While NZ First is supportive of the “intent” of Stanford’s law change, this week a spokesman said the party “would not be supporting the progression of this legislation”.
“We communicated our concerns to National over the past few months and again last week. Our stance has not changed,” a spokesman told the Herald this week.
Act, meanwhile, has opposed the idea from the get-go, saying last year a ban was “simple, neat and wrong”.
That has left Stanford and National with no way to get the legislation passed without looking across the aisle to Labour.
On Thursday, Stanford told the Herald she and her officials had been briefing Labour MPs.
“I have met with Labour MPs on a number of occasions alongside my officials. If ever there was an issue to set aside politics, it’s this one,” Stanford said.
“I have been willing to speak to any party that shares our goal to back parents and protect children from the harms of big tech.”
On the Labour side, the bill is the responsibility of technology and innovation spokesman Reuben Davidson.
He told the Herald on Thursday that Labour’s caucus would need to discuss the issue before coming to a position on any proposed legislation.
“Caucus is yet to fully discuss the new bill but will reach a decision in due course,” he said.
Davidson has an online safety members’ bill, which goes further than the social media ban, although it includes a requirement that “reasonable steps” be taken by social media companies to enforce age restrictions on platform use.
National can still introduce a social media ban by triggering agree-to-disagree provisions. Any bill would need Labour support to pass.