Do David Seymour's ‘Victim of the Day' social media posts go too far?
Mayor accuses Seymour of harassment over Facebook posts
Wellington mayor Tory Whanau has asked prime minister Christopher Luxon to investigate David Seymour for what she describes as 'online harassment and intimidation' of academics, Stuff reports. In a letter to the PM, Whanau wrote that Seymour's conduct 'could incite behaviour that spills into real-world violence', is 'a blatant attempt to stifle academic freedom and any dissenting opinion' and breaches Sections 2.53 and 2.56 of the Cabinet Manual.
At issue are Seymour's 'Victim of the Day' Facebook posts, which target individual critics of the regulatory standards bill by name and photo, accusing them of suffering from 'regulatory standards derangement syndrome.' Seymour, who is acting prime minister this week, has defended the posts, saying they highlight exaggerated claims and do not breach the Cabinet Manual. But Whanau argued that 'such behaviour by the deputy prime minister compromises the safety and wellbeing of the targeted individuals and sets a dangerous precedent'.
Salmond: 'Trumpian rhetoric' used to target scholars
Among those targeted is Dame Anne Salmond, the distinguished anthropologist, public intellectual and former New Zealander of the Year. In a column for Newsroom, she responded with alarm to Seymour's posts, calling them 'an online campaign of intimidation against university scholars'. She noted that the term 'derangement syndrome' is borrowed from 'Trump derangement syndrome', which the US president likes to accuse his critics of suffering, and compared Seymour's tactics to Trump's own attacks on academic institutions in recent months. 'This is a senior politician who has vigorously argued for freedom of speech in universities,' Salmond wrote, yet is now deploying 'Trumpian rhetoric' against critics of his own bill. She also said she would lodge a formal complaint with the Cabinet Office.
In her original column about the bill, also published in Newsroom, Salmond described it as 'a dangerous piece of legislation' that 'expresses a contempt for collective rights and responsibilities, public goals and values, and liberal democracy'. She said the bill lacked a democratic mandate, centralised power in the hands of the minister for regulation (Seymour himself), and privileged private interests over public good.
The compensation clause question
One of Salmond's more contentious claims about the bill is that it could force governments to compensate corporations for loss of profit due to regulation. She warned that the legislation could require 'those who benefit from laws or regulations to compensate others for the losses of profit that may arise'. However, public law expert Eddie Clark has challenged that interpretation, pointing to explicit clauses that prevent the bill from creating legal rights or obligations. 'Absolutely nothing in the act can found litigation by a private individual,' he told Marc Daalder of Newsroom.
While Clark acknowledged the principles in the bill may influence future legal or policy thinking, he said critics like Salmond – who is not a lawyer – had 'over-egged' the likely effects. Still, Clark agreed the bill reflected 'libertarian minimalist state principles' that could gradually shape lawmaking in favour of corporate interests.
The 'bot' backlash
Seymour has also stirred controversy by dismissing tens of thousands of critical submissions on the bill as the work of 'bots'. He claimed '99.5%' of submissions to an earlier discussion document were fake, the result of 'a smart campaign with a bot'. That's not exactly true. Speaking to RNZ's Ella Stewart, Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis called the term 'an incredibly dismissive way to refer to individual New Zealanders taking the time to actually engage'. In fact, most submissions used online tools created by groups like ActionStation, which allow people to easily send pre-written or lightly edited statements. These are not bots in the technical sense, but part of what Stewart described as 'digital democracy'.
Clerk of the House David Wilson confirmed such practices are legitimate: 'It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online.' With submissions on the regulatory standards bill closing yesterday, we'll soon learn how many so-called bots submitted on the bill itself.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
20 hours ago
- Newsroom
Document reveals minister's early tensions with Covid Commission chair
Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden said she had confidence in the chair of the Royal Commission into the Covid-19 Response despite a briefing obtained by Newsroom suggesting significant tensions between the pair earlier this year. In February, officials at the Department of Internal Affairs briefed van Velden ahead of a meeting with the chair, Grant Illingworth KC, advising her to "make clear your expectation that the chair implements improvements in the inquiry's planning, risk assessment, and progress reporting, and failure by him to commit to do so will further undermine your confidence in him and in the inquiry".
Newsroom
a day ago
- Newsroom
Crown and council to take voting edge over Māori on Waitakeres body
Joint oversight of the Waitakere Ranges by Māori, Auckland Council and the Crown will not now be through a committee with equal representation after feedback from west Aucklanders, some opposed to 'co-governance'. From initial proposals of an equal five seats for tangata whenua and five representing public bodies, the latest deed to establish the oversight committee has moved to six to five in favour of the council and Crown entities. The change leaves west Auckland-based iwi Te Kawerau ā Maki feeling 'a little bruised, and beaten up' after years of waiting, but accepting it 'could live with' the council's change of representation and wanting to get on and protect the ranges. Iwi chief executive Edward Ashby told Newsroom: 'It was pretty clear there was a fear – and I do think it is an irrational fear because it's an advisory body and we are not the boogie man. But we are really focused on the outcome. We are not too worried by the numbers.' The deed for the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Forum, a body to be set up under a 2008 law but only now being finalised, goes before Auckland Council's policy and planning committee on Thursday. The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act recognised the 27,700 hectares of publicly owned land in the ranges as nationally significant, needing protection. It specified the Crown, council and nominated iwi to develop the deed and oversight body, a non-statutory body to identify areas of cooperation and develop a strategic plan for the area. It aims to identify areas tangata whenua can contribute to the management of public land and to acknowledge their traditional relationship with the ranges. The five seats for Māori are initially to be taken up by Te Kawerau ā Maki, as another iwi listed in the Act, Ngāti Whātua, has declined. Under the deed, there will be no change of ownership of land under the deed or forum structure, and the forum would not be able to direct spending of council or Crown funds, other than its own delegated budget. In April, the New Zealand First party complained the forum would be an example of 'co-governance' with Māori able to set strategy and veto council or government measures related to the ranges. MP Shane Jones said his party would never agree to an iwi having '50 percent sovereignty over the Waitakere forest'. Ashby dismissed the criticisms in April as scaremongering and said the forum as proposed was not co-governance. If it had been, there would have been a different structure and entity established. The deed simply acknowledged tangata whenua's special relationship with the ranges area. Around 2250 people and organisations made public submissions on the heritage forum deed, with 51 percent in favour, 39 percent against and 10 percent recorded as 'other'. Analysis of the submissions by research firm Ipsos said there was concern among those opposed to the deed at the prospect of 50-50 representation on the joint committee giving tangata whenua 'disproportionate influence' over management of the public land. Those in favour of the deed and shared oversight acknowledged the iwi role of kaitiaki or guardian and the importance of tangata whenua having a strong voice and seat at the table. It appears that public feedback, rather than the political claims by NZ First and the Act Party, has now seen the forum membership weighting changed to favour the public bodies. Council staff recommend three seats for the Waitakere Local Board, two for the council governing body and one for the Department of Conservation – and five seats to be occupied by Te Kawerau ā Maki, to be shared with Ngāti Whātua should that iwi choose at a later date to participate. The role of chair would come from the iwi side and deputy chair from the public bodies. Waitakere ward councillor Shane Henderson says the composition of the forum changed 'in response to feedback, not to scaremongering from central government politicians but the voices of West Aucklanders that fed back into the process'. He said the new balance allowed half of the six-member Waitakere local board to join the forum, with two ward councillors. DoC's strong interests in the heritage area also needed representation. 'So the new numbers work a little better on that basis too.' Te Kawerau ā Maki chief executive Edward Ashby. Photo: Supplied Ashby says the change in representation came after the consultation and was put to Te Kawerau ā Maki by the council. 'It's a place the council came to that we could live with at the end of the day. It's about giving these people some certainty that there would not be a super majority of Māori on the committee. There's been a lot of misunderstanding of the original proposal. 'It's good the deed is out there and people can read it; it clearly says it's advisory, about public land, it does not have power to make any decisions about budgets. That's all in there.' He said the political claims from Jones and Act's David Seymour, among others, led to fears among some members of the public. 'I do understand that if you are reading scaremongering headlines on Facebook you might react. It's unfortunate. 'It's just the political reality of the time. The original proposal was for 50-50, not out of any power grab but simply that the Crown and council was on one side of the equation and on the other side was Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua. It was as simple as that.' He noted much of the feedback against the proposed deed had come from beyond Waitakere and Auckland. 'But, there's this beautiful area. It's our heartland and I'm biased. It really needs to be looked after. We really need to get together on how we make it work.' The six-five composition of the forum was 'at least an outcome that takes some of the edge out of some people's concerns, even though I think they were not well-founded concerns'. He hoped the compromise result did not turn the clock back in other areas of the country. 'I like to think most New Zealanders are fair minded … and I would hope that progress made is not lost. There's been some really good progressive stories.' The council's policy and planning committee considers the proposed deed on Thursday, with the full Governing Body having the final say before the forum is appointed. Ashby says: 'We just want to get on with it.'
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
'It's A Matter Of When Not If' New Zealand Recognises A Palestinian State, David Seymour Says
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour says recognising Palestine as a state is a complex decision that should not be rushed, but "it's a matter of when not if" New Zealand does so. Seymour said there would be some hope of starting a discussion about recognising a Palestinian state if Hamas released the Israeli hostages and demilitarised. "New Zealand's government position remains the same as it always has been, it's a matter of when not if we recognise a two state solution and we will be having discussions over the next fortnight or so over whether there should be any change on that position." France, the United Kingdom, Canada and now Australia, have all declared an intention to recognise a Palestinian state at a United Nations summit next month. Asked why New Zealand was delaying this decision, Seymour said "we shouldn't assume that other countries are right". It was a very complex situation and it was important to take time to come to a sound decision, he said. "It's not just a question of what are you actually recognising, what conditions do you place around that, it's also a question of okay so after you've done this what happens next?" It was easy to by horrified by the violence in the Palestinian territories shown on television and social media and to be driven to want to take action, he said. "It doesn't mean that any old solution is the correct one." Labour leader Chris Hipkins told Morning Report the government was not moving quickly enough on Palestine and recognising Palestine was the right thing to do. Hipkins said if he had been leading the government a statement recognising Palestine as a state would have come out at the same time as Australia's. "I think Anthony Albanese actually set out the case for recognising Palestine as a state very well and I think it's starting to look quite embarrassing for New Zealand that the rest of the world has shifted its views pretty rapidly here and we seem to be lagging well behind." Delay 'unfortunate' - Clark But former prime minister Helen Clark said New Zealand was in a humiliating position as it trailed behind other countries in recognising Palestine as a state. Helen Clark told Morning Report New Zealand was being seen "at the back of the crowd". "The recognition of a Palestinian state right now is a very strong statement of wanting that two state solution to proceed," she said. "The catastrophe in Gaza which The Elders of which I am a member is now calling an unfolding genocide has totally changed world opinion about this and the view is now that we have to make all efforts to stop the war, get a process going, get the two state solution and recognising now gives that momentum." New Zealand needed to add its voice to end the catastrophic situation in Gaza, she said. A foreign policy realignment in New Zealand in favour of the US had had a huge impact on its decisions around Gaza with New Zealand "cuddling right back up again to Washington DC and overly sensitive in everything it thinks", she said. "This is not the New Zealand I've known for the last 40 years or so where we made up our own mind, we stood on principle, we now really seem to stand for nothing except you know some how wanting to save our own skin in a tariff war." Recognition was a very strong statement and there was a responsibility to react, Clark said. It would be unlikely that Hamas would play any role in post-war governance of Gaza, she said. If a ceasefire was possible there would likely be a technocratic administration by the Palestinian Authority which would then move to elections, she said. "There may be an international stabilisation force which would go in at the request of the Palestinian Authority - there's elaborate plans that don't include Hamas. "So I think it's a bit of a red herring now to be talking about Hamas, there are credible plans moving forward."
