Christopher Luxon holds a post-Cabinet press conference
Act leader David Seymour denies his party is shifting its position on social media restrictions as claimed by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon this morning.
He says Luxon‘s characterisation is “not quite right” and doesn‘t believe Act has done anything that would give the Prime Minister the impression it was changing its stance.
During this morning’s Newstalk ZB interview, Luxon told Mike Hosking his coalition partner Act had begun to shift its position when it came to restrictions on social media for New Zealanders under the age of 16.
“They’ve sort of started to shift their position a little bit on the weekend, which is good, so let’s just see where we get to with them. If not, we’ll continue to reach out to other parties.”
Less than two hours after the interview, Seymour – who in just a matter of weeks will become Luxon‘s Deputy Prime Minister – posted on social media making clear his party “has not shifted its position on social media policy”.
He instead claimed it was others that were shifting their position.
“We opposed the bill introduced last week as too simplistic, and now the Government accepts more work is needed. That is a shift.
“The best way forward is a full and open public inquiry, as we called for last week. The Education and Workforce Committee should consider our letter this week and start the inquiry.”
This is not the first time Seymour has publicly rebuked the Prime Minister. Earlier this year, Seymour said it was “ill-advised” for Luxon to make comments about a letter the Act leader had written to police about Philip Polkinghorne.
The Herald later asked Seymour if he had said or done anything over the weekend to suggest to the Prime Minister that Act’s position had started to shift.
“No, I’ve maintained the same position, which is that last week’s Member‘s Bill was far too simple to work. A wider inquiry is necessary, and the Select Committee could initiate that as soon as Wednesday.”
He believed the debate “has shifted closer to what Act has been saying all along”.
Seymour said the Prime Minister was a “naturally positive and optimistic person”.
The pair spoke briefly at an event yesterday held to launch a campaign to restrict those under the age of 16 from social media.
“We did speak very briefly and we both had our partners with us, so we did a set of introductions and then he had to go off and give a speech.”
Seymour felt Act’s position had been misrepresented in some reporting, suggesting the party opposed a ban, when “that’s very different from opposing” National’s proposed bill.
Asked if he felt Luxon had misrepresented Act’s position, Seymour answered: “I don‘t think that Chris is being malicious”.
“He’s just a sunny, optimistic guy. The way he characterised Act’s position is not quite right, and we reserve the right to make our position clear.”
The Herald asked Luxon at his weekly post-Cabinet press conference what had prompted him to say Act had shifted its stance.
“Act is supportive of a deeper look into this subject, and that’s a good thing,” the Prime Minister said.
He believed that was a shift in Act’s position, despite Act having always said it supported a wider inquiry into the subject.
“I think so, but the point is, [Seymour] can disagree with it. But I think it’s a positive step that they’re up for a bigger conversation.”
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Act leader David Seymour briefly spoke at the event yesterday. Photo / Sylvie Whinray
The National Party last week proposed legislation to ban social media for those under 16. However, as it is a members’ bill, it needs to be drawn from Parliament’s ballot before proceeding. That means there is no guarantee politicians will end up debating it.
The bill’s progress could have been expedited had the Government picked it up, but Act announced its opposition to the legislation, claiming that in its current form it is unworkable.
Act instead proposed a select committee inquiry into the issue.
Luxon said on Sunday that Education Minister Erica Stanford would pick up work on the policy idea as part of her official agenda. He said that would lead to a government bill which he would like to see become law before the end of the current parliamentary term.
For that to happen, Stanford’s bill would need to get approval from National’s coalition partners.
In a statement to the Herald on Sunday afternoon, after the announcement of Stanford’s work, Act maintained its position that more work was necessary before a ban was introduced.
An Act spokesman told the Herald the announcement showed why the party “opposed National’s members’ bill”.
“Much more work is needed, with more options and input from more voices, before we dive headfirst into a ban,” a spokesman said.
“Act believes we should instead watch Australia closely as it tries to implement its ban. There will likely be lessons for NZ. Act has also proposed a select committee inquiry to examine the workability of all possible options.”
Seymour on Monday told the Herald he supported Stanford dedicating time to the issue.
“My core message is that, ‘yes, there is a real problem here’. But it’s such a big problem it requires a real solution and we’re most likely to get that with Erica backed by the Ministry of Education, than not.
“However, what would be even better is if they kicked it to a Select Committee inquiry. Let’s hear from the educationalists, the parents, the young people themselves, the technologists, the people from other countries who are trying to achieve the same thing.
“It would be so much richer as a conversation and much more likely to produce an effective and politically accepted outcome.”
Stanford’s portfolio will be expanded to allow her to commission advice and direct officials from a range of departments on reducing social media harm for those under 16.
“I would like to thank Catherine Wedd for her advocacy so far and look forward to seeing how her members’ bill can feed into this process,” Luxon said.
Luxon said there had been an “overwhelmingly positive response from mums and dads” that made it “clear we need to progress options to restrict social media for under-16s”.
“I am concerned by the harm social media can cause young New Zealanders and I believe restricting access for under-16s would help protect our kids from bullying, harmful content and social media addiction,” he said.
“Australia is currently testing a range of options for restricting social media for under-16s, and the United Kingdom, the EU, Canada and states in the US are also exploring the issue.
“As part of her work, Erica will consider how these other jurisdictions are implementing restrictions and what could work in NZ, subject to Cabinet approval.”
He believed there would be support across Parliament for these types of changes.
“This is not a political issue. This is a NZ issue. This is about our parents and actually empowering them by giving our kids protection,” Luxon said.
“Erica and I will both be reaching out to leaders of all political parties, as I think it’s in all of our kids’ interests, irrespective of how their parents vote, that we actually get this job done and we protect our kids online.”
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon (left) said Erica Stanford would lead the work. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Labour’s children and education spokeswoman Willow-Jean Prime said her party was “open to a conversation about banning social media for under-16s and is pleased the Government listened when we said this should be a government bill”.
However, she said “mums want to hear from the Government about how they’re going to help them pay the bills”, referencing the recent changes to the pay equity regime raising the threshold for claims.
If picked from Parliament’s ballot and then passed, the legislation would also introduce financial penalties for platforms that fail to uphold age verification. The law would be reviewed three years after its implementation to assess its effectiveness.
When announcing the members’ bill alongside Wedd on Tuesday, Luxon said he hoped the Government would adopt it, expediting its progress through Parliament.
“Act is concerned about the practicalities of a ban,” Seymour said. “For example, requiring all social media users to provide government identification to social media companies would raise privacy issues.”
“The bill’s definition of ‘social media’ more or less includes the entire internet. For example, the bill says social media could be anything that ‘allow[s] end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end users’. Such a poorly drafted definition is unworkable.”
He instead called for the education and workforce select committee to hold an inquiry into the issue, which he believed would “hear all voices to find a workable solution that respects parental responsibility”.
David Seymour's Act Party isn't in favour of National's members' bill. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The next day, Act MP Parmjeet Parmar wrote to the committee asking it to hear from teachers, principals, technology experts, mental health professionals and parents among others.
“Act shares the concern that social media is causing harm to young people. But any government response must be grounded in evidence and respect parental responsibility,” she said.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said he was “broadly supportive” of the bill but felt having consensus within the Government was important. He also wanted to see the details of the actual legislation being proposed.
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said she wanted to learn more about the potential ban, acknowledging the bill was simplistic.
Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald Press Gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub Press Gallery office.
