ABSTRACT

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has introduced a bill to parliament on Monday that would ban children under the age of 16 from using social media platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook, with fines of up to 10% of global revenue for companies that fail to verify user ages.

ABC News Australia

New Zealand government introduces bill to ban under-16s from social media ahead of November election

Aug 24, 2026, 8:03 AM

Context

Under the proposed Online Safety Bill, social media companies would be required to take what the government describes as 'reasonable steps' to confirm users are over 16, using methods such as existing account information, facial age estimation, digital identity checks and formal identification. No penalties are proposed for children, parents or caregivers.

Luxon cited what he described as 'harm being done to a generation of New Zealand children', stating that social media affects children's family life, mental health, sleep and education. According to ABC News Australia, Luxon referenced 2025 research showing a third of New Zealand teenagers spend at least five hours a day on social media.

The bill follows Australia's enactment of a similar under-16 social media ban in December 2025. According to ABC News Australia, countries including Canada, Brazil and Indonesia have since enacted their own bans, while many others are studying or developing laws. BBC World reports that the UK and Greece are set to introduce restrictions next year.

According to ABC News Australia, platforms excluded from both Australia's ban and New Zealand's proposed law include messaging services such as WhatsApp, online gaming platforms like Roblox, and AI productivity apps including ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot. The New Zealand government has not outlined which other 'high risk' platforms could be affected, according to BBC World.

The bill faces significant political obstacles. Both the ACT Party and New Zealand First — coalition partners in Luxon's government — have said they will vote against the legislation. According to ABC News Australia, the centre-left Labour Party's position remained undecided as of Monday, with leader Chris Hipkins saying the party had not yet determined how it would vote.

Luxon acknowledged that parliament would dissolve on October 1 ahead of November's general election before a vote on the bill could be held, meaning the proposal would only advance if his party were re-elected. Bills in New Zealand are required to pass three rounds of voting, typically over a period of months, before becoming law.

Enforcement of Australia's existing ban has drawn scrutiny. BBC World notes it has been widely acknowledged that many children under 16 have continued to access banned apps. ABC News Australia reports that more than eight in ten Australian teenagers were still using social media three months after the ban took effect. BBC World also notes that France's top court struck down a similar proposed ban earlier this month, ruling it infringed upon freedom of expression.

All Perspectives

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon: Luxon said social media is 'exposing them to harmful content, addictive technology and pressures they are not equipped to deal with,' adding: 'We simply cannot accept the harm being done to a generation of New Zealand children.' He also stated: 'We have protections to keep children safe in the real world and we need them in the virtual world too.'

ACT Party (Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour): Seymour, New Zealand's deputy prime minister and leader of the ACT Party, said the ban would not work and indicated the party would vote against the bill.

New Zealand First (Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters): Peters said his party had 'been concerned with the proposed legislation and the direction and slippery slope that legislation like this will inevitably take our country.' He also described Australia's ban as a 'colossal failure.'

Labour Party (Chris Hipkins): According to ABC News Australia, Labour leader Chris Hipkins said his party had not yet decided whether it would vote for the bill.

Professor Nicholas Carah, University of Queensland: Carah identified 'two big problems that other countries ought to learn from the Australian experience': that 'the ban doesn't actually work in practice' as young people remain easily able to access social media, and that 'the ban is regressive' because it 'fails to recognise that social media platforms are important places for young people to learn, to socialise and to express themselves.' He argued: 'If social media platforms harm young people then the real task is to make them safe.'

Hannah Storey, Amnesty International: Storey, Head of Children and Young People's Digital Rights at Amnesty International, said an under-16s ban does not address harm platforms inflict on adults and that 'bans rely on age verification measures, which raise significant privacy concerns, while doing nothing to address the underlying design choices that make many platforms addictive and amplify harmful content.' She said: 'We should use the momentum behind this issue to focus on making platforms safe by design for all users, rather than restricting who can access them.'

Child safety advocates and some parents: According to ABC News Australia, child safety advocates and some parents have welcomed age restrictions on social media platforms.

Privacy groups: According to ABC News Australia, privacy groups say age restriction rules can be circumvented and that requiring users to supply identification raises privacy concerns.

Position not represented in the source reporting: TikTok, Meta (Instagram/Facebook), Snapchat — named platforms directly affected by the proposal whose positions or responses do not appear in any source.

Where sources differ

The two sources describe the penalty structure differently in one respect: both agree the maximum fine is 10% of global revenue for New Zealand, but ABC News Australia specifies that this differs from Australia's approach of a maximum fine of $99 million — whereas BBC World states New Zealand's fines 'could be substantially higher' than Australia's $99 million maximum without quantifying the difference further.

Gaps & Unknowns

Neither source identifies which specific 'high risk' platforms beyond the named four would be covered by the New Zealand bill.
No source provides a full account of what enforcement mechanisms New Zealand would use or which agency would be responsible for enforcement.
The sources do not clarify whether Luxon's bill has been formally introduced to parliament or merely announced, with BBC World saying it is 'being introduced on Monday' and ABC News Australia describing it as a 'proposed law' contingent on election outcome.
No source provides a response from any of the named social media companies — TikTok, Instagram (Meta), Snapchat or Facebook — regarding the proposed legislation.
The specific 2025 research cited by Luxon regarding teenagers' social media usage is not identified or linked in either source.
Neither source details what appeal or review mechanisms would exist for companies fined under the proposed law.
The positions of other New Zealand political parties beyond National, ACT, NZ First and Labour are not addressed.

Sources & Further Reading

BBC World — original — by @BBCNews
ABC News Australia — by Aoife Hilton

Read the original at BBC World

Related Coverage