David Seymour on Te Tiriti, power & Act's next move: His first major interview before becoming Deputy PM
'Wanker!' The woman has bobbed silver hair and wears designer yoga gear. She has lowered her passenger window and leaned across the seat of her gleaming new Porsche Cayenne hybrid to shout insults at David Seymour, who stands on the side of Parnell Rd speaking to a crowd of his constituents.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
19 hours ago
- The Spinoff
David Seymour was right to question our compulsory helmet laws
There's little evidence our mandatory cycle laws improve overall safety, and quite a lot of evidence suggesting they're doing more harm than good. A jeering crowd quickly gathered in its usual meeting place, the internet, after news broke that David Seymour had asked his pet ministry to look at reversing mandatory cycle helmet laws. 'David might be brain damaged, but others shouldn't be!' said one taunter. 'How many taxpayer dollars were wasted using his overpaid pet staff to investigate this rubbish?' said another. The response could be statistically distilled into the sentence 'ha ha, you dip shit'. But Seymour's suggestion was neither dip nor shit. The Act leader's mistake wasn't in asking the Ministry of Regulation whether we should make helmets optional, as was once proposed by his fellow right-wing firebrand, Green leader Chlöe Swarbrick. Instead it was in abandoning his tentative efforts at the first sign of resistance from its anti-bureaucracy bureaucrats, who responded with advice noting serious injuries and fatalities have declined since a regulatory helmet mandate was introduced in New Zealand, and added 'removing the helmet mandate would likely lead to an increase in serious injuries and fatalities as a result of cycling accidents'. It's true, since we made wearing a bike helmet compulsory in 1994, cycling injuries have steadily trended downward. Research indicates that wearing a helmet significantly reduces your risk of getting a traumatic brain injury or otherwise bunging your body in a crash. On the face of it, the figures are compelling. Case closed, motion to appeal denied, say helmet law defenders. Squint at the data though, and troubling trends swim into focus. Cycling deaths and serious injuries may have reduced since mandatory helmet laws were passed, but only roughly in line with similar improvements for drivers and pedestrians. A 2023 meta-analysis of studies found no clear evidence that making helmet wearing compulsory for everyone improved safety overall. That's not ideal on its own. It's worse when you consider the laws corresponded with a precipitous dropoff in cycling numbers. Put the two figures together, and the number of injuries sustained per 100,000 cyclists has risen steeply since we started legally mandating headwear. The swan dive in our cycling numbers likely has a host of causes. We've catered our transport infrastructure exclusively to the needs of an enraged white collar worker speeding past a school in a Ford Ranger. Our streets are busier than ever, and the bike lanes hallucinated by talkback hosts remain stubbornly non-existent in many areas. But plenty of research has shown mandatory helmet laws kill bike share schemes and generally make people less willing to cycle. That impacts safety. Studies show a strong correlation between higher cycle numbers and reduced risk. The more cyclists on the road, the more likely motorists are to look out for them. Reducing the number of cycle trips also has a wider effect on population health. Helmets may alleviate the damage for the unlucky few riders who manage to crash their e-bike into a street sign, but more sedentary lives put all of us at risk of heart attacks, strokes, and worse, gout. The research persists. One troubling study found many motorists see cyclists as less than human, and that mindset is reinforced when those cyclists are wearing helmets and protective gear. Though we tend to think our mandatory helmet laws are a no-brainer, they're an international outlier. New Zealand is one of only three countries worldwide that makes helmets compulsory for riders of all ages. One of the others is Australia, a place we notoriously hate. But the laws make sense to us intuitively, partly because we've made our roads so unsafe. They individualise risk management, plonking the burden of keeping cyclists out of the ER on their flimsy fiberglass hats, and in the process absolving our politicians of making more impactful policy interventions. Greater Auckland's Matt Lowrie says shrugging off unnecessary and potentially counterproductive helmet regulation would be a good first step toward improving our cycling numbers. But to meaningfully improve safety and give people choice in the transport free market, he says Seymour needs to do the unthinkable and back the most effective, well-researched intervention on offer: protected cycle lanes. 'Helmet laws are a distraction from the more important question for a self-avowed libertarian like Seymour: why isn't he doing everything in his power to give people a meaningful choice to have the freedom to ride a bike for transport, and unshackle ourselves from relying on cars for every trip?'
NZ Herald
20 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: We shouldn't undervalue the work of historians
In a public statement, the professional historical associations in New Zealand, including the NZ Historical Association and the Professional Historians Association of New Zealand/ Aotearoa have labelled these cuts 'false economy at its worst' as they put simply, 'our history deserves better'. Dr Marianne Schultz, Eden Terrace. Religion's role in politics I was interested to read two items in the Herald (Aug 18), one a report on David Seymour's criticism of church groups for promoting an education programme about Te Tiriti and the issue of Māori wards in local body governance, and the other an opinion piece by historian James Belich about the importance of understanding history. It seems Seymour has no understanding of history as he seems unaware of Rev Martin Luther King and Bishop Demond Tutu and their example of churches being involved in politics, and fighting racial discrimination in particular. Grant Watson, Murrays Bay. Not role of churches The quickest way to undermine both democracy and religion is to mix the two. That's possibly why David Seymour spoke out about over 100 churches organising political workshops on Māori wards (Aug 18). When churches run political workshops, they stop being houses of faith and start being campaign offices. Using the pulpit to push politics isn't education, it's manipulation. When religion and politics mix, both are corrupted. Democracy suffers because one side claims God is on their team, shutting down honest debate. Religion suffers because it gets dragged into the dirt of partisan fights, losing its moral authority. The Māori wards issue should be decided on democratic principles, representation, fairness, and community needs. If churches want to run politics, let them stand for election and pay taxes like every other political organisation. But they cannot do both. By speaking out, Seymour isn't being anti-religion, he's protecting it. He's defending the sacred role of churches and the integrity of our democracy. Both are stronger when they stay in their lanes. James Gregory, Parnell. Smartest in what room? David Seymour is reputed to consider himself the 'smartest person in the room'. Now it is reported that he had highly paid officials use their valuable time to compile a report for him on why requiring cyclists to wear protective headgear is a good idea. Which begs the question, where is this room and who are the other people in it? If it's the legislative chamber, then God help us all. John O'Neill, Dargaville. A state inside Gaza Strip New Zealand is under great pressure to recognise the state of Palestine. Some of the reasons are understandable but the stance taken by the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa goes way too far. Why doesn't our Government be innovative? Only recognise a state of Palestine in the geographical area of Gaza, maybe even then make it conditional on Hamas relinquishing control. We should not recognise Palestine in terms of the West Bank, parts of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Those areas were annexed by Israel after wars. Gaza today is Israel's overreaction to terrorism. Bill Capamagian, Tauranga. What about the hostages? There have been many issues raised about recognising Palestine as a nation, but many reasons why we should defer this for a time. The obvious one is, why has Hamas not released the Israeli hostages, and when is it going to do this? Bruce Woodley, Birkenhead.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
David Seymour, Winston Peters distance themselves from Christopher Luxon's Benjamin Netanyahu ‘lost the plot' remarks
Act's David Seymour and New Zealand First's Winston Peters have distanced themselves from comments Prime Minister Christopher Luxon made last week when he said Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu had 'lost the plot'. Seymour, Luxon's Deputy Prime Minister, told the Herald it's 'better just to keep your thoughts to yourself' when
