Hold the phone. Did you say David Seymour wants to ban something?
Friday, 17 July 2026
ANALYSIS: Not wanting to be outshone by Christopher Luxon’s social media ban, freedom-loving David Seymour has entered the chat with his own prohibition proposal: Banning smartphones for kids.
Hold the phone. Seymour’s proposing a ban?
No, we have not entered an alternate reality. Seymour has not been hacked. He did really say we should have a think about whether to ban the sale of smartphones to under-16s.
“Parliament could pass a law defining what constitutes a ‘dumb phone’ suitable for a person under 16. Prohibit the purchase, possession, and supply of smartphones for under-16s,” Seymour suggested during a speech to youth development charity, the Graeme Dingle Foundation.
Winston Peters almost immediately piped up in a tweet - that one had to double take to check the author as it sounded as though it had come from Seymour himself - calling the idea “totalitarian”.
“Why are some parties thinking it’s now an acceptable option for the government to take away parents’ rights to make decisions for their children?”
The ban is not formal policy, Seymour’s apparently just thinking out loud. But it’s also not wholly unintentional.
Seymour is faced with a conundrum in that his purist libertarian mainframe clashes with the realities of hearing and addressing the concerns of his electorate, and ultimately winning hearts and minds in an election year.
A classic libertarian is wildly sceptical of the state imposing any sort of ban, which is why Seymour’s opposition to the social media ban has made sense. The party’s website boasts its “values of freedom, personal responsibility, and opportunity for all New Zealanders”.
But Seymour, like all politicians, will not be immune to the deafening SOS calls from parents crying out for someone, anyone, to do something, anything, to help them protect their children from the harms of social media.
Whether its through door-knocking, recognising polls showing 60% or more in favour of banning social media, or hearing from the wealthy and well connected Auckland mums behind the B416 movement, Seymour has read the room and realised he needs to be in it.
Seymour, who doesn't support a social media ban, attended the launch of B416 - the group formed to pressure political action on a social media ban for children, which includes Tend founder Cecilia Robinson and Zuru’s Anna Mowbray.
But he has stayed firm on opposing the policy due to his scepticism of how it would work.
And that’s where this becomes an electoral headache for him. ACT has reinvented itself to be not just a libertarian party but a party of “real solutions”.
It’s not enough to pop along to these events and nod along in concern. Nor is it politically credible to the electorate for Seymour to tell people he hears their concerns, but is going to vote against the proposed solution.
His first attempt at a workaround was proposing a select committee inquiry into social media harm. But ACT didn’t like the resulting report.
So, Seymour found another loophole. A way to signal to voters that he is listening, without committing to actual action. He pondered out loud about an alternative idea.
Seymour said to Stuff that he didn’t even know if it was a good idea - just that he wants the Government not to rush ahead with banning the software without considering the hardware.
“I want to urge politicians, if they hear this idea, they shouldn't just rule it out immediately. Sir Keir Starmer was presented with an idea like this, he laughed it off and ruled it out,” Seymour said, before Starmer went on to promise a social media ban.
Seymour noted that ban, which he called unworkable, was Starmer's last big policy before he resigned his prime ministership.
Seymour is at his core a policy wonk - so is using this idea to signal there is not just one solution to the problem.
Of course, there are always risks in the strategy of thinking out loud, banning smartphones may turn out to be dumb policy.
But then, he never made it a proper policy did he?