Two of the three parties in New Zealand's coalition government are pushing back against a plan to ban social media for people under 16. ACT leader David Seymour called it "very unwise" for National to press ahead "at the expense of coalition unity," and NZ First leader Winston Peters called it a "seriously big mistake."

Seymour and Peters made their comments on Tuesday, according to RNZ. New Zealand's government is made up of three parties working together: National, ACT, and NZ First. If two of the three are against the ban, that is a problem for National, which is the largest of the three.

National MP Erica Stanford is the minister in charge of the proposal. She told reporters she was ready to take it to Cabinet — the group of senior government ministers who decide policy — and would do so "soon." She said she wanted a "fulsome discussion" with her colleagues.

Seymour's point is about numbers. He said National would be making a mistake if it ignored two of the three coalition parties and a third of Cabinet ministers. With two out of three parties against the ban, he suggested National should be the one to "agree to disagree." He also said the coalition needs to "present a united front."

Peters said Seymour had a point, especially with an election coming up. He did not give specific dates, but the next election is due by January 2029.

There is another layer to this dispute. National has been talking to the Labour Party, which is the main opposition, about the legislation. National and Labour together would have more than enough votes in Parliament to pass the bill, no matter what ACT and NZ First think. Seymour quipped: "It's not illegal, but… I wouldn't advise it."

Stanford said there had been "really good engagements" with Labour MP Reuben Davidson. More Labour MPs would be briefed on Thursday. She said she had not asked Labour to support the bill — the talks were briefings, not negotiations, at least for now.

This tension is not new. ACT blocked National from pushing forward with an under-16 social media ban in May 2025, as RNZ reported. An inquiry into online harm backed the ban in December 2025, which prompted more disagreement from ACT. In March, ACT called a select committee report backing age restrictions "predetermined" — the same month National MP Catherine Wedd put forward her own bill to ban social media for young people. A select committee is a small group of MPs from different parties who look into an issue and report back.

ACT has also explained its objections in detail. The party called the proposed ban "insane" in a news article on its website on 20 July. ACT's main concern is practical: enforcing an age-based ban would mean every New Zealander, not just teenagers, would have to prove their age online. ACT set out this position in March, arguing the policy creates privacy and practicality problems. ACT is not arguing that social media is harmless for young people — just that this particular fix would cause new problems.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said in May 2025 that a social media ban for young people would be investigated. Stanford's readiness to take a proposal to Cabinet suggests that investigation has moved far enough along for draft legislation. But the Cabinet discussion she is seeking has not happened yet, and with two coalition parties opposed, the outcome is not guaranteed.

The broader context is that this coalition government was built on an agreement requiring all three parties to work together, even though they have very different ideas about policy. National could pass the ban using Labour's votes. But doing that would mean relying on the opposition to pass a government priority while two of its own partners vote against it or sit on their hands. Seymour is making that option look politically expensive by pointing out that two of three parties and a third of Cabinet oppose the measure. Peters bringing up the election makes the point sharper: neither minor party wants a public split on something as visible as children's online safety when a campaign is approaching.

Stanford's choice to brief Labour without asking for their support keeps her options open. If Cabinet rejects or weakens the proposal under pressure from ACT and NZ First, the bill could still go forward as a member's bill — the route Wedd has already tried. If Cabinet backs it, National faces the choice Seymour has laid out: pass it with Labour and risk a coalition rupture, or back down. Stanford's "fulsome discussion" may turn out to be exactly that.