.