Coalition rift opens over UN letter as Seymour defends rogue response
Letter row underscores coalition strain
David Seymour's fiery response to a United Nations letter has turned into a full-blown coalition controversy, exposing divisions over both diplomatic conduct and the ideological direction of government. In June, UN special rapporteur Albert K Barume wrote to the government expressing concern that Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill failed to uphold Treaty principles and risked breaching Māori rights. Without consulting his coalition partners, Seymour fired back, sending his own letter to Barume telling him his remarks were 'presumptive, condescending, and wholly misplaced' and branding the UN intervention 'an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty'. As RNZ's Craig McCulloch reports, prime minister Christopher Luxon yesterday described Barume's letter as 'total bunkum' but agreed Seymour had overstepped and should not have responded directly.
What the UN said – and what Seymour wrote back
In his letter, Barume said he was concerned about reports of 'a persistent erosion of the rights of the Māori Indigenous Peoples… through regressive legislations' that may breach New Zealand's international obligations. Seymour's response was uncompromising. 'As an Indigenous New Zealander myself,' he wrote, 'I am deeply aggrieved by your audacity in presuming to speak on my behalf and that of my fellow Māori.' He dismissed concerns about Māori exclusion from consultation as 'misleading and offensive', and accused Barume of misunderstanding both the bill and New Zealand's legislative process.
While Seymour has since agreed to withdraw the letter to allow foreign minister Winston Peters to respond officially, he has refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing, insisting that 'we all agree the UN's criticisms are crazy' and that the official response would be essentially the same as his own. When asked if that was the case, Peters sounded aghast, reports The Post's Kelly Dennett (paywalled). 'That's not true,' Peters told reporters. 'Why would he say that?' The government's position would be made clear only after consulting all affected ministries, Peters said. 'We don't do megaphone diplomacy in this business,' he added acidly. 'Don't you understand diplomacy? You don't speak to other countries via the media.'
Māori opposition to the bill runs deep
Behind the diplomatic drama lies the more substantive issue: widespread Māori opposition to the Regulatory Standards Bill itself. Writing in Te Ao Māori News, former MP Louisa Wall says Seymour's claim that the bill doesn't weaken Treaty protections is 'demonstrably false'. In fact, she says, 'the Bill is silent on Te Tiriti. It elevates a monocultural legal standard based on private property and individual liberty while excluding Māori values like tikanga, mana motuhake, and kaitiakitanga. This is not neutral. It is erasure.'
Wall also defends Barume's intervention, arguing that he was fulfilling his mandate to monitor Indigenous rights worldwide and that his concerns echoed those already raised by Māori leaders and legal scholars. 'Dr Barume is not imposing an external ideology,' she writes. 'His letter reflects what Māori across the motu already know: our rights are being undermined.'
Coalition fault lines widen over Seymour's bill
The clash over the UN letter comes at a tense time for Act's relationship with NZ First, which has made no secret of its discomfort with parts of the bill. Seymour has 'made it clear behind the scenes' that the regulatory standards legislation is 'as bottom line as it gets', writes Thomas Coughlan in a fascinating piece for the Herald (paywalled). Translation: '[Seymour] is willing to walk away from the coalition over it, bringing down the Government and triggering an election' if he doesn't get what he wants.
While that's an unlikely scenario – especially since the coalition agreement commits the government to passing some version of the legislation – Seymour's passion for the bill speaks volumes about the junior coalition partners' divergent ideologies, writes Coughlan. 'Act is willing to risk short-term unpopularity, even losing an election, for long-term foundational change; NZ First is not.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Ministry Feared Costs Of $60m A Year To Review Laws Under Regulatory Standards Bill
Officials have warned David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill could be much more expensive than previous estimates suggested, and could lead to business uncertainty, slowing economic growth. Seymour is playing down the concerns, saying AI will solve some of those problems and the officials have not accounted for some aspects of the bill he expects will speed up government processes. The documents released under the Official Information Act show Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials feared $50 million to $60m a year in costs to government departments would be on the low end of estimates. They also believed the bill would slow the passage of legislation by two to four weeks, and make the business environment more uncertain, slowing economic growth. Like other departments and in line with the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by the Ministry for Regulation, MBIE also expressed "concerns about the proposals outlined and their ability to support genuine improvement in regulatory quality", and said there were other, better options for achieving the bill's aims. MBIE estimates of costs to review legislation In feedback ahead of last week's select committee hearings, MBIE officials particularly expressed concern over the additional costs the bill would impose, saying up to three full-time staff would be needed for each of the 95 laws the ministry is responsible for, costing the ministry up to $34.2m over multiple years. "This translates to 95 - 285 FTE in total ($11.4 to $34.2 million). The range in estimates reflects the differences in size and complexity between different pieces of legislation - larger Acts such as the Building Act 2004 would take significantly more resources to review than smaller legislation." As an example, the Building Act includes 680 sections and has 34 pieces of secondary legislation. "It is very roughly estimated that a dedicated team of 6-8 FTE (full time employees) with a manager may be required in order to undertake the consistency reviews and provide advice to the Minister on whether departures are justified." This figure does not include new legislation and regulations, which are covered by the RSB. MBIE estimated an additional full-time employee would be needed for each new bill the government asks the ministry to write, with the requirements of the Regulatory Standards Bill adding "an additional 2-4 weeks into the legislative process". "As an indication, MBIE has supported the passage of 6 Acts so far in 2024/25," the advice stated. "It is highly unlikely that we could meet these additional costs within baseline as suggested within the Cabinet paper without significant impacts on MBIE's ability to deliver Ministers' policy priorities." The figures also do not include the estimated 450 to 550 pieces of existing secondary legislation (regulations) the ministry also oversees - which had originally been included in the RSB's scope and could still be added at a later date. Questioned about the figures, MBIE said they were high-level estimates and could yet change. "The advice provided high level estimates with a range of costs and timeframes based on the work that might be required as a result of the Bill. We would need to revise and update these estimates when the Bill is passed." Estimated $50m to $60m annual cost to departments a 'lower bound' MBIE's advice also quoted from the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by Seymour's Regulations Ministry an estimated annual cost to departments of "$50m-$60m per year", saying this was likely on the lower end. "As per previous MBIE advice, MBIE considers that the assumptions made by the Ministry for Regulation in developing that estimate make it a lower bound. In regulatory-heavy portfolios, MBIE estimates that up to 15 percent of the policy resource will need to be engaged in this work." The documents show MBIE offered to help the Regulations Ministry come up with a more accurate accounting. "We offered to work with the Ministry to better cost the work that would be involved in undertaking consistency reviews. In the 48 hour timeframe for comment, it was not possible to complete robust analysis on agency impact but our assessment is this [is] substantial for agencies with a significant volume of regulatory stock such as MBIE". However, the publicly available Regulatory Impact Statement predicted the bill would cost $18m annually across the whole of government. RNZ has sought clarification from MBIE about where the $50m to $60m figure came from, and whether it was still current. Seymour expects AI will bring department costs down Questioned about the costs, Seymour said the officials did not seem to be accounting for the fact the range of considerations in the RSB were narrower than already required under the Cabinet Manual, nor that it would replace most of the work done to produce Regulatory Impact Statements. "It's disappointing that MBIE officials think it's too hard to consider the impacts of their regulations on Kiwis," he said. "It says more about their productivity and attitude towards Kiwis than the Bill. Businesses who have to comply with their rules and regulations are constantly innovating and improving their processes, why can't these officials? "This isn't a zero-sum game. Kiwis all over the country are faced with endless costs caused by overzealous bureaucrats who aren't accountable. By preventing more bad regulations, and getting rid of pointless old ones, we'll save the country far more money than these bureaucrats could ever spend." He suggested AI could also help. "Look at the pace of development of AI, the cost estimates were based on a human reading through every piece of legislation, I suspect that actually we'll be able to do it much faster than we expected because of AI," he said. "Could it change the way that a government department scans the legislation it's responsible for to pick out things that might be consistent or inconsistent with a peer to principles? That's already here." He pushed back when asked if AI could be trusted to do that work. "I don't think the issue is that you're going to trust it. I think the issue is that you're going to use it to speed up the work that humans are ultimately trusted for." Victoria University senior lecturer in Artificial Intelligence Andrew Lensen warned artificial intelligence is not the silver bullet David Seymour has suggested it will be for reducing the cost of the Regulatory Standards Bill. "There are some benefits we've seen in the public sector with the use of AI to help public servants do some stuff, but I think what the minister is proposing is very optimistic and not at all what I'd suggest as a reasonable solution," Lensen told Midday Report. He said human oversight would be needed if AI was used to make sure there were no mistakes or inaccuracies. "If you need someone to baby-sit a model, or baby-sit that system, then it's sort of limited how much efficiency you can gain from that process," Lensen said. He added the return investment in AI is not clear because there is a big risk of legal costs if AI makes a mistake. Concerns over opposition to RSB affecting business confidence The advice shows MBIE was also concerned about the effect of the RSB on business confidence, because the principles in it were likely to change under a future government. "Because some of the principles in the Bill are viewed as novel or contentious, as opposed to widely accepted, there is a risk to the durability of the principles, and potentially the Bill as a whole. "Future legislation, designed to be consistent with novel principles, may also take on characteristics that are seen as unorthodox, and eventually be subject to regulatory churn." Emails between officials show the ministry raised with Immigration Minister Erica Stanford that the bill would make the regulatory environment less predictable, "which can constrain business' commitment to investment and growth". RNZ has sought comment from Seymour about the effect on business confidence. Cost estimates 'highly concerning' - Greens The Green Party's regulations spokesperson Francisco Hernandez said the ministry's cost estimates were highly concerning, saying officials would be focused on "doing make-work jobs just to comply with the extremist provisions of the Regulatory Standards Bill". He was also concerned the bill would have a chilling effect on regulations "that protect people and planet". "Instead of the money going to frontline public services, it's just going to be wasted on the cost of basically pursuing one person's ideological vanity project." He said Seymour's explanations sounded like "total BS", saying it was "desperation". He pointed to a study from the United Kingdom which suggested AI could save public servants two weeks in a 52-week year, less than 5 percent. "AI is quite good for doing the sort of low-level administrative tasks and simplifying those things, but the level of nuanced work of interpreting secondary legislation and how it applies to a principles framework that, again, is like created by human beings - it's not really the sort of thing that could easily be automated," Hernandez said. "Seymour is spinning." He said he agreed with the analysis on the bill impacting business confidence, and pushed back on suggestions the current opposition repealing the bill could be partly to blame for it - saying it was not just the opposition showing signs of not supporting it. "The coalition itself is showing cracks around the seams around that, so if Seymour can't even get the full unequivocal support of his colleagues in cabinet, then that goes to show how extreme this bill is." Cabinet removed requirement to review every 10 years after every ministry complained The documents also showed significant concern from MBIE about an earlier version of the RSB the ministries were asked to provide feedback on, which would have required all legislation and regulations to be reviewed at least once every decade. This requirement was removed by Cabinet before the bill was introduced to Parliament. An email in the documents showed concerns about the 10-yearly reviews was widespread. "David will address the resourcing issue in the meeting, as it has been raised by every agency and several ministers," the email said. Questioned about the prospect of changes to the bill following the select committee process, Seymour used the matter as an example of changes already made. "People said 'oh, that'll be too much work for the department', we said 'well, if it's too much work for the government to read all of its laws in 10 years, imagine the poor buggers who have to follow these laws out there anyway'. We said 'okay, we'll take the 10 year thing out, take pressure off that'. That's the kind of change they've already made."
NZ Herald
7 hours ago
- NZ Herald
PM Christopher Luxon discusses Northland's economic potential with iwi and Māori trusts
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon met with iwi and Māori trusts in Northland today to discuss further unlocking the region's economic potential. Luxon was accompanied by Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith, Māori Crown Relations and Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka, and Northland MP Grant McCallum.
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
David Seymour Lashes Officials After LINZ Becomes Latest Agency Raising Concerns About His Regulatory Standards Bill
Another government agency is warning the costs to comply with the Regulatory Standards Bill could be "significant", and hinder the government's ability to acquire land for infrastructure projects and public works. Documents show Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) officials issued the warning to the Ministry of Regulation in March after it asked for feedback. Regulation Minister David Seymour has hit back at the criticisms, blasting officials for not prioritising New Zealanders' rights, saying it's proof the bill is needed. Earlier, RNZ revealed Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment officials raised fears the bill could be much more expensive than previous estimates, and could lead to business uncertainty, slowing economic growth. LINZ, which has a key role in managing Crown land, land title systems and regulatory frameworks that govern land use and access, said the "overly rigid emphasis" on property interests could affect the government's ability to acquire land for infrastructure or public good projects. It also worried it would create "legal barriers for returning land to iwi" under Treaty of Waitangi settlements, according to feedback obtained by environmental activist group Greenpeace under the Official Information Act. "While strong property rights are important, an overly rigid emphasis on property rights may conflict with broader regulatory objectives, including the Government's ability to acquire land for infrastructure or public good projects," officials wrote. "The potential cost and resource implications to comply with the new requirements could be significant, depending on the guidance issued by the Minister," it told the ministry. LINZ also warned the bill could limit the ability to respond quickly to emergencies, such as natural or climate-related disasters. The agency declined to be interviewed or answer further questions about the concerns it raised. It did not give any details about the extra costs it might face. Officials 'see rights as an inconvenience' - Seymour Regulation Minister David Seymour said LINZ's comments were "worrying." "LINZ do important work, including administering the Public Works Act, which they well know already requires compensation for taking people's land. That makes their comments surprising, and worrying," Seymour said in a statement to RNZ. "At their heart, they see New Zealanders' rights as an inconvenience, when they are supposed to be public servants. "The comments they have made further prove the need for the Regulatory Standards Bill. Public Servants should not see respecting people's rights as an inconvenience, it is one of their duties." Seymour said ministers could "ignore the bill" in a crisis or emergency situation, while Treaty Settlement Bills were also exempt from consideration under the bill. Officials criticisms of the bill were proof it was needed, he said. "One thing that is becoming clear from some government departments' criticisms of the bill is that they don't take New Zealanders' rights seriously, seeming to see them as a nuisance that stops them making rules and going home early. Public servant attitudes to our basic rights, as shown in some of their comments, are another good reason why we need the Regulatory Standards Bill." 'Stark warning' about a 'dangerous bill' Greenpeace said LINZ's comments were a "stark warning", especially as flood-hit Tasman faces a huge clean up after three storm events in recent weeks. Infrastructure was urgently needed to prepare for, and recover from climate disasters, said spokesperson Gen Toop. "Things like flood protection, transport and communication links, and renewable energy," she said. "The Regulatory Standards Bill is dangerous. It would tie the Government's hands at the very moment when urgent climate action and disaster preparation are needed most. "This new warning is yet another nail in the coffin for this doomed bill. It has attracted blistering criticism from the United Nations, legal experts, health professionals, Māori leaders, environmental groups, and the public service itself," said Toop. Several government agencies have sounded warnings about the bill, including the Treasury which predicted the it could "adversely impact the cost and speed of government infrastructure projects and public works in the future." According to the Ministry for Regulation, the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) seeks to "establish a benchmark for good legislation" by introducing a set of principles of "responsible regulation". Essentially, the bill creates a set of rules that all lawmakers must consider in regulation design. The law would also set up a Regulatory Standards Board, which would respond to concerns raised around the consistency of regulation. Appointed by the Regulation Minister, the board would be able to make non-binding recommendations, much like the Waitangi Tribunal. The bill is currently with the finance and expenditure committee, which is expected to report back in November. If it passed into law, it would likely take effect at the start of next year.
