Christopher Luxon Tells Off David Seymour Over Letter To United Nations
'I've just made it clear that I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN,' the prime minister told reporters.
, Acting Political Editor
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
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Why Has A Bill To Relax Foreign Investment Rules Had So Little Scrutiny?
While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process – this time for foreign investment in New Zealand. But it has had almost no public scrutiny. If the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill becomes law, it could have far-reaching consequences. Public submissions on the bill close on July 23. A product of the ACT-National coalition agreement, the bill commits to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 'to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely'. There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments – especially in forestry. A three-step test Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator – the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ – 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand's 'national interest'. If they don't perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved. Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, will require a 'national interest' assessment under stage two. These would be assessed against a 'ministerial letter' that sets out the government's general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals. Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act's new 'purpose' to increase economic opportunity through 'timely consent' of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether. If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is 'contrary to the national interest', the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors. Inadequate regulatory process Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury's 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions. Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should 'manage a wide range of risks' and 'that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets'. Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses. The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported 'notable limitations' on the bill's quality assurance process. A fuller review was 'infeasible' because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way. The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited. Time constraints meant 'users and key stakeholders have not been consulted', according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations. There is no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi or mana whenua engagement. No 'benefit to NZ' test While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting. Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land. Repeal of the ' special forestry test ' – which in practice has seen most applications approved, albeit with conditions – means most forestry investments could be fast-tracked. There would no longer be a need to consider investors' track records or apply a 'benefit to New Zealand' test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash. The official documents don't explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First's support. It has potentially serious implications for forestry communities affected by climate-related disasters, however. Further weakening scrutiny and investment conditions risks intensifying the already devastating impacts of international forestry companies. Taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the costs while the companies can minimise their taxes and send profits offshore. Locked in forever? Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand's free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand's investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations. A ' ratchet clause ' would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back. However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question. As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk. But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications.
NZ Herald
7 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Pacific Islands push hard as International Court of Justice set to deliver landmark climate ruling
'It will give new strength to climate litigation, inspire more ambitious national policies and guide states toward decisions that uphold their legal duties to protect both people and planet,' said Prasad. But some critics argue the ruling will be toothless, as ICJ advisory opinions are not binding and major polluters can choose simply to ignore it. 'Acts and omissions' The UN, pushed by tiny island state Vanuatu, asked the court to answer two questions. Firstly, what obligations do states have under international law to protect the Earth's climate from polluting greenhouse gas emissions? Secondly, what are the legal consequences for states which 'by their acts and omissions have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment?' The second question was explicitly linked to the damage that climate change is causing to small, more vulnerable countries and their populations. This applies to countries facing increasingly damaging weather disasters and especially to island nations under threat from rising sea levels like those in the Pacific Ocean. 'David Vs Goliath' In what was termed a 'David versus Goliath' battle, advanced economies and developing nations clashed at the ICJ during December hearings on the case. The iconic Peace Palace in the Hague, the seat of the ICJ, played host to more than 100 oral submissions – the largest number ever, many from tiny states making their first appearance. Advanced economies and developing nations clashed at the ICJ during December hearings. Photo / Getty Images 'This may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity,' said Vanuatu's representative Ralph Regenvanu, opening the two weeks of hearings. 'The outcome of these proceedings will reverberate across generations, determining the fate of nations like mine and the future of our planet,' he told the 15-judge panel. Major polluters argued the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was sufficient and new guidelines on countries' obligations were not necessary. US representative Margaret Taylor said this framework was 'the most current expression of states' consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change'. Taylor urged the court 'to ensure its opinion preserves and promotes the centrality of this regime'. Meanwhile, the speaker from India was even more explicit. 'The court should avoid the creation of any new or additional obligations beyond those already existing under the climate change regime,' said Luther Rangreji. The United States, under President Donald Trump, has since pulled funding for the UNFCCC and withdrawn from its landmark pact, the Paris climate agreement. 'Watery graves' But smaller states said this framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change's devastating effects. 'As seas rise faster than predicted, these states must stop. 'This court must not permit them to condemn our lands and our people to watery graves,' said John Silk from the Marshall Islands. After bitterly fought UN climate talks in Azerbaijan in November, wealthy countries agreed to provide at least US$300 billion ($504 billion) a year by 2035 to help developing nations transition to clean energy and prepare for an increase in extreme weather. The vulnerable nations argued this is simply not enough and urged the ICJ to push for more. 'This is a crisis of survival. It is also a crisis of equity,' said Fiji's representative Luke Daunivalu. 'Our people ... are unfairly and unjustly footing the bill for a crisis they did not create. 'They look to this court for clarity, for decisiveness and justice.' -Agence France-Presse
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
Revealed: $218,000 Reo App Free-For-All Across Government
The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union can reveal through Official Information request that seven government departments and councils have spent $218,012 developing their own separate Māori language and cultural training apps despite the existence of a national Māori Language Commission and multiple taxpayer-funded training programmes already in place. Taxpayers' Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, said: 'We've got a Māori Language Commission, we've got staff training programmes, we've got online learning tools - so why is every agency now building its own apps?' 'This is a perfect example of bureaucratic duplication. Every department wants its own badge, its own brand, its own slice of the cultural competency pie, all funded by the public purse.' 'Some of these apps cost more than $35,000 and reached fewer than 2,000 people. Waikato Regional Council knew other apps already existed before building its own. That's not helping Māori, it's just self-indulgence.' "With this many apps found via tips alone, imagine how many more exist. A centralised, shared platform for the public service instead of this wasteful agency-by-agency approach is needed." "We don't need seven apps, we just need one that works."
