Deputy PM handover: Seymour vows straight talk, Peters fires up campaign
RNZ / Dom Thomas
David Seymour has vowed to keep speaking freely as he takes over as deputy prime minister, while an unshackled Winston Peters shifts into campaign mode, planning to avoid another handover next term.
And both men were quick to demonstrate their fire after Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told RNZ he still regards the number two job as largely ceremonial.
The handover of the deputy prime ministership, as
agreed during coalition negotiations
, marks a new milestone for the government and the half-way point of its term.
Seymour will head to the governor-general's official residence in Auckland on 31 May to be sworn in.
In separate sit-down interviews with RNZ, the ACT and NZ First leaders remarked on the honour of holding the position, though downplayed the significance of the change.
Seymour told RNZ the transition - in most respects - would be "business as usual", adding, "I've actually been the acting prime minister several times, and we're all still here, so don't worry."
Peters too was matter-of-fact: "We signed up to that in 2023 - so we don't have reflections on it. Just stick to your word and keep going."
The position was one of the last points of contention to be resolved during coalition negotiations. At the time, Luxon sought to play down its importance, saying it was "largely a ceremonial role".
Eighteen months on, Luxon told RNZ he stood by that, noting Peters and Seymour were only ever left in charge for brief stints: "When I do my trips [overseas], I'm pretty fast - in and out and back home pretty quickly."
To that, Seymour sniped: "He doesn't think it's ceremonial when he leaves the country and relies on you to act for him.
"A couple of times when I've been acting prime minister... we had the
CrowdStrike
[IT outage], we had the
Chinese ships
... you're the person on the spot for those decisions."
Peters also gave Luxon's comments short shrift: "When he [first] said that, he had no experience himself of the job, so how would he know?"
He pointedly noted that the opposition asked him far fewer questions during Parliament's Question Time than they ever did Luxon: "I kind of think that tells you something... experience matters, big time."
David Seymour wants to show New Zealanders that ACT is politically competent.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Asked whether the new role would temper his at-time-outspoken style, Seymour was defiant.
"I'm astonished you believe that my tone would need moderation or my remarks would need constraint," Seymour told RNZ.
"I certainly won't be losing my freedom to think and to speak and to express what people in our communities are thinking."
Seymour denied ever criticising his coalition partners, saying he had only ever responded to criticism: "Hopefully that won't be necessary again in this term of government."
He stressed he intended to discharge his new responsibilities "very well" to demonstrate the ACT Party was "a serious player".
"My responsibility is going to be regulation, education, finance and health, just like the day before," Seymour said.
"My job will be to show New Zealanders that ACT is politically competent and can deliver and execute in government. This is another chapter of that - becoming DPM."
Seymour said he'd not sought - nor received - advice from his predecessor, saying Peters had taught by demonstration.
"Some of those lessons, I'll take. Others I might leave with him."
Winston Peters says he'll have more time to focus on his party's election campaign.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
The NZ First leader said his role as deputy prime minister had been to "offer experience... in a environment where a lot of ministers were new".
Peters said the privilege of the position also came with "serious constraints" including a heavier workload and limits around expression.
"Speaking your mind is marvellous - but we're not in a free-think society here. We're in a coalition, and one should always remember it."
With his duties reduced, Peters said he would now have more time to focus on NZ First's election campaign, with a series of roadshows - "not eating sausage rolls" - planned around the country.
"We took the first turn [as DPM], not the second one," he said. "It works out like a charm."
Peters also planned to ease back his relentless travel schedule as foreign minister, as previously signalled. He will be overseas at the time of the handover, visiting Sri Lanka, Nepal, and India. By his return, he will have visited 44 individual countries in the past 18 months.
"We've slogged it out trying to make up for the massive deficit that we inherited... it was pretty exhausting, and in that sense, it is going to be less now."
As for what his election campaign would look like, Peters said he had learned the "bitter lessons" of 2020 and would bypass the mainstream media to speak directly to hundreds of thousands of "forgotten New Zealanders" over the next 18 months.
"This time, we're getting the firepower, the army ready," he said. "We are better prepared than we've ever been in this party's political career."
And Peters made clear he would seek to avoid another handover of the deputy prime ministership next term.
"If we'd have been given a fair go in the 2023 election, there'd be no need for a handover," Peters said. "It's our intention to remove any doubt next election."
The exact date of the next election remains unset, though Labour has stirred mischief by raising the spectre of an early vote.
Peters said he was "not really" preparing for that possibility: "You can never forecast any of those things, but our plan is the full term and stable government."
Seymour also dismissed the idea his time as deputy prime minister could be cut short.
"It's in absolutely nobody's interest - except perhaps the complete Looney Tunes in the Greens and Te Pāti Māori and their enablers in Labour.
"There's only about 60 odd people in New Zealand - and they are odd people - who would benefit from an early election."
Even Labour leader Chris Hipkins told RNZ he thought it unlikely: "Turkeys don't vote for an early Christmas."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
13 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Top netballers may need secondary income as broadcast deal drags on
ANZ Premiership players Amelia Walmsley of the Central Pulse and Jane Watson of the Tactix. Photo: © Photosport Ltd 2025 Pay cuts could be coming for New Zealand's top netball players in 2026 as the broadcast deal for the domestic competition drags on. ANZ Premiership players may need a secondary income next season "to make ends meet", according to New Zealand Netball Players Association executive manager Steph Bond. This year's ANZ Premiership concluded on Sunday, but Netball New Zealand is yet to lock in a television deal for next year. The broadcast deal will impact how much players are paid. "The sad part that could end up next year is that actually players will have to look outside of netball to supplement what they are earning to make ends meet," Bond told Midday Report. "In some cases that's a good thing in terms of actually having something off the court, but it's definitely not pushing the sport forward in terms of the progress other sports are making." Bond said players had felt "unsettled" while the negotiations continued. "It's creating challenges for those individuals, which is understandable when you're not sure where your short-term future is heading. "We would normally be in the contracting stage right now in terms of the ANZ Premiership for next year, so we're currently in bargaining with Netball New Zealand to try and see what that landscape will look like next year." The players avoided wide-spread pay cuts this year when a collective employment agreement was negotiated last year for 2025, Bond said to be back facing the potential of pay cuts again was "disappointing". "The community game is still growing despite other, I guess, competing sports in that market and so there is definitely the fans and the people that are supporting the game just at this point in time we don't seem to be able to be getting that turned into dollars and making that a difference at that level." The Netball Players Association supported players looking to Australia to further their career with the "uncertainty" around the future of the New Zealand competition. "I think like anyone, if you look across the ditch, you can see a job over there that potentially is paid better and has different challenges then people will be looking at that and having a look and seeing if that's actually a better option for them." Netball New Zealand updated its Silver Ferns eligibility criteria this month, paving the way for greater flexibility for athletes who wish to play overseas.
RNZ News
43 minutes ago
- RNZ News
What you need to know about Auckland's licensing trust elections
The Trusts chief executive Allan Pollard. Photo: Supplied/LDR Aucklanders are being urged to vote for trustees for the five alcohol licensing trusts in the region, as the local elections loom. The local elections will be held from September 9 - October 11, and while most of the attention will be on city councillors and mayoral hopefuls, voters will also decide who will lead their licensing trusts. Auckland has five licensing trusts, with only two - Portage and Waitakere, collectively known as The Trusts - having the authority to grant liquor licences in West Auckland. Established in the country in the 1960s and 70s, the trusts model was set up as a community initiative to control the sale of alcohol and decide how surplus profits are returned to the community. The Trusts chief executive Allan Pollard said people often didn't realise that licensing trusts were included in the local elections. "Licensing trusts are just the tip of the niche election iceberg," Pollard said. "When local elections roll around in, between these and the general election, you might think that's more than enough democracy to fill your brain. "But in reality, there are a number of other things you can vote on that most Kiwis don't realise are on the table." Voting numbers for licensing trusts haven't been strong. In the last local elections, less than 50 percent of registered voters selected their trustees. Pollard said voter turnout for the last Waitākere Local Board election was 15,661 votes, approximately 40 percent of eligible voters. He hoped that would change come September. "Fundamentaly we all want what's best for the community. People come at it from different angles and that's democracy and at the end of the day, people will decide." He also hoped more young people would step up and consider being nominated for one of the 35 trustee positions vacant in the five licensing trusts. The other trusts are Mt Wellington, Birkenhead and Wiri in south Auckland, who all manage and own hospitality venues and commercial real estate assets. Together with proceeds from gaming machines, licensing trusts provide funding to community groups in their districts. "New Zealand is home to a unique system of licensing trusts - community-owned entities that hold exclusive rights to sell alcohol in certain areas," Pollard said. While alcohol monopolies exist in other parts of the world, what makes the NZ model different was that it was truly democratic and community-led, he said. "In West Auckland, we're mandated to operate off-licenses, hotels and taverns. A responsibility we take seriously weighing community benefit against accessibility and alcohol harm. "Then, surplus profits from those retail and hospitality operations are reinvested back into the community." Pollard said the West Auckland trusts granted $1.1 million to 52 community-led initiatives across the district this year. Nominations for the local elections, including licensing trusts, close on 1 August. Voting opens on 11 September and closes at noon on 11 October. Final results will be announced on 13-17 October. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Voting reforms, prisoner bans and enrolment changes - What you need to know about the Electoral Amendment Bill
A proposed bill would make several changes to how elections are run before the 2026 election. Photo: RNZ / File Explainer - The Electoral Amendment Bill faces its first reading today in Parliament. But what does it actually say? The government has announced sweeping plans to change electoral processes before the 2026 election. In announcing the bill last week , Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the government was "overhauling outdated and unsustainable electoral laws". However there's been pushback at the proposed changes, especially the elimination of Election Day enrolment. The bill is set to face its first reading in Parliament on Tuesday afternoon. Here's a breakdown of what the bill proposes and the reaction to it. The Electoral Amendment Bill claims it "makes a range of systems improvements to support the timeliness, efficiency, integrity, and resilience of the electoral system". It makes a suite of changes including ending same-day voter enrolment, banning prisoner voting, changes to treating on Election Day and expanding anonymous political donation limits. Here's the main points. Same-day enrolment will be a thing of the past if the bill passes. "Allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has placed too much strain on the system," Goldsmith said. "The final vote count used to take two weeks, last election it took three. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." Voters had been able to show up during the advance voting period and enrol at the same time, as well as on Election Day, with their vote being counted as a special vote. The government wants to close enrolment before advance voting begins, with people needing to enrol or update their details by midnight on the Sunday before advance voting starts on the Monday morning (in other words, 13 days before election day). The legislation sets a requirement of 12 days advance voting at each election. The changes could mean special vote processing could get underway sooner. Speaking to Morning Report this week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "we want enrolment to happen before early voting starts". "The experience last time was by virtue of having on the day enrolment we ended up in a situation where it took us three weeks to count the vote, which was the longest it had ever taken us as well. "We want everyone to participate, you've got plenty of time to do so. "They can participate in the voting, they just need to do it and get themselves organised earlier, that's all." University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said the change might affect future election results and how they lean politically. "As a whole, since 1999 special votes have favoured the parties of the left - resulting in their picking up one or two more seats in the House at the expense of parties on the right. Restricting same day enrolment and voting can thus be predicted to reduce the number of votes cast by groups that support left-of-centre parties." However, he said that impact could be offset by voters enrolling earlier. "However, the groups most affected here - younger voters, those who are transient, and minority populations - are the hardest to reach through education campaigns and the like. That means we can predict that there will still be a substantial number of people not properly enrolled when voting commences, who will as a result lose the right to have their vote counted." The changes won't actually stop people from casting a ballot on election day, he said. Special votes must still be processed. "It's just that they won't be included in the final vote count once it is determined that the person has not enrolled to vote by the required time," Geddis said. "As such, the effectiveness of this change in reducing the burden on electoral officials is open to question." The bill would also introduce automatic enrolment updates so the Electoral Commission can update people's enrolment details using data from other government agencies, and remove postal requirements for enrolment. Special votes on Election Day take longer to process. Photo: RNZ / Nick Monro Special votes are anyone who isn't on the electoral roll or unpublished roll, lives overseas or vote away from a polling place because they can't get to one. The number of special votes have been growing which has resulted in seats swinging in the final count compared to election night. In 2023, nearly 21 percent, or 603,257 of all votes cast, were special votes . Only 78,030 of those were from overseas voters. Processing them takes more time than regular votes. Goldsmith said late enrolments placed too much strain on the system. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." The bill disqualifies all prisoners convicted and sentenced from enrolling and voting while in prison. It doesn't apply to persons who have committed a crime but are detained in a hospital or secure facility. In 2020, the Labour government amended the law so that only people serving a term of three or more years were disqualified. The National-led coalition government had earlier signalled the change back . "Everyone understands that if you violate the rights of others, you surrender certain rights of your own," ACT justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson said. "Reinstating the ban on prisoner voters makes the consequences for crime clearer." Attorney-General Judith Collins. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER Some have said the new bill will disenfranchise voters, while others are applauding it. "This is a significant, but necessary change," Goldsmith said. "The Electoral Commission will have plenty of time to run an education campaign to ensure people understand the new requirements." In a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared earlier this year , the Ministry of Justice did not support closing enrolment earlier. "Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant," officials said. And the government's Attorney-General, Judith Collins, has also said the legislation could breach the Bill of Rights. In a report , Collins concluded that the bill appeared inconsistent with the right to vote, to freedom of expression and the rights of prisoners in certain circumstances regarding changing penalties. She pointed to section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 , which states that every New Zealand Citizen who is of or over the age of 18 has the right to vote. "The accepted starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy," the report states. "A compelling justification is required to limit that right." Geddis said that Collins' report was not surprising. "We know that banning all prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights as the Supreme Court has declared this to be so. And in relation to removing same-day enrolment and voting for the entire voting period, the fact that there are other ways to address the problem of a slow vote count without taking away people's right to vote means it is not a justified limit. As such, the Attorney-General's conclusions are to be expected." Green Party spokesperson for Democracy and Electoral Reform Celia Wade Brown said: "These changes represent a dark day for our democracy. "Requiring enrolments before voting starts will see even more people miss out from expressing their democratic right. In the last General Election, over 200,000 people enrolled to vote or updated their details in the last 12 days. These changes would see all of these people miss out on having their say." ACT's Stephenson disagreed, calling late enrollees "lazy". "Democracy works best when voters are informed, engaged, and take the process seriously. It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away." ACT leader David Seymour. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii ACT leader David Seymour also weighed in for the change, saying "frankly, I'm a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law." Those comments were later called "unhelpful" by Justice Minister Goldsmith. "I disagree with that language ... It's not language I would use," Luxon told Morning Report . Geddis said it was worrying to see an "apparent dismissiveness" by the government of concerns. "They are being warned that their proposed legislation will remove a fundamental right from thousands of New Zealanders without good enough reason. "Their response then seems to be that this is a trifling matter which can be overlooked because it is easier and more administratively convenient to simply stop allowing same day enrolment and voting. "Or, even worse, that the people whose rights are being limited are just 'dropkicks' who do not deserve any respect." The government has also announced that it will slightly increase the threshold for anonymous political donations. "The donation threshold for reporting the names of party donors is also being adjusted from $5000 to $6000, to account for inflation," Goldsmith said. The Greens' Wade Brown criticised that. "While the government has taken away votes from people in prison and made it harder to vote in general, it has made it easier for wealthy people to donate to political parties from the shadows by raising the disclosure threshold to $6000," she said. Treating is the practice of influencing a voter by providing them with free food, drink, or entertainment. It's already an offence, but the bill aims to make it clearer what exactly isn't allowed . The bill creates a new offence that prohibits the provision of free food, drink or entertainment within 100 metres of a voting place while voting is taking place. It will be punishable by a fine of up to $10,000. "There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating," Goldsmith said. "This will make the rules crystal clear." Election advertising or campaigning is not permitted within 10 metres of a voting place during advanced voting, and not at all on election day itself. In a Regulatory Impact Statement, Ministry of Justice officials said controlled areas around voting places would make it more straightforward to identify and prosecute offending and was more readily enforceable than the status quo. "The offence will not require that a person intends to corruptly influence an elector. Instead it will only require that they knowingly provided food, drink and entertainment within the controlled area," they said. But it was not their preferred option. "A key drawback of this option is that it is a blunt tool which does not exclusively capture harmful or corrupt behaviour. It draws a superficial line around voting places which may be arbitrary if the influencing behaviour occurs just outside the controlled area." Complaints about possible breaching of treating by providing food at a polling booth at Manurewa Marae were investigated after the 2023 election. It found those did not meet the test for treating. The bill will now go before Parliament in a first reading. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith The first reading today will determine the path forward for the bill. If it passes a first reading, it's referred on to a Select Committee for further development, then will be further considered by Parliament. Geddis said these reforms were left to a simple majority of votes in Parliament like any other piece of legislation. "Because the government has a majority in Parliament, if it wants to do this, it can. It's just a question of whether it's the right thing to do," he told RNZ's Checkpoint . Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
