Seymour vows straight talk, Peters fires up campaign
By Craig McCulloch of RNZ
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 said 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 halfway point of its term.
Seymour will head to the governor-general's official residence in Auckland on May 31 to be sworn in.
In separate interviews the ACT and NZ First leaders remarked on the honour of holding the position, though downplayed the significance of the change.
Seymour said 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." Ceremonial? 'How would he know?'
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 said 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." Seymour: 'Won't be losing my freedom to think'
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 said.
"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." Peters eyes 2026 as he passes the baton
The NZ First leader said his role as deputy prime minister had been to "offer experience... in an 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." Early election? Full term, the plan
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 said he thought it unlikely: "Turkeys don't vote for an early Christmas."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Collins refuses to apologise to Lake Alice survivor
By Jimmy Ellingham of RNZ A senior government minister has refused to apologise to a Lake Alice abuse survivor for telling the United Nations more than 10 years ago that there was no state torture in New Zealand. Then-Justice Minister Judith Collins made the comments in 2014, a decade before the government first used the word 'torture' in relation to the Lake Alice child and adolescent unit in the 1970s. She said she was acting on UN reports from the time. The government now says that children and young people who suffered electric shocks or painful paralysing injections at the Rangitīkei institution are eligible for redress, because they were tortured. Included in that is the offer of $150,000 rapid redress payments, which Levin woman Karilyn Wildbore has decided to take up. In March, she also asked for her compensation to include an apology from Collins, now Attorney-General and Minister of Defence, for her 2014 comments. When questioned about New Zealand's obligations under UN conventions, particularly from the Iranian delegate, Collins said: "In response to Iran, I can advise that there is no state torture in New Zealand." In a letter to Wildbore this week, Collins said she would not apologise for the comments. "My response to Iran's remarks reflected the findings of the United Nations subcommittee on the prevention of torture, which had visited New Zealand in April 2013. "In its report, provided to New Zealand in November 2013, the subcommittee found 'no evidence of torture or physical ill-treatment' in places of detention in New Zealand." Collins said she acknowledged the experiences of Wildbore and others at the Lake Alice unit. "However, I don't believe that what I told the UPR [universal periodic review] in 2014, in response to a remark from Iran, was wrong. "As such, I am unable to provide the apology Ms Wildbore has requested." Wildbore said she was not surprised. "Denial's the name of the game at the moment," she said. "No matter what you do, people don't want to be responsible." Wildbore said Collins should have known about what had happened at Lake Alice, especially since the first compensation payments were made more than a decade before 2014. Only last year, the government began using the word 'torture' to describe the unit's treatment of children and young people, under lead psychiatrist Dr Selwyn Leeks. The $150,000 rapid payments are part of a $22.68 million package for Lake Alice Survivors announced late last year. Survivors who received electric shocks or paralysing injections could either opt for these payments or head to arbitration. Collins' office was contacted for comment.
Otago Daily Times
11 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Guardians approve lake drawdown changes
Approved changes to operating guidelines for hydro-electricity generation at Lake Manapouri will not cause unnatural variations of lake levels, the Guardians of Lakes Manapouri, Monowai and Te Anau say. Fears have been raised that using too much water when lake levels are low could cause permanent damage to the lake's shoreline. However, Guardians chairman Darryl Sycamore said the approved changes to the "drawdown rate" only applied to the upper range of low lake levels. Critically, the changes the Guardians had approved mimicked drops in lake levels previously observed in the natural record. "The Guardians have considered a range of proposals from Meridian Energy and have agreed to some amendments which mimic variations in the natural record of lake level prior to the establishment of the Manapouri hydro-scheme," Mr Sycamore said. "These amendments will enable additional energy generation and provide resilience of our electricity network." The Guardians were mandated in the Conservation Act to have particular regard to the effects of the operation of the hydro scheme on social, conservation, recreation and tourism values, he said. "We have carefully considered the proposed amendments on the values prescribed in the Act and have only provided our support to those which will likely result in less than minor effects," he said. If further changes were sought, unless Meridian could provide robust scientific reasoning to adopt the changes, they would not have the Guardians' support. Lake Manapōuri and Lake Te Anau had "given enough to NZ Inc" and any additional energy would have to be produced elsewhere, he said. Energy Minister Simon Watts heralded the changes as a "boost" to New Zealand's hydro generation and energy security. They would allow an extra 45GWh of energy to be produced by the Manapōuri Power Scheme each year — enough energy to power about 6000 homes, Mr Watts said. "Last winter, New Zealand faced an energy shortage that led to significant price increases for consumers, in part due to low hydro lake levels," he said. "This government will not accept a repeat of last winter and is working at pace to ensure we have a reliable and affordable energy supply. "Lake Manapōuri and Lake Te Anau are not only environmentally and culturally significant, but they are also essential to New Zealand's energy system." The changes balanced the needs of New Zealand's electricity system with the environmental impact on the lakes and their surrounding areas, he said. Emeritus Professor Sir Alan Mark, of Dunedin, the first chairman of the Guardians, said changes to the low operating range risked damage to shorelines, or the loss of beaches that had taken "eons" to develop. "They're not going to be replaced if they're lost," Sir Alan said. When lake levels were lowered to unnatural levels in 1972 — the year before the Guardians were established — several beaches were lost forever, Sir Alan said. Decades of daily lake level data was used to establish the guidelines more than 50 years ago and they had since "proved to be extremely successful" in retaining the lakes' beaches in their natural state, he said. Meridian manages about half of New Zealand's total hydro storage and uses Lakes Pūkaki, Ōhau, Aviemore, Waitaki, Benmore, Manapōuri and Te Anau to generate energy. Previously, a Meridian spokesman said the government "has been very clear in its desire to ensure there's enough electricity for all New Zealand homes and businesses this winter, and Manapōuri Power Station has an important role to play in that". Changes to the operating guidelines include changing the drawdown rates, reducing duration requirements on how long the lakes can stay within the first band of low operating ranges, and removing equinoctial requirements, which set additional limits on how hydro generation could affect the lakes twice a year during windier periods.
Otago Daily Times
13 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Stormy seas ahead for new skipper
Depending on your political alignment, the swearing in of David Seymour as deputy prime minister on Saturday was either a glorious achievement or the stuff of nightmares. For most though, it will be business as usual. Deputy prime minister is an important role, but not one of grave constitutional importance. It being shared is a novel situation born of this government being a three-way coalition, but it was an eminently practical solution to what might have been a problem if the role had been the sole province of one person for three years. Those who doubt whether Mr Seymour has what it takes to assume command when Christopher Luxon is not about are, presumably, unaware that Mr Seymour has been acting prime minister on several occasions when both Mr Luxon and former deputy prime minister Winston Peters were out of the country. The ship of state was safely kept off the rocks then, as it will no doubt be again when Mr Seymour temporarily assumes the helm: he is a more than capable man, with a firmly ingrained sense of personal responsibility. There are others who believe that the stability of the government will be weakened by a tyro deputy prime minister taking charge, especially one who is given to speaking his mind — and who unapologetically has said that he has no intention of changing that. Those people also forget that Mr Peters is hardly a shrinking violet, and that the coalition remained stable despite some choice outbursts in the past 18 months from the elder statesman of New Zealand politics. Having said all that, much of Mr Seymour's time in the next few months will be spent trying to shepherd through his Regulatory Standards Bill, the second highly controversial piece of legislation he has sought to enact this term. The first was, of course, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. Despite the inevitability of it being voted down it still attracted enormous opprobrium and inspired the largest protest march seen in Wellington in many years. Its fallout is still glowing bright, as Parliament considers what to do with the three Te Pati Maori MPs who disrupted the voting on the doomed Bill. Many of those opposed to the Regulatory Standards Bill are the same people, and for many of the same reasons. The Bill is intended to clarify and improve New Zealand's law-making process, and many of the checks and balances which it proposes are not unknown in other countries. However, in this country the Treaty of Waitangi exists as safeguard of the legal rights of Maori, and any attempt to circumvent the Treaty was always going to cause controversy. The Bill itself is largely silent on the Treaty, and its proponent did not mention it at all in his first reading speech. The Opposition surely mentioned it though and spared no punches: "an absolutely vile piece of legislation" was one of the milder condemnations, while Te Pati Maori called on people to mobilise to stop the Bill in its tracks. For Mr Seymour. the Bill is an exercise in cutting the red tape which he claims is holding New Zealand back. He is no doubt right that there are examples of overregulation, and that it can be obstructive to people's individual or corporate endeavours. But some regulations, such as environmental and health standards, exist for good reason and any effort to weaken those protections warrants intense scrutiny. Likewise, so does any attempt to diminish the guarantees afforded by the Treaty of Waitangi, which for all some may wish otherwise remains the foundation stone of New Zealand's existence. The Bill, unlike the Treaty Principles Bill, enjoys the support of both governing parties, albeit that New Zealand First has suggested that it needs improvements. That obviously enhances its chances of becoming law but equally amplifies the opposition to it. Parliament's computer system, which collapsed under the weight of submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill, has staggered again under the welter of opinion on this Bill — almost certainly negative opinion. A full and rigorous select committee process is going to be critical to public acceptance of this proposed law change: it is unfortunate that the committee chose not to extend the public submission period. Mr Seymour's leadership will now be under the spotlight. He will need to exercise Solomonic wisdom, given that battle lines are firmly drawn.
