Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has addressed his party’s recent disagreements with its coalition partner ACT, calling them “not emotional” and asserting the two parties are “aligned on the vast majority of things”.
On Sunday, ACT formally invoked its agree-to-disagree clause over the Government’s work on the firearms registry review.
The clause allowed parties to maintain differently held beliefs on particular issues in public, but stated “a Minister’s support and responsibility for the collective government position must always be clear”.
Today, another disagreement continued to be a topic between the two parties. Luxon claimed in a Newstalk ZB interview this morning that ACT had begun to “shift their position” on a potential social media ban for under-16s.
“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,” he said.
Seymour was quick to downplay the claim however, and reportedly calling it “not quite right”. He said he believed his party had done nothing to signal a changing position on the issue.
On Facebook, Seymour said banning young people from social media “may not have the result people think”.
“It may mean they simply decamp to even worse parts of the internet, and are less likely to talk to anyone about it because it’s ‘illegal’.”
He suggested a public inquiry would be the “way to go”, and education along with online safety apps, or something “nobody reading this has thought of yet” may be the “best solution”.
Luxon maintains ACT has changed position
At a post-Cabinet press conference today, Luxon defended the disagreements, and said his multi-party Coalition is “just like those in Western Europe”.
When asked directly about ACT’s view on the potential social media ban for under-16s, Luxon said: “ACT is supportive of a deeper look into this subject, and that is a good thing”.
He suggested this was a shift from ACT’s previous policy.
“[Seymour] can disagree with it, but I think its a positive step for a bigger conversation about it.”
He said Cabinet was also open to talking to other parties about the ban, and believed it was “not a political issue”.
On the disagreement over the firearms registry review, Luxon said: “A Cabinet decision was made, ACT disagreed with that position and, as a result, we invoked agree-to-disagree.
“It’s not emotional, it’s just purely mechanistic in terms of how we actually manage any differences.
“That’s a big issue for them, and we have a different view as a Cabinet around that issue. So enabling them space to be able to differentiate in the way that they have, that’s fine.”
“There’s just a difference of opinion here and in a coalition government of three parties invoking an agree-to-disagree, that’s quite OK, we’ve done it several times already with New Zealand First and with ACT.”
