MPs Caught Swearing As David Seymour Faces Questions On Regulatory Reviews
Minister for Regulation, David Seymour, has denied regulatory reviews carried out by the ministry have been for anyone's political benefit, in a tense select committee hearing at Parliament in which two Labour MPs had to apologise for swearing.
Seymour appeared before the Finance and Expenditure Committee as part of Scrutiny Week, to face questions on the budget for the Ministry of Regulation.
So far, the ministry has carried out reviews into the early childhood education, agricultural and horticultural products, and hairdressing sectors.
A fourth review into telecommunications has also been announced.
Labour MP Duncan Webb questioned Seymour over whether he or the ACT Party had any connections to donors or lobbyists in those sectors, who would stand to benefit from the reviews.
"There's a real concern that it looks like there's an appearance of regulatory reviews being chosen to benefit parties connected politically," Webb said.
"How can we have confidence that the decisions are not politically influenced, and are made entirely on the basis of where [the] best wins and values for New Zealanders are."
Seymour accused Webb of being improper with his questioning.
"The idea that we decided to do a review of the early childhood sector because someone may or may not, I'm not even sure, have donated to the ACT Party a long time ago is frankly fatuous," he said.
"My main interaction with the dairy industry is probably through a flat white."
Ministry chief executive Gráinne Moss said the review into agricultural and horticultural products was suggested by the ministry itself, to the minister.
Webb said the minister should have no part to play in deciding what sectors to review.
'For f***'s sake' - MPs caught swearing
The session got off to a tense start, after Labour's Deborah Russell was heard saying "for f***'s sake" during Seymour's opening remarks.
National's Ryan Hamilton raised it as a point of order. While committee chair Cameron Brewer was fine to carry on, Seymour made Russell repeat herself.
She then withdrew her comment and apologised.
Later on, Webb accused Seymour of "making s*** up" regarding the ministry's work on flour dust standards.
Seymour also bristled at Labour MP Megan Woods interrupting Moss while she gave an answer, and threatened that ACT would release a video of the Labour MPs' behaviour.
After the hearing, Seymour said he was "astonished" by the swearing.
"The amount of swearing from Labour MPs, I've never seen that before. Clearly, they're very angry about something, but they were just a rabble. Their various accusations were completely untrue. And really, you have to wonder if these guys are taking it seriously."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Why tā moko should never be dismissed as 'scribbles'
Tā moko should never be referred to as 'scribbles', a Māori academic says following comments made in Parliament by NZ First leader Winston Peters. Paora Sharples, haka expert and Māori Studies professional teaching fellow at the University of Auckland, said moko, and particularly moko kanohi, carries deep cultural and spiritual weight in te ao Māori. "Tā moko plays a huge part within te ao Māori. It represents our history, our whakapapa, our knowledge. It's a key to our very identity and our existence." "When you make decisions around getting a kauae moko, it's not something you do lightly. It often involves years of learning, years of wānanga, and searching for identity to find out who you are." Sharples said the decision to mau moko often involved in-depth discussions with whānau members and practitioners of the art of tāmoko. "Those are kaupapa that could go over years," he said. "Tā moko is a physical representation of who you are, how you see yourself, and the very journey you've undertaken to get to this point." "So when you realise how meaningful it is to people that wear it, and then you have comments like that, oh, it's really disheartening." During the debate on the suspension of Te Pāti Māori MPs, the NZ First leader referred to co-leader Rawiri Waititi as "the one in the cowboy hat" with "scribbles on his face." Peters later withdrew the comment and was made to apologise by the Speaker of the House. Sharples said his initial reaction to the comment was one of disappointment. "My reaction to it was pretty sad…that a leader in Parliament would have derogatory comments like that," he said. "I know in the chambers of Parliament you're there to debate, and often you say things you might regret afterwards, but that was said by him, and once you say it, it's out there." He said referring to Waititi's mataora as "scribbles" revealed more about the minister's disconnection from his own culture than it did about those who wear it. "I think mainly, perhaps, it's not about us really. I think that says more about Winston. It's a reflection of where he is, how distant he is from his own culture and his own people," he said. "He's spent over 50 years in Parliament and he knows that world well. But it's a pity he doesn't know his culture and his people as well as he knows Parliament." Backlash from te ao Māori 'swift and powerful' In response to Peters comments, te ao Māori took to social media to post proud images of their moko, using phrases like 'my moko is not scribbles.' That message also appeared centre stage at the recent Tāmaki Hakangāhau event in Tāmaki Makaurau. "We had haka about those comments," Sharples said, who is also a senior haka leader with Te Rōpū Manutaki. "Some of the leaders who spoke between items talked about it as well. Kapa haka is a vibrant way we discuss the things that affect us." Sharples said the backlash from te ao Māori was both "swift and powerful." A message from te ao haka Auckland-based rōpū Te Poho o Hinekahukura dedicated an entire item to Peters, with their leader Jeff Ruha delivering a message directly to him: "Kei kōnei ngā te ao moko e ora tonu ana ki runga i a tātou." The world of moko is here, it is still alive upon us. "Winston Peters, the moko runs down my face, into my veins, moumou tō toto Māori." "Ehara tēnei he 'scribbles', e mana kei roto i taku moko." This is not scribbles - there is mana within my moko. "So a challenge to everyone here - moko te ao. Grab your moko, hei hoa matenga mōu." Let your moko be your companion until death. Reclaiming taonga Over the years, colonial influences and misconceptions have clouded the understanding of moko, leading to hesitations among those seeking to reclaim their taonga. Sharples said the resurgence of Māori identity and pride had taken decades of effort. "Since colonisation, we were given a new identity, a different worldview. Especially in the last 50 years, we've been crawling our way back - getting our culture, our language, our arts, our heritage back in whatever way possible." "These moments show how far we've come. But they also show that the fight isn't over." While he acknowledged the comment was made in "the heat of battle," Sharples said leaders must take responsibility for their words. "He's a Māori leader who has a responsibility of speaking on behalf of people," he said. "You have to be careful of what you an example of what can happen. And we've seen the backlash from Māori." Sharples said this could be a turning point in how Aotearoa sees moko and Māori expression more broadly. "At the end of the day, these discussions are who we are. They're our history. And once we've had them, we can move forward." In a statement to RNZ, NZ First leader Winston Peters did not directly address his use of the word 'scribbles', but instead criticised Te Pāti Māori. "Every Māori who understands tradition, respect, and heritage understands that it is not a right for anyone to decide for themselves one day to have a traditional tamoko tattoo," he said. "We now have a bunch of radical cultural elitists in the Māori Party who are claiming to represent all of Maoridom and think by wearing tamoko they have a monopoly of thought over all of our representation." "Pointing out the shallowness of their thinking is not racist, nor is it a reflection on any Māori in New Zealand - it is in fact the opposite." Peters said he was proud of his Ngāti Wai heritage and his Tainui connection. "And all of my ancestors who have worn traditional tamoko that have been rightly bestowed upon them - and I always have been. That is why I have fought for, and so often succeeded for, justifiable Māori causes, and have done more for Māori than all of those critics all put together." He said he was also proud of his European ancestry and all of their culture that they had given him.
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
MPs Caught Swearing As David Seymour Faces Questions On Regulatory Reviews
Minister for Regulation, David Seymour, has denied regulatory reviews carried out by the ministry have been for anyone's political benefit, in a tense select committee hearing at Parliament in which two Labour MPs had to apologise for swearing. Seymour appeared before the Finance and Expenditure Committee as part of Scrutiny Week, to face questions on the budget for the Ministry of Regulation. So far, the ministry has carried out reviews into the early childhood education, agricultural and horticultural products, and hairdressing sectors. A fourth review into telecommunications has also been announced. Labour MP Duncan Webb questioned Seymour over whether he or the ACT Party had any connections to donors or lobbyists in those sectors, who would stand to benefit from the reviews. "There's a real concern that it looks like there's an appearance of regulatory reviews being chosen to benefit parties connected politically," Webb said. "How can we have confidence that the decisions are not politically influenced, and are made entirely on the basis of where [the] best wins and values for New Zealanders are." Seymour accused Webb of being improper with his questioning. "The idea that we decided to do a review of the early childhood sector because someone may or may not, I'm not even sure, have donated to the ACT Party a long time ago is frankly fatuous," he said. "My main interaction with the dairy industry is probably through a flat white." Ministry chief executive Gráinne Moss said the review into agricultural and horticultural products was suggested by the ministry itself, to the minister. Webb said the minister should have no part to play in deciding what sectors to review. 'For f***'s sake' - MPs caught swearing The session got off to a tense start, after Labour's Deborah Russell was heard saying "for f***'s sake" during Seymour's opening remarks. National's Ryan Hamilton raised it as a point of order. While committee chair Cameron Brewer was fine to carry on, Seymour made Russell repeat herself. She then withdrew her comment and apologised. Later on, Webb accused Seymour of "making s*** up" regarding the ministry's work on flour dust standards. Seymour also bristled at Labour MP Megan Woods interrupting Moss while she gave an answer, and threatened that ACT would release a video of the Labour MPs' behaviour. After the hearing, Seymour said he was "astonished" by the swearing. "The amount of swearing from Labour MPs, I've never seen that before. Clearly, they're very angry about something, but they were just a rabble. Their various accusations were completely untrue. And really, you have to wonder if these guys are taking it seriously."
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Please Explain! The Proponents Of The Retrospective Law Change Need To Front Up
Those responsible for pushing a retrospective law change that could wipe out the rights of tens of thousands of New Zealanders must now front up to provide a formal 'please- explain'. That's the call from Scott Russell, the lawyer leading the Banking Class Action against ANZ and ASB, who has formally written to Cameron Brewer, MP as Chair of Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Committee urging him to call key decision-makers and proponents of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill to publicly explain the rationale for this extraordinary intervention. The Committee has the power to compel individuals to appear and a more clear-cut case for using that power would be hard to imagine. 'The Government is rewriting the law half-way through an active legal case to benefit two powerful Australian-owned banks – and no one seems to be taking responsibility for making the decision,' said Russell. 'Hon Scott Simpson, Commerce Minister says the banks didn't ask for it. The banks haven't commented. MBIE won't release the documents. And the public is being asked to accept it all on blind trust. Enough. It's time for answers.' Russell's submission urges the Select Committee to summon the following to 'Please Explain': The Chair and Chief Executives of ANZ and ASB to explain their role in the process; Senior MBIE officials to justify the sudden shift to retrospective legislation following private meetings with the banks; The Reserve Bank to provide any evidence backing claims that the law change is needed to protect financial stability. 'If their rationale is sound, let's hear it. Because right now, no one has offered a credible explanation for why a law change ruled out during the public consultation stage was suddenly resurrected behind closed doors – and timed perfectly to potentially limit the liability of two banks in a live court case.' The Government has refused to release unredacted versions of the Regulatory Impact Statement and delayed key OIA responses until after the public submission period closes on 23 June. The Ombudsman is now investigating. 'The Select Committee process cannot be allowed to rubber-stamp a law change that overrides consumer rights and undermines public trust – especially when those responsible won't even show up to explain it,' Russell said. 'If this is in the public interest, let the public hear why.'
