ACT leader David Seymour says it would be "very unwise" for National to push ahead with a social media ban on under-16-year-olds "at the expense of coalition unity," while NZ First leader Winston Peters has called it a "seriously big mistake" — exposing a clear division within the governing coalition as the minister in charge prepares to take the proposal to Cabinet.

Seymour and Peters made their comments on Tuesday, according to RNZ. Both ACT and New Zealand First have indicated strong opposition to the ban, meaning two of the three coalition parties are against the proposal National is advancing.

National MP Erica Stanford, the minister responsible for the social media ban proposal, told reporters she was ready to take it to Cabinet and would be doing so "soon." She said she would take legislation before her colleagues for a "fulsome discussion."

Seymour's argument is essentially a numbers one. National would be making a mistake, he said, if it ignored two of the three coalition parties and a third of Cabinet ministers. With two out of three parties opposing the ban, he suggested it is the third party — National — that should "agree to disagree." He also said "we really need to be presenting a united front."

Peters said Seymour's argument had merit, especially given the proximity of the election. He did not elaborate on timing, but the next election is due by January 2029 under the current parliamentary term.

The dispute has an added dimension: National is holding briefings with the opposition Labour Party on the legislation. National and Labour together would have a clear majority in Parliament to pass the bill regardless of what ACT and NZ First think. Seymour quipped of the cross-party talks: "It's not illegal, but… I wouldn't advise it."

Stanford said there had been "really good engagements" with Labour MP Reuben Davidson about her plan. Other Labour MPs would be briefed on the legislation on Thursday. Stanford said she had not asked Labour for their agreement on the bill, describing the discussions as briefings rather than negotiations for support, at least at this stage.

The coalition tension over the social media ban is not new. ACT prevented National from pushing forward with an under-16 social media ban in May 2025, as RNZ reported. An online harm inquiry backed the ban in December 2025, prompting further ACT disagreement. In March this year, ACT called a select committee report recommending social media age restrictions "predetermined" — the same month National MP Catherine Wedd submitted a member's bill to legislate a ban for young people.

ACT has also set out its substantive objections. The party described the proposed ban as "insane" in a news article on its official website on 20 July. More specifically, ACT has stated that enforcing an age-based social media ban would require all New Zealanders to prove their age online — a position it laid out in March, framing the policy as a privacy and practicality problem rather than a disagreement about whether social media causes harm to young people.

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 progressed to the point of draft legislation — but the Cabinet consideration she is seeking has not yet happened, and the strength of opposition from her coalition partners means the outcome of that discussion is not a formality.

The broader context here is a coalition agreement that requires consensus among three parties with genuinely different policy instincts. National can legislate a social media ban with Labour's votes. But doing so over the explicit objections of ACT and NZ First would invert the usual coalition logic — relying on the opposition to pass a government priority while two governing parties vote against or abstain. Seymour's framing, that two of three parties and a third of Cabinet oppose the measure, is designed to make that calculation politically costly. Peters invoking the election proximity sharpens the point: a public split on a high-visibility issue like children's online safety is not something either minor party wants to wear heading into a campaign.

Stanford's decision to brief Labour MPs while telling reporters she has not sought their agreement keeps multiple pathways open. If Cabinet rejects or waters down the proposal under coalition pressure, the legislation could still proceed as a member's bill — the route Wedd has already taken. If Cabinet backs it, National faces the choice Seymour has framed: pass it with Labour and accept the coalition rupture, or concede. Stanford's "fulsome discussion" may end up being exactly that.