The ACT Party's not really a “ban” sort of a party. I've always thought they supported the idea of letting people go to hell in their own way. If you want to make your own decisions, fill your boots – if they're bad ones, live with the consequences. And perhaps they do still support the idea of adults going to hell in their own way, but not when it comes to kids.  

Leader David Seymour did not support the National Party ban getting kids off social media. They've said that's a dumb idea, there's no way you can police the internet. But what David Seymour has proposed is a total ban on smartphones for under 16-year-olds. He says Parliament could prohibit the purchase, possession, and supply of smartphones in much the same way we prohibit young people from purchasing alcohol and tobacco, and we prohibit adults from supplying minors with these substances. He's putting smartphones in the same category as tobacco and alcohol.  

He says teenagers are perfectly able, in his world, to have dumb phones, but given the known link between smartphones and the social media apps you can access on them and anxiety, depression, and self-harm, he says we should consider a smartphone yet another harmful substance that should only be available to adults. 

Now, of course, if you don't want your child to have a smartphone, you don't have to get them one. You can make your own rules in your own house for your own kids. But it's really hard to make a rule for your child that other parents don't have for their children. It's really hard too, in this day and age, to access notices at school about upcoming events, sports practices, lifts that people are offering to get your kid to training and back again. Everything's on platforms these days that you need the phones to access. There must be a way around it. We can just get the Gestetner out and get the school notices home again.  

There was a time where we had a perfectly functioning community and civilisation that did not have smartphones, so there must be a way to do it. And if the Government is willing to do the heavy lifting and play bad cop so you don't have to, so much the better. “I want a smartphone, everybody else has got one," says the 13-year-old. “I'm sorry, it's against the law. In the same way I can't give you alcohol or cigarettes, I can't give you a smartphone." It makes it easier if there's a ban.  

Of course, kids will still get them in the same way they will do workarounds if there's a ban on under 16s going onto certain social media apps. There'll be a workaround. But if the general accepted norm is that young people do not have access to smartphones until they're 16, it's just one of those things. Children, young people, don't drink until they're 18. Of course, some of them do, but the general accepted norm is that they don't. The general accepted norm is that you don't buy cigarettes for children. 

Could it be possible that the general accepted norm becomes young people do not get smartphones until they're 16? It doesn't seem impossible. Yes, smartphones are everywhere now, but it's not that long ago that they didn't used to be. You don't have to have them. Some people don't, some people still don't. The world can perfectly capably function without them.  

And certainly, in the world of a teenager, you should be able to function without them. There is no doubt that the anxiety, the bullying, the depression, the self-harm, the self-doubt has got worse. Social skills have got worse. The ability to function in the real world has got worse because you can hide away, you go through a portal into an app, through the other side, through your smartphone, and you don't have to face reality. No good has come of allowing the kids access to smartphones. There are kids as under 13 who are able to use them and accessing them. Once you see something, once you get embroiled in something beyond you, that's it. You can't unsee something, you can't unhear something. Keep the ugly, unpatrolled, unpoliced dark side of the web away from our kids until they're able to cope, they've got to build up a bit more resilience to cope.  

David Seymour says banning smartphones will be a lot easier than trying to police the internet, and he's right. So if you're looking for a way to protect our young people, do you go with David Seymour's total ban on smartphones for under 16s, or do you try and patrol the internet by denying them access to certain apps? I think I'd just go for the ban. Quicker, easier, simpler. Cigarettes, alcohol, smartphones – no access till you're an adult. 

The ACT Party's not really a “ban” sort of a party. I've always thought they supported the idea of letting people go to hell in their own way. If you want to make your own decisions, fill your boots – if they're bad ones, live with the consequences. And perhaps they do still support the idea of adults going to hell in their own way, but not when it comes to kids. &nbsp;
Leader David Seymour did not support the National Party ban getting kids off social media. They've said that's a dumb idea, there's no way you can police the internet. But what David Seymour has proposed is a total ban on smartphones for under 16-year-olds. He says Parliament could prohibit the purchase, possession, and supply of smartphones in much the same way we prohibit young people from purchasing alcohol and tobacco, and we prohibit adults from supplying minors with these substances. He's putting smartphones in the same category as tobacco and alcohol. &nbsp;
He says teenagers are perfectly able, in his world, to have dumb phones, but given the known link between smartphones and the social media apps you can access on them and anxiety, depression, and self-harm, he says we should consider a smartphone yet another harmful substance that should only be available to adults.&nbsp;
Now, of course, if you don't want your child to have a smartphone, you don't have to get them one. You can make your own rules in your own house for your own kids. But it's really hard to make a rule for your child that other parents don't have for their children. It's really hard too, in this day and age, to access notices at school about upcoming events, sports practices, lifts that people are offering to get your kid to training and back again. Everything's on platforms these days that you need the phones to access. There must be a way around it. We can just get the Gestetner out and get the school notices home again. &nbsp;
There was a time where we had a perfectly functioning community and civilisation that did not have smartphones, so there must be a way to do it. And if the Government is willing to do the heavy lifting and play bad cop so you don't have to, so much the better. “I want a smartphone, everybody else has got one," says the 13-year-old. “I'm sorry, it's against the law. In the same way I can't give you alcohol or cigarettes, I can't give you a smartphone." It makes it easier if there's a ban. &nbsp;
Of course, kids will still get them in the same way they will do workarounds if there's a ban on under 16s going onto certain social media apps. There'll be a workaround. But if the general accepted norm is that young people do not have access to smartphones until they're 16, it's just one of those things. Children, young people, don't drink until they're 18. Of course, some of them do, but the general accepted norm is that they don't. The general accepted norm is that you don't buy cigarettes for children.&nbsp;
Could it be possible that the general accepted norm becomes young people do not get smartphones until they're 16? It doesn't seem impossible. Yes, smartphones are everywhere now, but it's not that long ago that they didn't used to be. You don't have to have them. Some people don't, some people still don't. The world can perfectly capably function without them. &nbsp;
And certainly, in the world of a teenager, you should be able to function without them. There is no doubt that the anxiety, the bullying, the depression, the self-harm, the self-doubt has got worse. Social skills have got worse. The ability to function in the real world has got worse because you can hide away, you go through a portal into an app, through the other side, through your smartphone, and you don't have to face reality. No good has come of allowing the kids access to smartphones. There are kids as under 13 who are able to use them and accessing them. Once you see something, once you get embroiled in something beyond you, that's it. You can't unsee something, you can't unhear something. Keep the ugly, unpatrolled, unpoliced dark side of the web away from our kids until they're able to cope, they've got to build up a bit more resilience to cope. &nbsp;
David Seymour says banning smartphones will be a lot easier than trying to police the internet, and he's right. So if you're looking for a way to protect our young people, do you go with David Seymour's total ban on smartphones for under 16s, or do you try and patrol the internet by denying them access to certain apps? I think I'd just go for the ban. Quicker, easier, simpler. Cigarettes, alcohol, smartphones – no access till you're an adult.&nbsp;

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Kerre Woodham: Is it better to ban smartphones or police social media?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/7a65cb35-a608-48d7-96a9-b489001517fe/transcript