NZ Herald: It doesn’t have to be smartphones or social media, we should do both.

As published in The New Zealand Herald, Saturday 25 July 2026

Last week, David Seymour opened an important conversation about whether New Zealand should delay children’s access to smartphones. After previously resisting a social media ban, ACT now appears to be recognising that there is a real and growing problem and is working through what its own policy response should be. Perhaps the prospect of spiralling future mental health and wider public health costs is helping drive that rethink. Whatever the reason, it is good to see the issue being taken seriously. 

Because parents across New Zealand are increasingly worried about what constant access to technology is doing to childhood. We are seeing children spending less time outside, less time talking face to face, less time sleeping and more time connected to a digital world that was never designed with their wellbeing in mind.

That makes this an important conversation. But we also need to be careful not to conflate two related but separate issues. Smartphones are the device. Social media is the product.

That distinction matters because the strongest evidence of harm to children’s mental health relates to social media use, particularly platforms driven by algorithms designed to maximise engagement and keep young people scrolling.

However, a conversation about delaying smartphones is worthwhile. Many parents already feel they have been pressured into giving their children smartphones earlier than they would have liked because “everyone else has one”. Delaying access could reduce exposure to social media and help families establish healthier habits.

But it is not a substitute for restricting children’s access to social media.

A child without a smartphone can still access TikTok, Instagram or Snapchat on a tablet, laptop or shared family computer. If our goal is to improve children’s wellbeing, we need to focus on the interventions the evidence tells us will have the greatest impact.

This doesn’t need to become an either/or debate.

Complex public health challenges rarely have a single solution. We don’t choose between seatbelts and speed limits or vaccinations and clean drinking water. We use complementary measures because together they save lives.

Children’s digital wellbeing deserves the same approach.

That means supporting parents to delay smartphones if they choose. It means keeping phones out of schools. It means helping families build healthier technology habits.

And it means introducing meaningful age restrictions for social media.

Around the world, governments are increasingly recognising that protecting childhood requires more than asking parents to fight this battle alone.

Australia has required social media companies to prevent children under 16 from holding accounts. France has now voted to ban social media for children under 15, with President Emmanuel Macron backing the legislation.

The international conversation is also becoming more sophisticated. Increasingly, policymakers are looking beyond simply asking whether something is “social media”. They are focusing on the design features that drive harm: recommendation algorithms, infinite scrolling and other features specifically designed to maximise attention and keep children engaged. That’s an important shift because it focuses on the product itself, not just its label.

There is another shift happening internationally that I think is equally important.

For years, we have expected parents to carry almost all the responsibility. Parents are expected to monitor devices, understand every new app, negotiate with their children and somehow keep pace with some of the world’s most powerful companies, backed by the world’s wealthiest who are employing thousands of engineers whose job is to maximise engagement. 

Europe is turning that assumption on its head. Experts advising the European Commission have argued that platforms should have to demonstrate they are safe for children before they are allowed to reach them, rather than governments having to prove harm only after the damage has already been done.

That feels like a strong principle. We expect toy manufacturers to demonstrate that a toy is safe before it reaches children. Medicines are tested before they are are prescribed. Cars must meet rigorous safety standards before they are sold. It seems entirely reasonable to expect social media companies, whose products influence millions of young minds every day, to meet the same standard.

Critics often ask whether Australia’s law has “worked”. It is a frustratingly simplistic question because this was never about achieving perfect compliance from day one. It was about changing the social norm, making “not yet” the default and creating a pathway to stronger enforcement over time.

No public health intervention achieves perfect compliance from day one. The better question is whether fewer children are being exposed to harmful platforms, whether social norms are changing and whether the law creates a pathway to stronger enforcement over time.

We didn’t abandon seatbelt laws because some people refused to wear them. We improved the law, improved enforcement and, over time, changed behaviour.

When President Macron announced the legislation, one comment in particular stood out to me.

“The brains of our children and our teenagers are not for sale. The emotions of our children and our teenagers are not for sale or to be manipulated.” That is exactly the point.

These platforms are not passive products. They are sophisticated businesses designed to capture attention and influence behaviour. Children should not be the raw material for that business model.

Parents absolutely have a role to play. We need clear boundaries at home and more confidence to say, “Not yet.” Schools also have an important role, and New Zealand’s phone-free schools policy has been a fantastic first step.

But governments and technology companies also have responsibilities. Parents should not be left to negotiate, on their own, with some of the most sophisticated technology companies ever created.

This is not about banning technology or pretending children can grow up disconnected from the modern world. It is about recognising that childhood is a unique stage of life deserving of special protection.

The goal should be simple: more sleep, more real-world friendships, more time outdoors, more independence and more opportunity for children to simply be children.

David Seymour has opened an important conversation. Let’s make sure it doesn’t become a false choice. This isn’t a choice between delaying smartphones or protecting children from social media.

We should do both.

Because the goal isn’t to win a policy debate.

It’s to give children back the childhood they deserve.