David Seymour rejects claim Regulatory Standards Bill 'set up for his mates'
Labour MP Willie Jackson believed the bill would invite "big business" into the country and take away "community input".
Photo:
VNP / Phil Smith
Labour MP Willie Jackson says he does not "acknowledge", "believe" or "trust" that
the Regulatory Standards Bill
won't give corporations more power, despite a clause saying it would not impose legal obligations.
But ACT Leader David Seymour said Jackson was wrong and "muddying" the waters.
In recent days, Seymour HAS made a series of social media posts singling out prominent opponents of the Bill, and
accusing them of suffering from "Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome
."
His targets included Jackson along with academics such as Dame Anne Salmond, Dr George Laking, and Metiria Turei.
Wellington mayor Tory Whanau accused Seymour of setting a "dangerous precedent" for how dissenting voices were treated, and laid a formal complaint with the Prime Minister.
On Monday, standing in for Christopher Luxon at a post-Cabinet press conference, Seymour dismissed the criticism, and accused the opponents of the bill of making incorrect statements.
Speaking to media, Jackson said the bill was set up for "David Seymour's mates" and would invite "big business" into New Zealand while taking away "community input".
"It's shocking, the way that he's just incorporated ACT values, libertarian values, at the expense of community values, Māaori values, New Zealand values, it's a shocking bill," Jackson said.
Clause 24 of the bill stated that the Act "does not confer a legal right or impose a legal obligation on any person that is enforceable in a court of law".
Asked if he acknowledged the bill would not impose legal obligations on people, Jackson said he still did not believe the bill nor Seymour, its architect.
"You can tell me what you think. I'll tell you what I think, and that he wants to bring in Act libertarian values. He wants to bring in corporations on boards. He wants to ignore communities. He wants to ignore Māori. He wants to ignore your average New Zealander.
"No, don't acknowledge it. Don't believe it. Don't trust it." Jackson said.
Speaking to reporters, Seymour said the bill was very clear.
David Seymour introduced the Regulatory Standards Bill.
Photo:
RNZ / Mark Papalii
"It requires makers of laws to be transparent to Parliament what their law does and who it affects."
"But it is also explicit that the regulatory standards bill... says that it does not give anybody any additional legal rights."
Seymour said people "muddying the water" with misinformation were either not capable of understanding the law or deliberately making mischief.
"It's not up to Willie Jackson to interpret the law. It's up to the courts, and I suspect that when they see in black and white, there are no additional legal rights."
"The purpose of this law is to increase transparency to Parliament.... the good news is, I don't think Willie Jackson is going to become a judge anytime soon." Seymour said.
Seymour said he had taken advice about the "likely" interpretation by the courts and was satisfied there would be a strong guide for lawmakers.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
19 minutes ago
- The Spinoff
Echo Chamber: Government commits to doing not much about the Middle East
He may not be deputy PM any more, but Winston Peters still holds court during question time. Echo Chamber is The Spinoff's dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus. There are two kinds of people in the world: those who wish to fight in the war room, and the gentlemen who know they can't. Conflict in the Middle East has reached a ceasefire, kind of, but the opposition (and, really, the whole country) this week has been eager to hear whether New Zealand will openly support or condemn the US and Israel for their recent airstrikes in Iran. The trouble is, it's not quite clear yet if the missile-shaped cloud over parliament will pass, or whether the cowboy who knows this isn't his first rodeo will ride the bomb to its end. Gee, if only we had one of them doomsday machines. So, given tensions at home and overseas, Tuesday's question time was delayed by foreign affairs minister Winston Peters making a statement on the 'situation in the Middle East'. He had much to say about preferring diplomacy to 'moral outrage' or 'kneejerk reaction[s]' or 'simplistic moral posturing' or just plain 'virtue-signal[ling]'. New Zealand's interests are in peace and a non-nuclear Iran, Peters told the House – it was a long-winded way of saying we're not really taking a side at all. Labour leader Chris Hipkins followed with a more critical take on the situation, that we should prioritise principles over economic interests and allies, though it wasn't as overtly condemning as the speech from the Greens co-leader Marama Davidson, who implored the House to think of the freedom activists in Iran. But for some reason Peters, in his response, was more concerned over the Greens not being critical enough of 'Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis' in light of October 7. 'Really? Really, Mr Speaker?' Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick interrupted. 'Look at my track record!' 'I know your track record, it takes five seconds to examine it,' Peters told her. When that was all over, Te Pāti Māori's Tākuta Ferris was first up for oral questions, asking Māori development minister Tama Potaka whether he stood by the government's track record in upholding te Tiriti ('I look forward to a summary of the robust and strident submissions'), then why the Regulatory Standards Bill didn''t mention the Treaty ('kōrero in Cabinet remain confidential'), and whether it would undermine the Crown's Treaty obligations ('this government, through various coalition arrangements, is very committed to upholding Treaty settlements'). Eventually the bill's architect David Seymour – who is currently acting prime minister while Christopher Luxon has meetings in Europe – rose to share his view. 'Does the minister agree,' Seymour asked, 'that if successive governments over the last 185 years had followed the principles in the Regulatory Standards Bill, many of the grievances Māori hold today would never have arisen?' Potaka didn't take the bait. 'I certainly can acknowledge that there are a lot of disproportionate impacts as a result of government actions over the years,' the minister replied. Next up was Greens co-leader Marama Davidson, who was keen to know whether the government would condemn the US's strikes on Iran (as aforementioned, no). As Peters took his time to wax lyrical on rushing to judgment and emerging evidence and letting international courts determine breaches of international law, his NZ First deputy Shane Jones chirped away in his seat. 'Fiction!' Jones cried. 'Democracy!' A faint voice rose from the opposition benches: 'You wouldn't know what democracy is, Shane.' Then it was Seymour's turn to field questions on the cost of living from Hipkins, and the honorary prime minister found there was a perk to this new role: you can kind of just drone on and on and hope no one realises you're just making a speech. Such was the case when Seymour told the House his school lunch programme now had a 67% approval rating – which he revealed as if it were the greatest honour on Earth – before Brownlee had to tell him to reel it in. Seymour, who also celebrated his 42nd birthday on Tuesday with two cakes (which may or may not be wasteful spending), was more blunt when Hipkins questioned him on whether the finance minister or IRD could find a single family that had claimed the maximum $250 a fortnight the government had promised in its FamilyBoost scheme. 'The fact is, it's not our job to go hunting for people,' Seymour replied, to roaring laughter from the opposition benches. The whole palaver ended on a bum note. After Labour's jobs and incomes spokesperson Ginny Andersen interrogated associate social development minister Penny Simmonds on employment figures and the cancellation of state housing projects, the back and forth summoned one of the government's most loyal centre backs, Nicola Willis, who called on the speaker to make an example of the opposition for alleging 'facts that are not factual'. Then, when education minister Erica Stanford rose for a cosy supplementary that would've let Simmonds show off that the government had increased the number of classrooms built since last year, Brownlee decided he'd heard enough. 'I'm absolutely sick of that. We're calling it quits,' Brownlee declared. 'We're all over.'
RNZ News
44 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Is this the end of Nelson's Richard Nixon statue?
By Max Frethy , Local Democracy reporter One of only two statues of US president Richard Nixon in the world could soon be removed from its Tasman home. Photo: LDR / Max Frethey A small Tasman town faces an important question: keep the infamous statue of Richard Nixon or build a community hub instead? The life-size bronze statue of the disgraced US president has bemused residents of Wakefield, about 20km south of Nelson, for more than a decade. The statue, holding Nixon's double peace sign pose, stands on the notorious 52 Edward Street site known as Fort Haldeman - reportedly the former office of the locally defunct publishing company Haldeman LLC, that had been partly owned by controversial businessman Tony Katavich. According to a list on Wikipedia, the statue is only one of two Nixon statues in the world. But Nixon's days, as well as those of the White House-inspired building he welcomes visitors to, could be numbered. Tasman District Council is currently progressing plans for a new community hub for Wakefield to replace the ageing and earthquake-prone village hall. The hub had earlier been assumed to be built on the Wakefield Recreation Reserve, but the current owners of Fort Haldeman approached the council in early 2025 about the possibility of building the hub on their site instead. The current Wakefield hall. Photo: LDR / Max Frethey Peter Verstappen, a Waimea South Community Facility trustee, said the opportunity "came out left of field a little bit". "Until six months ago, this wasn't even a question. We were always heading to the reserve," he said. "In a way, it kind of complicated the process going forward, because suddenly we've got this other whole dimension that we now have to think about." The council is now consulting the community on its preference between the two locations. Waimea South Community Facility trustees Peter Verstappen and Jenny Lines urge residents to get informed and have their say. Photo: LDR / Max Frethey There are pros and cons to each site, with the reserve offering more space for future expansion but higher costs for infrastructure and utilities, while the Fort Haldeman site is closer to the centre of the village but has fewer future expansion opportunities. Verstappen said, "in all honesty", he doesn't have a site preference. "From what I've seen, I'm reasonably confident we can build the facility that we want, that answers most of the needs of the community, on either site." The council and trust held two community meetings last Tuesday for residents to learn more about the two options. Martin Brown, the council's project manager for the hub, told around 20 attendees of the afternoon session at Wakefield School that it was "very early days" for the Fort Haldeman site. "We're having conversations with the vendors currently. It may or may not progress, but that's part of the process we're having." The Fort Haldeman site. Photo: LDR / Max Frethey A representative for the company that now owns Fort Haldeman declined to comment due to commercial sensitivities. The final decision on the location rests with the council and is expected to be made in August, with detailed design work and community fundraising to occur afterwards. Elected members will be presented with site information as well as community feedback ahead of their decision. While the full range of feedback might differ, comments from attendees of the Tuesday afternoon meeting indicated widespread support for the original Wakefield Recreation Reserve site due to its development potential, possibly saving Nixon from removal. "We're building this for not just the present, or even the present decade; we're building it for 50 years, and we need expansion space," one woman said. Councillor Christeen Mackenzie says the council is right to consider the use of Fort Haldeman instead of the Recreation Reserve. Photo: LDR / Max Frethey Moutere-Waimea Ward councillor Christeen Mackenzie has been pushing the project since she was first elected six years ago. She said trying to plan for 50 years' time was like trying to look into a "crystal ball". "Do you have one big shooting box for absolutely everything in one location? That is not necessarily what you might need into the future. Introducing the idea of Site 2 [Fort Haldeman], I think it's giving the community an opportunity to think about that," she said. "If someone comes to the council with a proposal, you've got to do your due diligence and think about it." Two locations are being debated: the Wakefield Recreation Reserve and Fort Haldeman, at 52 Edward Street. Photo: Supplied / Waimea South Community Facility Charitable Trust The Wakefield Community Hub has a budget of around $11 million with $6.4m coming from developers, $2.5m from community fundraising, and $2.1m coming from a loan that will be repaid over time from an existing community facility pot that was funded through rates. Residents can have their say here . The Wakefield hub used to be part of a collective community facility project for Waimea South, including the town of Brightwater. But the two town's projects have since been split apart, and Brightwater's public hall will be upgraded at a cost of about $2.5m. Local Democracy Reporting is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Climate action must be seen to be done
Opinion: What use is climate protest to society? A version of this question was posed to the jury during the trial of four Restore Passenger Rail activists this year. It's worth asking because the impact of climate activism is not always clear or linear. However, new research reviews the evidence on the effectiveness of climate activism in shaping voting, political communication, public opinion, and media coverage. The research authors looked at 50 of the most robust and recent evaluations of protest. Among other things, they found that climate activism tends to increase public concern about climate change. There is already a very high level of consensus in this country that climate change is real and the vast majority of the population are worried about it. But there is a gap between people wanting action and what is happening on the ground. For example, the policies of our current Government could be described as a masterclass in climate delay. It pushes non-transformative, even non-existent, solutions such as carbon capture, while financing further fossil gas extraction. Members of the Government emphasise the downsides of changing our economy and society, without acknowledging the vastly more enormous costs both now and into the future of not acting. And they redirect responsibility – we are too small and our actions are supposedly meaningless. Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour has also questioned whether we should remain part of the Paris Agreement. Climate protest acts as a bridge between the population and the decision makers who serve us. Protests communicate the depth of feeling and provide one way of seeking accountability from politicians for community wellbeing. Protests and direct action are often reported by mainstream media as provoking a negative response among the wider public. However, research has found very little evidence of 'backfire'. Furthermore, researchers have observed a 'radical flank' effect – even very disruptive protest pulled public opinion towards the climate cause, although towards the more moderate groups and positions. Climate activism was also found to shape political communication from politicians, and when looked at at a regional or state scale, was related to lower emissions (although the causal relationship was not clear). Other work by Lincoln University's Sylvia Nissen and colleagues describes the 'legacies' of political action – the emergence of political leaders who go on to shape policy and politics, the ways new narratives flow through culture, and the way political action seeds ideas, skills, and relationships that grow in unexpected ways. By thinking about legacies, we can appreciate some of the ways protest contributes to our political make-up. Take for instance the nuclear-free movement – as well as affecting broader geopolitics, protest fed into political discourse. This led to iconic political moments ('I can smell the uranium on your breath') that helped evolve our national identity. Much of the current Government's work promotes individualism – there is little sense of a public that it serves (as opposed to a group of consumers, or workers with an airline CEO). For instance, note its efforts to undermine Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the treaty that holds us together. Or the promotion of liberty, free choice, and property rights in the Regulatory Standards Bill over shared responsibilities to each other, and to the environment. In contrast, climate action is about being together, in communities (whether communities of place or communities of interest), to nurture the things that Aotearoa New Zealanders value – nature and fairness. The jury in the trial of the Restore Passenger Rail activists had to weigh up the risk of the actions taken (hanging signs and people from gantries and tunnel entries around Wellington) and whether those were the actions of a reasonable person. The court heard from two climate scientists. Their message was clear – the scale of transformation needed requires enormous collective effort now. Their evidence was included by the defence to build the argument that the actions of the protesters were entirely reasonable; after decades of trying every other lever, in the face of intransigent business-as-usual, disruption was all these activists felt they had left. Ultimately, the jury found one person not guilty and they couldn't reach a verdict for the other three. The trial was supposed to be the first in a series arising from Restore Passenger Rail (now Climate Liberation Aotearoa) protests in 2022 and 2023. However, in May the Crown abandoned the prosecutions of more than 20 people. Did the protests have social utility? As I've highlighted, there are many ways of answering this question – from the shared good of helping build public opinion in favour of climate action, to translating public sentiment into a call for accountability and meaningful action from decision makers, to the (very difficult to measure) legacies of political leadership and cultural impacts. Despite all the rhetoric of individualism, ultimately this Government, like the ones before it, is an expression of a collective. It is accountable to the public and not just once every three years. In the enormous gaps between public opinion and the coalition's discourses of climate delay, between its rhetoric of democracy and its actions undermining it, protest is a democratic bridge that delivers the weight of collective feeling to those who are supposed to be representing us.
