Christopher Luxon Tells Off David Seymour Over Letter To United Nations
Regulations Minister David Seymour has been given a telling-off by the prime minister for sending a scathing letter to a United Nations official about his red-tape-busting legislation.
Speaking to media on Tuesday morning, PM Christopher Luxon said, while he "fully agreed" with the content of Seymour's message, the responsibility for engaging with the UN lay with Foreign Minister Winston Peters.
Luxon said he had not asked Seymour to retract his letter but had spoken with him directly.
"I'm not going into those conversations," Luxon said. "I've just made it clear that I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN."
In a statement to RNZ, Seymour said he stood by the contents of his letter but acknowledged he had been "too efficient" in his correspondence.
"One response should come from the Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of all ministers," Seymour said.
"Winston and I have fixed the problem. I'm going to withdraw my letter so that the government can send one response. I expect that letter to make the same points."
Last month, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K Barume, issued a letter to government ministers expressing a number of concerns, including about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill.
One of his criticisms was that the legislation excluded Māori traditions and failed to uphold principles guaranteed by the Treaty of Waitangi.
As first reported by the NZ Herald, Seymour fired back, in his capacity as Regulations Minister, describing the UN letter as "presumptive, condescending, and wholly misplaced".
He said Barume's description of the Regulatory Standards Bill's approach to tikanga was "not only incorrect but offensive".
"As an indigenous New Zealander myself, I am deeply aggrieved by your audacity in presuming to speak on my behalf and that of my fellow Māori regarding legislation that aims solely at ensuring clarity, consistency, and accountability in regulatory processes."
Seymour signed off his letter: "We neither require nor welcome external lectures on our governance, particularly from bodies whose understanding of our nuanced historical, cultural, and constitutional context is so clearly deficient."
Luxon said he agreed with Seymour that the UN letter was "a total waste of time" but stressed proper processes needed to be followed.
"All of us in government can read the letter and say, hey, it's total bunkum," Luxon told reporters.
"But our response will come from Winston Peters... he will have a comprehensive reply in due course."
Also speaking on Tuesday morning, Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the events proved the "dysfunctional" nature of the coalition and were "downright embarrassing".
"Most days, it doesn't appear that Christopher Luxon is actually in charge of his own government," Hipkins said. "Winston Peters and David Seymour seem to do whatever they like."
Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the matter of who replied to correspondence from the UN had been resolved.
Peters said experience matters in the business of diplomacy and "fixed" the issue after speaking to Seymour.
He said he was still consulting affected ministries, and would craft a response when that's complete.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
Attorney-General rules her own Govt's voting crackdown breaches human rights
Electoral law restrictions announced last week are in breach of the Bill of Rights Act, Attorney-General Judith Collins KC says in a report belatedly disclosed to Parliament. She indicates more than 100,000 people may be directly or indirectly disenfranchised by rules banning enrolment in the final 13 days before an elections. Young people, and areas with larger Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities, are likely to be worst affected. Denying voters the political franchise is a heavy price to pay, she says, when there are alternative, less restrictive measures that could have addressed the same problem of speeding up the vote count. But Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has hit back. 'Allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has placed too much strain on the system,' he tells Newsroom. 'I don't accept that we are disenfranchising people by requiring that they are first enrolled. Many countries do this, such as Australia.' Professor Andrew Geddis, at the University of Otago, says the Bill of Rights notice ought to have been attached to the bill when it was presented, according to the wording of section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act. This would have allowed ministers to be asked about it, when the proposal first came out. 'However, it doesn't seem to have been,' he says. 'Instead, it quietly went up on the Ministry of Justice website just in time for the weekend.' 'Heavy price' for administrative convenience In its Regulatory Impact Statement, the Ministry of Justice did not recommend the option of closing enrolment earlier. 'Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant,' officials said. The Attorney-General's Bill of Rights inconsistency notice goes further, concluding the proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act, which says every New Zealand citizen aged 18-plus has the right to vote in Parliamentary elections. 'The accepted starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy,' she says. 'A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' Citing Electoral Commission and Ministry of Justice data, she says about 3400 people would have their eligibility to vote directly affected by the law change. These include people returning from overseas after being away for an extended time, and people who become New Zealand residents or are released from prison during the registration period. But many more will have their right to vote indirectly affected, by being in effect excluded from the franchise by the practicalities of the operation of a 13-day pre-election registration deadline. There has been an expectation, since 1993, that electors can register as late as the day before polling day, or more recently, on polling day. Indeed, the trend (with accompanying publicity campaigns) has been towards greater flexibility as to when people may register to vote. In the 2023 general election, the special votes included more than 97,000 people who registered for the first time during the voting period, and nearly 134,000 people who changed electoral districts during the voting period. 'This gives some indication of the number of people who may be affected, and the farther out the registration deadline from polling day, the greater the disenfranchising impact is likely to be.' There were other options the Government could have embraced, Collins says, that would impose 'less onerous limits on the right to vote'. For instance, it could have reverted to a deadline of the day before election day (which was the rule from 1993 to 2020) or a deadline of three, five or seven days before polling day. The notice to Parliament also finds the announced law changes breach the rights of sentenced prisoners, by reinstating a ban on them voting. For most of New Zealand's history, sentenced prisoners have been denied the right to vote. In 1975, the Rowling Labour government gave them the vote but that enfranchisement was brief – the National government repealed it two years later. The Electoral Act 1993 allowed for a limited prisoner franchise, though those serving a a sentence of three or more years were excluded. That was repealed in 2010. Then in 2020, the Ardern Labour Government restored prisoners' ability to vote, after jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor took a successful case to the Supreme Court. Like the Attorney-General, the court said the ban was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. Goldsmith has now announced it will (again) be repealed. And he isn't wavering, in the face of the Attorney-General's notice. 'Citizenship brings rights and responsibilities,' he says. He rejects the inclusion of prisoners' rights in the Bill of Rights Act. 'People who breach those responsibilities to the extent that they are sentenced to jail temporarily lose some of their rights, including the right to vote.' Speeding up the vote count On the wider matter of when people are allowed to enrol, the law says an eligible voter can enrol right up to and including election day, at any voting place in New Zealand. According to public advice from the Electoral Commission, if people enrol early, then voting will be faster. The commission says that those who enrol before Writ Day (about a month before election day) will have their names on the printed electoral roll at the voting place. They'll also be mailed an EasyVote card, making it faster for the person issuing voting papers to find them on the roll. 'You can still enrol after Writ Day – but you may need to fill in an extra form when you go to vote.' Goldsmith justifies barring people from voting if they don't enrol more than 13 days out from election day, saying it should enable votes to be counted faster. 'The final vote count used to take two weeks – last election it took three,' he says. 'If we leave things as they are, it could likely take even longer. 'If you want to vote, you need to be enrolled. People have a whole year to get organised. I have every confidence New Zealanders can manage.' Ockers and 'drop kicks' Goldsmith says many countries require people to be enrolled before voting. Australia required people to be enrolled 26 days before the last election, and before 2020, New Zealanders were not able to enrol on election day. 'Those people were not disenfranchised, they were simply required to be enrolled. It is not difficult.' However, the Attorney-General points out the High Court of Australia has ruled on a voter registration deadline that departed from previous settings. She endorses that court's comments, that restricting the impact on the franchise of restricting the voter registration period is a 'heavy price'. Delivering a 2010 judgment on behalf of a seven-member panel of the High Court, Chief Justice Robert French had said the heavy price imposed on the constitutional mandate was disproportionate to the benefits of a smoother and more efficient electoral system, to which the amendments were directed. Last week, Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said only 'drop kicks' enrolled late to vote. Goldsmith reiterates his unhappiness with the Act leader's comment. 'I said last week, Mr Seymour's comment was unhelpful. The purpose of the change, and a large number of other changes, is to take pressure off the system, so that the Electoral Commission can do its job effectively and efficiently.'
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Bay of Islands hapū achieve Ngāpuhi-first Treaty of Waitangi milestone
Te Whakaaetanga Trust chairperson Herb Rihari. Photo: LDR / Supplied A Bay of Islands trust representing four Ngāpuhi hapū groupings has achieved a major milestone in its Treaty of Waitangi negotiations. The Trust received its Crown Deed of Mandate recognition on 16 July - the first for a group of Ngāpuhi hapū. Te Whakaaetanga Trust chairperson Herb Rihari (Ngāti Torehina ki Matakā) said the milestone was of "historical significance". "Te Whakaaetanga is looking forward to discussing and negotiating the full spectrum of their redress options," Rihari said. Ngāpuhi - New Zealand's largest iwi with almost 185,000 people - has not yet achieved Treaty of Waitangi settlement. The hapū grouping's area of claim encompasses most of Pēwhairangi/the Bay of Islands. It includes the eastern Bay of Islands' Ipipiri Islands where wealthy American writer Zane Grey set up his gamefishing base at Urupukapuka Island's Otehei Bay in 1926 and described New Zealand as the "Angler's El Dorado". It also includes Motukokako (Piercy Island) which features the internationally-famous Hole in the Rock boat trip tourist destination, and Cape Brett. A new era is dawning for Treaty of Waitangi negotations over this Bay of Islands vista, after Ngāpuhi's first Crown Deed of Mandate recognition for a local hapū grouping. Te Whakaaetanga Trust's claim stretches from Purerua Peninsula (foreground)to Cape Brett and includes the Ipipiri Islands. Photo: LDR / Topshot Media Rihari said Te Whakaaetanga Trust's Crown Deed of Mandate had been recognised after 18 years' mahi. Te Whakaaetanga Trust's achievement comes 14 years after the government's controversial 2011 Tuhorunuku Deed of Mandate, which was towards a single settlement for all of Ngāpuhi. That Deed was rescinded in 2015, after major rejection from within the iwi's 100-plus hapū. The July Deed of Mandate meant the Crown formally recognised the trust's mandate to negotiate a Treaty of Waitangi settlement on behalf of its affiliated hapū. Rihari said it also opened the door to "negotiate redress that acknowledges the maemae (hurt) of the past and creates meaningful opportunities for our hapū and mokopuna". "It provides a foundation for enduring redress, cultural and economic revitalisation and the restoration of hapū mana across our rohe," Rihari said. [ Te Whakaaetanga] Trust represents coastal hapū Ngāti Kuta, Ngāti Manu me ngā hapū rīriki - Te Uri o Raewera and Te Uri Karaka, Ngāti Torehina ki Matakā and Patukeha. The trust is made up of two people from each of the hapū it represents. Rihari said the hapū grouping's area of claim approximately encompassed an area bounded in the north by the Bay of Islands' Purerua Peninsula. Its boundary ran from the peninsula's tip, south-east across the waters of the Bay of Islands to Cape Brett and Rāwhiti. Rihari said the boundary then travelled south-west to Karetu. From there, the claim's western boundary headed roughly north to Tapkea Point and included Opua and Russell settlements. It continued northwards across Bay of Islands waters including Moturoa Island on the way. to Te Puna Inlet. Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith (front, second left) at a Te Kotahitanga meeting in the Bay of Islands. Photo: LDR / Susan Botting From there it continued to the northern side of Purerua Peninsula, the claim encompassing all of the landform to the east, and including the maunga (mountain) Matakā at the peninsula's tip. Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith told Local Democracy Reporting Northland the Crown Deed of Mandate for Te Whakaaetanga was a positive achievement. "We're pleased to be making progress," Goldsmith said Northland Māori leader and Te Kotahitanga co-chair Pita Tipene said it was a major milestone for Ngāpuhu hapū working towards Treaty of Waitangi redress. It offered a model for Ngāpuhi tribes, such as those around Waimate, Taiamai, Kaikohe and Whangaroa who were collectivising towards the same goal. Tipene said it was important the government approached any Ngāpuhi Treaty of Waitangi hapū redress on a hapū-based commercial and cultural basis. However, Minister Goldsmith poured cold water on that. "The government has indicated its preference for a single financial redress for Ngāpuhi, with a small group of cultural-based settlements sitting underneath," Goldsmith said. "Te Whakaaetanga is now mandated as one of the groups with which we will be discussing a cultural settlement," Goldsmith said. Rihari said the next stage would be preparation for formal negotiations with the Crown and the trust was committed to ongoing kōrero with all who "held an interest in our shared future". Rihari said many hands, hearts and minds - past and present - had contributed to the kaupapa of achieving the deed of mandate milestone over many years. "Ehara tēnei i te mahi māmā, engari he mahi nui mō ngā uri whakatupu. Mā tātou katoa tēnei e kawe, mā te rangimārie, mā te kotahintanga, mā te aroha hoki. "This is not easy work, but it is important work for the generations to come. Together, through unity, peace and aroha, we carry it forward." LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Palestine Action Ban ‘Disturbing' Misuse Of UK Counter-Terrorism Legislation, Türk Warns
GENEVA (25 July 2025) – The UK Government's decision to proscribe the 'Palestine Action' protest group under terrorism legislation raises serious concerns that counter-terrorism laws are being applied to conduct that is not terrorist in nature and risks hindering the legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms across the UK, UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk warned today. The UK Government proscribed Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 after some of its members broke into a military airfield in June and reportedly spray-painted two military aircraft, among other incidents of property damage. 'UK domestic counter-terrorism legislation defines terrorist acts broadly to include 'serious damage to property'. But, according to international standards, terrorist acts should be confined to criminal acts intended to cause death or serious injury or to the taking of hostages, for purpose of intimidating a population or to compel a government to take a certain action or not,' said Türk. 'It misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism to expand it beyond those clear boundaries, to encompass further conduct that is already criminal under the law.' The ban, among other things, makes it a criminal offence to be a member of Palestine Action, express support for the group, or wear an item of clothing that would arouse 'reasonable suspicion' that a person is a member of or supports the organization. Such conduct is punishable by criminal penalties, including fines and prison sentences of up to 14 years. 'The decision appears disproportionate and unnecessary. It limits the rights of many people involved with and supportive of Palestine Action who have not themselves engaged in any underlying criminal activity but rather exercised their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association,' the High Commissioner said. 'As such, it appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on those rights that is at odds with the UK's obligations under international human rights law.' 'The decision also conflates protected expression and other conduct with acts of terrorism and so could readily lead to further chilling effect on the lawful exercise of these rights by many people,' he added. Since the UK Government's ban came into effect on 5 July, at least 200 people have been arrested under the UK Terrorism Act 2000, many of them while attending peaceful protests. 'I urge the UK Government to rescind its decision to proscribe Palestine Action and to halt investigations and further proceedings against protesters who have been arrested on the basis of this proscription. I also call on the UK Government to review and revise its counter-terrorism legislation, including its definition of terrorist acts, to bring it fully in line with international human rights norms and standards,' the High Commissioner said.
