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
RNZ News
23 minutes ago
- RNZ News
'A ray of sunshine': NZ litigants spurred on by international climate ruling
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone A landmark ruling by the United Nations' highest court puts further pressure on the New Zealand government over a large hole in its climate plans, a group of climate lawyers say. Another litigant taking on big polluters calls it a "a ray of sunshine" - while the climate minister will only say it's "long and complicated". The International Court of Justice (ICJ) found overnight that countries can be responsible for paying reparations for damage caused by their greenhouse gases. It also said governments are legally obliged to set climate targets that are consistent with keeping temperatures within 1.5C (not 2C) and that they must "pursue measures capable of achieving" those goals. The decision said states could be in breach of international law for failing to address fossil fuel consumption, granting fossil fuel exploration licenses, and providing fossil fuel subsidies, something the New Zealand government is doing with its $200 million fund for drilling . New Zealand is currently on track to be over 80 million tonnes of emissions short of meeting its 2030 climate target, because the coalition government has broken with plans by previous governments to meet the target largely by buying carbon credits from overseas. The coalition has been told there is no feasible way to meet the target purely inside this country, without some kind of offshore deal. While Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has acknowledged that this is true, he has so far ducked making any public commitment to closing any of the necessary deals beyond "exploring options". At times, ministers have explicitly said the government wouldn't spend money offshore to meet the target, despite officials warning them that their inability to explain how New Zealand would close the gap would lead to overseas scrutiny. Jessica Palairet, executive director of Lawyers for Climate Action, said the international ruling confirmed that paying lip service to international climate targets wasn't enough. Under the Paris Agreement, countries' targets are known as NDCs, or Nationally Determined Contributions. The first ones run from 2021-2030, and the second set from 2031-2035. "The judgment confirms that New Zealand can't just say it hopes it will meet the NDC and that it's committed to our targets, it has to take real and demonstrable steps towards meeting it, it has to demonstrate that intent to meet it. The judgment clarifies that, and I think in the face of an 89 million tonne hole, there are real questions about whether or not we're doing that," she said. "When we made the NDC commitment in the first place, we had a plan for how we were going to meet the gap, but the government is changing course and the ICJ starkly brings into focus whether that is lawful." Palairet said the ruling also sharpened questions over whether New Zealand's second Paris Agreement target , out to 2035 was aligned with curtailing heating within 1.5C. Watts has defended the new target of 51-55 percent reductions by 2035, saying the cuts were difficult to achieve and met the definition of ambition, but several experts - and independent advice - disagreed. "There have been real questions raised about whether our second NDC is 1.5 degrees aligned," Palairet said. "Put it this way, Simon Watts specially asked officials for the second NDC to align with domestic emissions budgets, to avoid having to pay offshore mitigation." "The problem is that our domestic emissions budgets are set according to a test that's different to the where that leaves us is we have an NDC that likely isn't 1.5 degrees-aligned likely doesn't reflect highest possible ambition and likely doesn't reflect our fair share," she said. "The ICJ opinion really draws into sharp focus whether that is lawful." Palairet said court's opinion that 1.5C was a binding target could also have implications for the government's plans to lower the country's methane target. The coalition has been considering lowering the goal for methane reductions from between a 24 and 47 per cent by 2050 to between 14 and 24 percent. "The ICJ opinion has crystalised 1.5C as the target states have to work towards," Palairet said. "The government is considering reducing our methane target to 14 percent," she said. "The problem is that government's own independent expert advisory panel said that a 14 percent target was consistent with 2C, so I think there's a real question if New Zealand reduces its methane target to 14 percent, whether that's consistent with international law." Palairet said the government's gas and oil exploration subsidies and backtracking on the ban on new offshore exploration might also be incompatible the court's statements. "The ICJ had really strong statements on those kind of subsidies and decisions being in breach of international legal obligations." "It's advisory only, it's non-binding but it is really authoritative and it holds significant legal and moral authority and it's very likely going to be used in court cases all around the world, including New Zealand court cases." That might include Lawyers' for Climate Action's existing judicial review against Watts, which argues there are glaring holes in the country's emissions reduction plans. The world's top greenhouse gas emitters denied they had any obligations beyond the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) and the 2015 Paris agreement. The court rejected that argument, saying a range of other treaties applied, including the UN convention on the law of the sea, the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer, the Montreal protocol, the convention on biological diversity and the UN convention to combat desertification. It also said states were obliged to cooperate to solve climate change. Asked to comment on the ruling, Watts sent a written statement noting the advisory opinion had been issued. "Climate change is an important issue in our region, and we know our Pacific Island neighbours are following this development closely," it said. "This is a long, complicated opinion, and New Zealand will study it carefully before commenting on the substance." Iwi climate leader Mike Smith said environmental lawyers were already discussing how to use the landmark ruling in New Zealand. Smith won the right in the Supreme Court last year to sue seven companies - including Z Energy, Genesis Energy, NZ Steel and Fonterra - for their role in causing climate change. He said the findings by the international court overnight offered hope in a time of worsening climate damage. "In all of that darkness this is a ray of sunshine, this is a beacon, it gives us hope that we can leverage these decisions and effect change," he said. "It strengthens [my case] in the sense that the decision confirmed that states are legally obligated to prevent climate harm and they must not support or subsidise emissions-intensive activities." "I've been talking to the lawyers from ELI, the Environmental Law Initiative, and they are all putting their minds to what falls out the bottom of this opinion and what opportunities are there now to bring further proceedings against the government."
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Syria: UN Experts Alarmed By Targeted Abductions And Disappearances Of Alawite Women And Girls
GENEVA (23 July 2025) – UN experts* today expressed grave concern over alarming reports of targeted abductions, disappearances, and gender-based violence against women and girls, particularly from the Alawite community in the different regions of the Syrian Arab Republic since February 2025. They expressed serious concern at the reported abduction of 38 Alawite women and girls belonging to the Alawite minority across various governorates, including Latakia, Tartous, Hama, Homs, Damascus, and Aleppo from March 2025 until present. The victims, aged between 3 and 40 years old, were reportedly abducted in broad daylight while travelling to school, visiting relatives, or in their homes. In several cases, families received threats and were discouraged from pursuing investigations or speaking out publicly. 'The pattern of violations described – involving gender-based violence, threats, forced marriage of minors, and a glaring lack of effective response by Syrian interim Government – suggests a targeted campaign against Alawite women and girls based on intersecting grounds,' the experts said. The experts stressed the disturbing accounts of some victims being drugged and physically assaulted during captivity. Although the lack of survivor-sensitive and safe reporting mechanisms makes it difficult to verify incidents of sexual violence, the experts stressed that such abuse could not be ruled out. Reports of forced child marriage were particularly alarming. 'Syrian interim Government reportedly failed to conduct timely and impartial investigations in most cases, and in some instances, refused to register complaints or dismissed families' concerns,' the experts said. 'Such inaction not only deepens the trauma experienced by victims and their relatives but also fosters a climate of impunity,' they said. 'These cases reflect a broader pattern of violence against different groups of women and girls in Syria, exacerbated by insecurity, social fragmentation, and the erosion of rule-of-law institutions,' the experts said. Several cases reportedly involved security actors or individuals affiliated with the institutions of the interim Government of Syria. 'Authorities have an obligation under international law to protect all women and girls from violence, provide effective remedies, and ensure access to justice, protection and assistance, including psychosocial support,' the experts said. 'The targeting of minority women and girls, in particular, shows that they are particularly at risk of violence, which calls for urgent remedial action.' The experts reminded the Syrian interim Government of its obligation to search for disappeared persons and urged it to conduct prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigations into the allegations, identify and prosecute perpetrators, and ensure the safety and rehabilitation of survivors. They also called for the establishment of safe, gender-sensitive reporting channels and the appointment of female investigators. They called on the interim Government to end this pattern of violence and restore trust in the justice system. 'All women and girls – including those from religious and ethnic minorities – have the right to live in safety and dignity,' they said. 'The need to protect them is particularly urgent given the continued attacks on minorities in Syria, including a recent incident in Suweida, where dozens of civilians from the Druze community were killed by unidentified gunmen, among them two women and two children.' The experts are in contact with the interim Government of the Syrian Arab Republic on these matters. *The experts: Reem Alsalem, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences ( Nicolas Levrat, the Special Rapporteur on minority issues ( Laura Nyirinkindi, the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls ( Gabriella Citroni (Chair-Rapporteur), Grażyna Baranowska (Vice-Chair), Aua Baldé, Ana Lorena Delgadillo Pérez, and Mohammed Al-Obaidi, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances ( Nazila Ghanea, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief ( Ben Saul, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Former Whangārei Mayor Sheryl Mai to speak on Māori wards
Former Whangārei Mayor Sheryl Mai is among a trio of local leaders speaking at a 'Why Māori wards?' panel discussion in the city next week. The Network Waitangi Whangārei event aims to highlight the benefits of Māori wards, before the local elections in October. Mai will join sitting Whangārei District
