David Seymour taking part in 'stolen land' debate at prestigious Oxford Union
Seymour has followed in the footsteps of some of the world's most prominent people, speaking at an Oxford Union event in England.
Oxford Union claims to be the "most prestigious debating society in the world''," on its website.
Established in 1823 with a commitment to freedom of speech and expression, the union's members largely remain University of Oxford students.
He is opposing the moot "This House Believes No One Can Be Illegal on Stolen Land" alongside United States immigration reform advocates. (Source: Breakfast)
ADVERTISEMENT
Seymour was opposing the moot "This House Believes No One Can Be Illegal on Stolen Land" alongside United States immigration reform advocates RJ Hauman and Art Arthur.
The proposing side are historian Aviva Chomsky, Palestinian peace activist Nivine Sandouka and Australian Senator and Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens Mehreen Faruqi. Both sides will also include a student speaker.
"I believe we're one of the most successful societies that there are in a world that is very troubled in many ways," Seymour told 1News.
"A country like New Zealand that does practice the rule of law that has sought through treaty settlements to right the wrongs of the past that does welcome migrants."
Seymour said he thought the invite was a prank until he saw that Labour MP Willie Jackson had participated in a debate at the union last year.
On now being linked to the group of distinguished people that have spoken at Oxford Union events, Seymour said humour was his best chance for standing out.
"Albert Einstein's been here, so I'm not the smartest.
ADVERTISEMENT
"They've had people like Elton John, so I'm not the most famous and I don't know if I'll be the funniest, but that's probably the best area to compete," he said.
Toitū Te Tiriti spokesperson critical of moot
Toitū Te Tiriti spokesperson Eru Kapa-Kingi has criticised Oxford Union's debate topic of "This House Believes No One Can Be Illegal on Stolen Land," saying discussing topics like this being discussed under the principle of freedom of expression is "ultimately dangerous".
Toitū Te Tiriti spokesperson Eru Kapa-Kingi.
He says this principle creates "opportunity for more embedded stereotypes which will damage not only current generations but also future generations of indigenous communities who are in the process right now of reclaiming and reviving their own identity, culture and political authority".
Kapa-Kingi helped lead the hīkoi to Parliament opposing the Treaty Principles Bill, which failed at the second reading in Parliament.
He's also been critical of Seymour participating in the debate, saying it's problematic.
ADVERTISEMENT
"He has neither the qualification nor the lived experience to talk either about illegal immigration or the colonisation of indigenous cultures, particularly through the theft of land…"
"Also given David Seymour's most recent track record in terms of the Treaty Principles Bill and most recently the Regulatory Standards Bill, direct attacks on indigenous rights, tangata whenua (Māori) rights in Aotearoa, this is a provocative move inviting him to partake in this debate concerning those exact rights.'
Kapa-Kingi said he questions the integrity and credibility of the debate, perceiving the event as a "deliberate attempt to incite what will inevitably be hateful rhetoric, damaging rhetoric to indigenous communities".
Parliament punishment, free money?, getting wicked again (Source: 1News)
Kapa-Kingi said Māori with formal qualifications and lived experience would be a better pick to take part and 'carry the kōrero with respect, honour and in a way that's genuinely productive and genuinely thought-provoking".
Seymour has rejected the comments, saying everyone is allowed to share their perspective on an issue.
"I think that they need to start respecting each person's dignity and right to have views and share them, instead of trying to say that some people are less able to express a view which seems to be exactly what they believe.'
ADVERTISEMENT
Seymour claimed the protest group divides society "into victims and villains and we should each know our place".
"Well actually I think that we all get a time on earth and should be able to make the most of it, share the ideas that are important for us, throw away the ones that we don't like."
A long history of distinguished guests
As well as debates, the Union has a long history of hearing from distinguished people from around the world. This has included Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa and Malcolm X, to name just a few. Controversial speakers have also been invited over the years, sparking dramatic protests.
New Zealand's most famous Oxford Union debate moment came in 1985 when former Prime Minister David Lange's responded to a student speaker that he would answer his question, "if you hold your breath just for a moment... I can smell the uranium on it as you lean towards me!"
David Lange at the Oxford Union event in 1985. (Source: TVNZ)
Lange won the debate, arguing that "nuclear weapons are morally indefensible" and drawing international attention to New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Regulatory Standards Bill Could Be Barrier For Māori Housing
The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development has warned that the Regulatory Standards Bill could stymie progress in enabling papakāinga, or Māori housing, documents show. A ministry official also flagged concerns the legislation could make it harder for ministers to do their jobs, and warned the reach of the proposed law - and the minister-appointed board - seemed "disproportionate to the authority of Parliament". Regulations Minister David Seymour rejected the criticism, saying the ministry should be "leading the charge to cut through this bureaucracy so more homes can be built". The Regulatory Standards Bill is non-binding on Parliament but proposes a set of principles MPs and officials would have to consider when designing regulation. It also would set up a board, appointed by the minister, to examine current and future laws' consistency with those principles, as well as requiring regular reviews of all regulations. In its feedback, the housing ministry raised concern about the potential for individual property rights to be elevated over and above collective rights. "...the lack of provision for collective rights/rangatiratanga and the indicated shift towards Individual rights, in a way that is not currently in New Zealand's constitution, could impact the way we can develop policy and legislation with significant negative impacts on Māori housing outcomes," it said. The ministry said one of the proposed principles - dealing with taxes, fees, and levies - could hinder progress on Māori-led housing projects. "If this principle is imposed over regulation, we are concerned it could be misaligned with the current approaches to whenua Māori, lead to greater fragmentation of land/whenua Maōri, be a barrier to pooling resources for collective good and further entrench the negative housing outcomes that currently exist." The government in May announced plans to make it easier to consent papakāinga. However, funding for the Whai Kāinga, Whai Oranga housing fund has also been cut. In a statement to RNZ, a spokesperson for Seymour said if the Regulation Standards Bill had been in place years ago, it could have prevented "much of the pointless red tape" that slows down building and consenting. "New Zealand faces a serious housing crisis. Anyone who has tried to build a home knows the delays and costs caused by red tape," the spokesperson said. "I'd have thought the Ministry for Housing would be leading the charge to cut through this bureaucracy so more homes can be built." An FAQ document prepared by Seymour's office also rejected the idea that the bill would favour individual rights over collective ones, saying it preserved the status quo "that collective Parliamentary law can trump all individual rights to personal autonomy and possessions". The document did not specify, however, how individual property rights would be considered compared to collective property rights by officials operating under the new regime. The housing ministry also warned that requiring reviews of all secondary legislation in reviews - without exemption - would add to the government's workload. To that, Seymour was unapologetic: "We're aware the public service doesn't like this law. Yes, it makes more work for them, justifying laws that interfere in people's lives. Here's the thing: If the public service think being required to justify their laws is a faff, imagine what it's like for the public they have to serve who are obliged to follow them." The ministry also made the case that the Treaty of Waitangi "should be featured as a relevant consideration" among the principles. But the FAQ, from Seymour's office, said the Treaty was excluded because the bill was focused on the quality of regulations, not Treaty obligations. "As with compliance with international obligations, legal obligations under Treaty settlements are a given. A central part of the RSB is to protect existing legal rights from unprincipled appropriation," it said. The ministry also said the ability for the proposed Regulatory Standards Board - appointed by the Regulations Minister, currently Seymour - to carry out reviews of regulations ahead of agencies' own regular reviews of legislation "would not be the most effective use of the board's time". Seymour has previously defended the extra cost and workload, saying the cost was about 2 percent of the policy work currently done across the government. "If it costs $20 million just to check the regulations, imagine the cost to all the poor buggers out there who have to comply with all this crap," he said. Concerns raised by official over 'disproportionate' powers In preparation for providing feedback on the Cabinet paper in October, an MHUD official warned that giving the Regulation Minister power to set the terms of regulatory reviews could interfere with the work of other ministers. "The power of the Minister of Regulation to initiate regulatory review and set terms of reference gives considerable power and will affect the ability of a portfolio minister to advance their work," the official said. "There should be elements of mutual agreement, or consultation required, or some detail about the threshold for the Minister to initiate a review (eg requiring an Order in Council)." The official also questioned whether a board chosen by the minister should have so much influence, saying it seemed "disproportionate compared to the authority of Parliament". They pointed out there was already a process - through the Regulatory Review Committee and the Legislation Act - that allowed MPs to examine regulations if concerns were raised. In response, Seymour's spokesperson said the bureaucrats "may want to familiarise themselves" with a set of rules, known as Legislative Guidelines, which departments are already required to follow, including the principles of property rights, individual liberty, and the rule of law. "The only difference is that under the Regulatory Standards Bill, these principles would become Parliamentary law, not just Cabinet guidance that some departments clearly ignore."
The Spinoff
18 hours ago
- The Spinoff
David Seymour's hypocrisy over drugs and poverty
The state should spend more on pharmaceuticals like Wegovy because of the benefits to society as a whole, says the deputy prime minister. So why does he refuse to apply the same logic to other forms of spending? On Tuesday, as the weight-loss drug Wegovy finally became available on prescription, Act leader David Seymour renewed his call for more to be done in just about the only area of government spending he likes: pharmaceuticals. We must, he argued, consider the 'whole of society' benefits from this spending, because without such analysis the state will – in his view – always underinvest. Which would be fine, were it not for the colossal hypocrisy of his opposition to such analysis elsewhere. Let us rewind briefly. In an interview with RNZ's Guyon Espiner last year, Seymour argued that, when it comes to pharmaceuticals, governments could save money by spending money. Not only was a new drug good for the individual, 'but it would probably increase their ability to work and pay tax, reduce the need for [welfare] benefits, reduce their admission to hospital and save money in a bunch of other ways'. Unless government did that 'whole of society costing', future spending on pharmaceuticals would be 'pretty tapped out'. This is not an unreasonable argument. The problem is Seymour's refusal to apply it to other forms of spending – notably, those that might tackle child poverty. In a press release last September, Seymour dismissed Treasury analysis that reaching our child poverty reduction goals – to halve hardship, in crude terms, by 2028 – would take around $3 billion a year. The last government had increased welfare spending by more than that amount yet child poverty was 'virtually static', he argued. Seymour's analysis is flat-out wrong: official data showed very clearly that the big welfare spending increases, notably the 2018 Families Package, led to a noticeable drop in child poverty and the number of kids going hungry. The only real problem was that, when the pandemic hit, Labour didn't continue down the same path and do more to cushion the impact on the poorest New Zealanders. More than that, though, Seymour's argument ignores the fact that a genuine 'whole of society' approach would commit a government to spending vast sums tackling child poverty. Early-years hardship, after all, shows up in later-life damage: children born into poverty typically have worse school results, and lower employment rates and earnings, creating a drag on economic productivity more broadly. They're more likely to be on benefits, they experience twice the rate of heart disease of richer kids, and they require higher spending on health, housing support and criminal justice. Economists have produced various estimates of the total cost this imposes on society. The Poverty by Design conference last year heard that researchers had put the cost at 1-2% of GDP in Britain, 3.8-4.5% of GDP in Canada and as high as 5% of GDP in America. In New Zealand, the estimates – from roughly a decade ago – were around 3% of GDP (Infometrics in 2011), upwards of 3.5% of GDP (Analytica Auckland in 2010), 2.8-3.7% of GDP (the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty in 2012), and 3.8-4.6% of GDP (the Child Poverty Action Group in 2011). Child poverty has, admittedly, fallen since then, so the lower estimates are probably the most accurate. But even today, hardship in New Zealand is roughly the same as the European average, and a 2022 OECD study of 24 European countries suggested the cost of child poverty was typically around 3.4% of GDP. Applied to the New Zealand economy, which was worth $415 billion last year, that figure implies child poverty costs us about $14 billion annually. If we take seriously this 'whole of society' approach – to use Seymour's words – we could justify spending a genuinely enormous amount of money to slash child poverty rates. Even just the increased tax take – generated from healthier and more productive workers – would cancel out the cost to government in the long run, quite apart from the wider benefits. The only possible counter-objection is that even if tackling child poverty is so important, direct government spending is not the way to do it. But the evidence says otherwise. Although we can't rely solely on the state putting more money in families' bank accounts, it is an extremely effective form of action. Decades of evidence show that when you lift family incomes, parents generally spend it on things that benefit their children. And the results are impressive. Just US$1,000 extra a year in family income, for instance, closes up one-quarter of the achievement gap between poorer and richer kids. In long-term US research, state payments made to families decades ago show up in adults' better health and higher earnings. The government recoups so much tax from those more productive adults that the payments quite literally pay for themselves. Of course an anti-poverty strategy can't rely on welfare alone. Where possible, people should be supported to earn more through paid work. But even that, the evidence shows, requires greater investment in vocational education, mental health services and other welfare-to-work supports. (We also shouldn't forget that four in 10 poor children have a parent in full-time work; as it stands a job is not a guaranteed route out of hardship.) But when people don't have the option of paid work – when disability rules it out, child-raising has to come first, or individuals just need help getting their life back together – then they will need higher welfare payments to support themselves and their children in dignity, and to avoid all the damage that poverty can inflict. Not that Seymour, of course, finds such arguments persuasive. Whereas he cannot blame cancer patients for their situation, he can blame poor parents for theirs, and this harsh moral judgment overrides the investment case. As do political pressures: in his interview with Espiner, Seymour notes that his Epsom constituents regularly complain to him about pharmaceutical underfunding. And those constituents are, of course, some of the richest in the country. Taking a 'whole of society' approach to funding cancer drugs is very much on their radar. Doing the same for child poverty? Not so much.
NZ Herald
18 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Do politicians know how bad our rural roads are? Ethan Blackadder will be a future All Black
Buddhist statue New York has the Statue of Liberty, Rio has Christ the Redeemer and now Auckland has a Buddhist statue on a hilltop at Waiwera. Why worry? Steve Alpe, Birkenhead. David Seymour It is with a feeling of deja vu when reading Simon Wilson's opinion piece covering the 'brushfire politics' of David Seymour. In Seymour's quest to win over the bitter and twisted in our society, he manipulates the strings he knows he needs to pull. Wandering away from the facts so he blossoms in the eyes of admirers, filling them with an immense belief in their own superiority. What a shame people have forgotten the horrors meted out to those vulnerable, those who are not able to stand up for themselves. The recent disrobing of Briton's past Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, to today's unruly, self-indulgent Donald Trump. Alongside him, feathering their own nests, are the other egomaniacs running countries. Seymour is a little fish in this big ocean, but one who knows how to swim with the incoming tide. Emma Mackintosh, Birkenhead. Speed limits People like Gary Hollis (July 2) would apparently like to turn back the clock 100 years for NZ motorists, perhaps to the days where it was required for cars to have someone walk ahead waving a flag to warn of the following vehicle? He states speed is a factor in 29% of NZ accidents compared to 54% in global cases. Maybe NZ driving habits of impatience create better awareness the world could learn from? No, speed is not a factor in itself but 'dangerous speed' combined with other factors is. Things like drugs, cell phone use while driving, inexperience and youthful bravado are the most dangerous contributing factors while speed is only a minor contributor, convenient only to catch or fine the offending drivers. Paul Gillespie, Windsor Park. Safer roads All of the current 110km/h roads have dual carriageways. Corners are sweeping with no blind spots. The road surface is exemplary, smooth and flat. Median barriers stretch the length of the road. These factors makes crashes, head-on, at high speed a remote possibility. Speed mentioned as in Gary Hollis' letter, fails to mention that those road deaths did not occur on stretches of road gazetted for a 110km limit. This needs to be kept in balance when being critical of these roads that are, and should be, the benchmark in safety. John Ford, Taradale. Loyal to the jersey I am sounding like Sir Richard Hadlee, but I must say congratulations to one great true and honest New Zealander for being loyal to his country. This man is Ethan Blackadder who has re-signed with the Crusaders and let me tell you Ethan your day will come as an All Black and a fulltime All Black. All the very best to you. Gary Stewart, Foxton Beach. The price of butter In NZ, we are forced to pay the 'international market' price for the dairy products produced in our own country. Yet despite a price drop in four consecutive international auctions, the price of NZ butter is still over $10 a pound and all of our dairy products continue to rise. New Zealanders are being ripped off by this home-grown product and our young and elderly suffer through bad nutrition as a result. Far be it for me to push for government control, but it is patently clear that self-regulation of this vital market is detrimental to the health of our nation. Kent Millar, Blockhouse Bay.
