Act leader David Seymour suggested ‘bots' drove ‘fake submissions' against his Regulatory Standards Bill
David Seymour claims 99.5% of submissions were created using bots. Photo / Mark Mitchell
RNZ
Act leader David Seymour has claimed 99.5% of the submissions received on the Regulatory Standards Bill were created using 'bots'.
The Ministry for Regulation received approximately 23,000 submissions regarding a discussion document about the bill in January.
In summarising the feedback,
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
17 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Echo Chamber: Emergency housing, climate targets and the art of not saying sorry
'I was wrong' isn't always as easy as saying 'what I would just say to you …' 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. Question time in the House on Wednesday was another bog-standard affair. Straight into it, probing from Labour leader Chris Hipkins to prime minister Christopher Luxon over emergency housing had MPs across the benches going rogue, like how one might act after consuming too many drinks at an awards ceremony. The issue has been a question time hot topic all year, after the government 'tighten[ed] the gateway into emergency housing' last August, making eligibility criteria stricter. Since then, the number of families in emergency housing has dropped by 75%, five years earlier than anticipated, but 20% of those who have left emergency housing remain unaccounted for – while homelessness is at an all-time high. When he's been questioned on where those one in five might be in recent months, Luxon typically starts with the same line: 'I would just say to that member …' What he'd say is that actually, 'on all four dimensions of housing', there have been 'improved outcomes'. What he'd say is that when he thinks of the 'abject failure' of the previous government, he feels 'incredibly proud' of his record. What he'd say is, kids are out of motels, rates and housing prices look stable, 'and interest rates are coming down'. But voices from the opposition side already had their own narrative: 'they're on the street!', 'they're homeless!', 'people are leaving [the country]!' National MP Tom Rutherford had a retort for them: 'Cheer up!' And, like clockwork, the barracking became enough for speaker Gerry Brownlee to threaten to throw everybody out, as he does in most question time sessions. It was NZ First minister Shane Jones who was the voice of reason. 'Sir,' he told the speaker, 'from this hitherto unknown perch we can't hear a thing the prime minister is saying. You really need to enforce your ruling to have some order and a better sense of decorum from that side of the House.' It wasn't just teething issues with the new seating chart put in place after the deputy prime minister switcheroo – the heckling truly was louder than the prime minister. Later, Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi asked Luxon about comments made by new deputy prime minister David Seymour alleging 99.5% of submissions on a discussion document on the Regulatory Standards Bill were 'fake' and 'driven by bots'. Luxon said the DPM had 'clarified his comments'. Then, amazingly, Waititi was finally the first person in the House to mention minister Chris Bishop's music awards gaffe last week, asking Luxon why he had said he was 'comfortable' with it. The three ministers to Bishop's right – Erica Stanford, Paul Goldsmith and Louise Upston – all turned and grinned at him. 'As I've said publicly, I quite like country music, but a lot of people give me grief for that too and use similar language that Chris Bishop used,' Luxon said, to expected groans from the opposition. 'Can you give us an example?' Waititi asked. 'Sing us a song?' Earlier in the session, after fielding questions on pay equity from Labour's finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds and pledging her appreciation to the care workers of the nation, finance minister Nicola Willis made a misquote that clearly haunted her. Asked about 'stripping' the $12.8bn contingency for pay equity claims, Willis said Edmonds should talk to her leader, who apparently had said the figure was an 'awfully big number that he doesn't understand'. So, after patsy time between National's Vanessa Weenink and Stanford, with her phone open on the relevant NZ Herald article, Willis now understood her paraphrasing was wrong. Now, 'out of an abundance of caution and wishing not to have misled the House', she wished to repeat the correct quote, but Brownlee wanted to know why she couldn't just say sorry, and get over it. 'If you said something that's wrong, apologise for saying it's wrong and move on,' Brownlee told her, but she persisted. And after more back and forth, Willis repeated Hipkins' direct quote: 'What National should do is release to the New Zealand public how they arrived at that figure because it is a very big number.' And all Brownlee had to say in response was 'well, that's good'. Elton John said it best: sorry seems to be the hardest word. When Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick had her turn to question the prime minister, she focused on an open letter penned by 26 climate scientists, urging our government not to adopt a 'no additional warming' method of measuring methane emissions, which they say would put Aotearoa's Paris Agreement targets at risk. Luxon was indifferent: 'I'd just say to the people who kindly wrote the letter that they should write it to 194 other countries before they send me a letter, and then I might read it.' Then something about farmers. It was clearly exasperating for Swarbrick, who had spent the whole session hearing her new neighbours from across the way, NZ First, call her a Marxist and communist. We could debate how good our farmers are till we're blue in the face – like, quite literally blue – she told Luxon, but what about our climate targets? The cheers from the government benches, and jeers from NZ First, seemed to throw the co-leader off. Once Luxon confirmed that no, he would not be 'heeding' the call of these scientists, she tried to get him to commit to something else, but ran into a grumpy old obstacle. 'Spit it out!' Winston Peters taunted, before Swarbrick gestured the speaker's attention towards Peters and Jones, leaned together in their seats and giggling like two schoolboys who had just been called out by the class tattletale. 'Hoax! Hoax!' Jones mocked her. 'We are back on track,' Luxon grinned over his methane targets. Maybe there's more than one person in this House who could learn when to admit that they're wrong.
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
'We have massive problems with regulation' - Seymour defends Regulatory Standards Bill
Deputy Prime Minister and ACT Party leader David Seymour has hit back at criticism of his flagship Regulatory Standards Bill, defending the legislation against claims it breaches Treaty of Waitangi principles and contradicts its own standards when compared with the recently passed Pay Equity Bill. In an at-times heated exchange with Guyon Espiner, Seymour stood firm on the need for regulatory reform despite New Zealand's high international rankings in governance and legal standards. Espiner pointed out that New Zealand ranks 99 out of 100 for regulatory quality in the World Bank index, placing it just behind the global benchmark. Seymour dismissed the ranking, arguing it measured whether a country is "basically a third-world country" and failed to capture the real-world frustrations faced by businesses, particularly in agriculture and construction. "You can read all the indices you like, but once you start getting down to talking to the actual people … we have massive problems with regulation," Seymour said, citing delays in approval for lower-emission agricultural chemicals as one. ACT Party leader David Seyour in studio for an interview on season 3 of 30 with Guyon Espiner. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly Espiner went on to challenge Seymour on whether the government's recent Pay Equity Bill - pushed through under urgency - violated the principles laid out in the Regulatory Standards Bill itself. These principles include ensuring laws are not retrospective and that proper consultation takes place. Seymour did not deny the lack of consultation or the retrospective nature of the law change - which left 33 current pay equity claimants in the lurch - but argued it was irrelevant. "It was breached because it didn't matter," Seymour said. "All we did was dismantle a Byzantine crazy system… deciding how much the government would pay different workers it was employing anyway." He described the previous equity process as "effectively an internal government activity of arguing with each other" and derided those who had submitted pay appeals under the former system. "They said, 'We work so hard.' I said, 'Really? You think work is arguing with each other?'." The debate turned toward Māori engagement when Espiner pointed out the Waitangi Tribunal's conclusion that the Regulatory Standards Bill, due to a lack of meaningful consultation with Māori, breached the Treaty principles of partnership and active protection. Seymour insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. "We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted … If that's not enough, then I don't know what is." However, Espiner highlighted that of the 23,000 total submissions, only 76 supported the bill - a support rate of just 0.33 percent. Seymour dismissed the figure as misleading. "That quantum reflects nothing more than the fact that it's got easier and easier for people to make really, frankly, fake submissions … They've got bots, they can make a submission." Despite dismissing the opposing voices as fake, Seymour maintained that what mattered was not the opposition but the quality of the legislative framework, which is non-binding in its nature, thus not enforceable - despite the bill's $20 million price-tag. Seymour argued the Regulatory Standards Bill was about transparency, not enforcement. He compared it to the Public Finance Act and the Reserve Bank Act - also non-binding in nature, but important for government accountability. "There's nothing to stop a minister of finance writing to the governor of the Reserve Bank before an election saying, 'Run the presses, prime the pumps,'" Seymour said. "But it does allow the voters to judge them for doing it… and I want to do the same thing for regulation." Watch the full conversation with David Seymour and Guyon Espiner on 30 With Guyon Espiner . Subscribe to the podcast feed now to get every episode of 30 on your phone when it lands: On Spotify On iHeartRadio On Apple podcasts Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Rights Aotearoa Demands Urgent Re-evaluation Of Regulatory Standards Bill's Human Rights Impact
Press Release – Rights Aotearoa Leading Human Rights NGO Calls Ministry of Justice Assessment 'Dangerously Superficial' and 'Constitutionally Incoherent' WELLINGTON, 4 June 2025 – Rights Aotearoa, New Zealand's leading NGO devoted to promoting and defending universal human rights, today called on Attorney-General Judith Collins KC to urgently instruct the Ministry of Justice to comprehensively re-evaluate its advice on the Regulatory Standards Bill's consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Ministry's advice concluded that the Bill 'appears to be consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act.' Rights Aotearoa has delivered a detailed letter to the Attorney-General demonstrating that this conclusion represents a grave failure of constitutional analysis that ignores the Bill's fundamental threat to human rights, democracy, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 'The Ministry of Justice has failed in its constitutional duty to assess this Bill's impact on human rights properly,' said Paul Thistoll, CEO of Rights Aotearoa. 'Their analysis acknowledges that the Bill departs from how rights and freedoms are expressed in the Bill of Rights Act, yet inexplicably concludes it has no impact on those rights. This is constitutionally incoherent.' Rights Aotearoa's analysis identifies multiple critical failures in the Ministry's assessment. The Ministry examined only one right superficially—freedom of expression—while ignoring clear conflicts with electoral rights, freedom from discrimination, minority rights, and the right to life. The advice fails entirely to consider how the Bill's mechanisms will create 'regulatory chill,' deterring future governments from enacting essential protections. Of particular concern is the Ministry's failure to analyse the Bill's complete exclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, despite the Waitangi Tribunal's findings that the Crown breached Treaty principles through inadequate consultation with Māori and its recommendation for an 'immediate halt' to the Bill's progress. The organisation highlighted how the Bill's emphasis on property rights and narrow economic efficiency will systematically undermine anti-discrimination protections. Essential measures like disability accommodations, pay equity legislation, and protections against discrimination could be challenged as 'impairing' property rights. 'This Bill creates a competing quasi-constitutional framework that elevates property rights above all other human rights,' the letter states. 'It attempts to lock in a narrow ideological worldview that will bind future Parliaments.' Rights Aotearoa has committed to filing an action in the High Court, should the Bill pass in its current form, seeking a declaration that it is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The organisation calls on the Attorney-General to instruct the Ministry of Justice to conduct a comprehensive re-evaluation that accurately analyses the Bill's downstream effects on all rights, considers its practical operation, examines the constitutional implications of creating a parallel rights framework, evaluates the exclusion of Te Tiriti, and assesses the impacts on anti-discrimination protections. 'At this critical constitutional moment, New Zealanders deserve rigorous, honest analysis of how this Bill will affect their fundamental rights,' said Thistoll. 'The current advice is not merely inadequate—it's dangerously misleading.' About Rights Aotearoa Rights Aotearoa is Aotearoa New Zealand's leading non-governmental organisation dedicated to promoting and defending universal human rights. Although we have a focus on transgender, non-binary and intersex rights, we work to ensure that all people in New Zealand enjoy the full range of human rights and fundamental freedoms recognised in domestic and international law.
