Latest news with #RegulatoryStandardsDerangementSyndrome
Otago Daily Times
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Behaviour ‘unbecoming' of govt role
David Seymour. Photo: Gregor Richardson A former Green party leader is accusing David Seymour of behaviour "unbecoming" of the role of deputy prime minister after she was targeted for her criticism of a controversial Bill. In the past week, Mr Seymour has made a series of social media posts singling out several prominent opponents of his Regulatory Standards Bill and accusing them of suffering from "Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome." One of those targeted was University of Otago senior law lecturer and former Green party co-leader Metiria Stanton Turei who wrote an opinion piece, published in the Otago Daily Times on June 13, with the headline "The Regulatory Standards Bill is an attack on all of us". Her piece was critical of the Bill, which proposes a set of regulatory principles required for lawmakers, agencies and ministries to consider in regulation design. Mrs Stanton Turei said the legislation would exclude Māori language, culture and legal perspectives, constrain future governments and impact the environment. In a social media post on June 19, Mr Seymour labelled Mrs Stanton Turei "victim of the day" and laid out why he believed her arguments against the Bill were wrong — saying she was "spinning conspiracies". Mrs Stanton Turei said Mr Seymour's behaviour was "unbecoming" of a deputy prime minister. "It's arguably in breach of the cabinet manual and contrary to his advocacy of the right of academic freedom," she said. Metiria Stanton Turei. Photo: file She declined to make any further comment. Mr Seymour's office said he had addressed the matter at Monday's post cabinet stand-up, where he rubbished claims his posts breached the cabinet manual. "There's no such breach. If people want to go out and make completely incorrect statements, then I'm going to get a bit playful and have some fun with them." He said pointing out there was a "curious syndrome that is causing people to say untrue things" was different from outright calling them deranged. Another critic singled out by Mr Seymour, Dame Anne Salmond said his campaign was "lame, even laughable" but also an abuse of high office, and said she would formally lodge a complaint with the Cabinet Office. Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau accused Mr Seymour of setting a "dangerous precedent" for how dissenting voices were treated, and laid a formal complaint with the Prime Minister over the posts. The Regulatory Standards Bill passed its first reading last month and submissions on the Bill closed on Monday. The Finance and Expenditure Committee will consider the submissions, with its final report due by November 22. — additional reporting RNZ
1News
19 hours ago
- Politics
- 1News
Seymour defends posts accusing opponents of 'derangement syndrome'
The Deputy Prime Minister is rubbishing claims that social media posts he has made about opponents of the Regulatory Standards Bill are a breach of the Cabinet Manual. In recent days, David Seymour made a series of social media posts singling out prominent opponents of the Bill, and accusing them of suffering from "Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome". Wellington's 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 over the posts. The Regulatory Standards Bill aimed to ensure regulatory decisions were "based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency", according to Seymour, who had introduced the Bill as Minister of Regulation. Opponents criticised it as advancing corporate interests and an attack on nature and Te Tiriti. ADVERTISEMENT Seymour's targets included academics such as Dame Anne Salmond, Dr George Laking, and Metiria Turei, as well as Labour MP Willie Jackson. Dame Anne Salmond was referred to as the "victim of the day" by Seymour. (Source: Newsroom published an opinion column by Dame Anne, in which she called the bill a "dangerous piece of legislation" and said its principles were "largely inspired by libertarian ideals". In the posts, Seymour called the figures the "Victim of the Day" and set out why he believed their arguments against the Bill were wrong. In Dame Anne's case, Seymour said her "real objection seems to be that the Bill sets limits on arbitrary power". "That it dares to elevate individual rights, due process, and cost-benefit analysis over ideology. That's not a weakness, it's the point." He said Turei was "spinning conspiracies" and that Jackson had a "wild imagination". ADVERTISEMENT The posts prompted Whanau to write to the Prime Minister, accusing Seymour of orchestrating a "campaign of online harassment and intimidation." Whanau's letter said the posts were a "blatant attempt to stifle academic opinion and any dissenting opinion", and a breach of Sections 2.53 and 2.56 of the Cabinet Manual. Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau. (Source: 1News) Section 2.53 called on ministers to "conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to the office", while Section 2.56 said ministers were expected to behave in a way that upheld the highest ethical and behavioural standards. "This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional," it says. Whanau, who at this stage has not been the subject of one of Seymour's posts, called on Christopher Luxon to investigate the matter. "For the Deputy Prime Minister to lead this online harassment campaign is quite concerning, as such actions could incite behaviour that spills into real-world violence. ADVERTISEMENT "This is irresponsible and a clear breach of public trust. We expect our leaders to keep us safe, not throw us into harm's way," she wrote. On Monday, standing in for Luxon at the post-Cabinet press conference, Seymour dismissed the criticism and accused the opponents of the bill of making incorrect statements. "There's no such breach. If people want to go out and make completely incorrect statements, then I'm going to get a bit playful and have some fun with them." He argued that pointing out there was a "curious syndrome that is causing people to say untrue things" was different to outright calling them deranged. "I could say that their incorrect statements are deliberate, and therefore they're lying. I could say they're incapable of understanding what they're saying. "I'm not saying that, I'm being a bit playful saying the only reason I can think of for all these totally factually incorrect statements about the Regulatory Standards Bill is that there's some sort of sinister syndrome out there." Labour leader Chris Hipkins said Seymour's behaviour was "inconsistent" with what was expected of MPs, particularly Ministers of the Crown. ADVERTISEMENT Labour leader Chris Hipkins. (Source: "When you're putting photos of people up with the derogatory sorts of claims that David Seymour is, that is online harassment and I don't think it's acceptable," he said. Hipkins said singling out members of the public was different to the cut and thrust of political debate between politicians. "Attacking other politicians is one thing. Attacking members of the public is something entirely different." In a follow-up column, also on Newsroom, Dame Anne said Seymour's campaign was "lame, even laughable" but also an abuse of high office, and she would formally lodge a complaint with the Cabinet Office. The Regulatory Standards Bill passed its first reading in May. Submissions on the Bill closed on Monday. ADVERTISEMENT The Finance and Expenditure Committee will consider the submissions, with its final report due by November 22nd. Labour has pledged to repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill in its first 100 days in office, should it return to government next year.
Scoop
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Scoop
David Seymour Defends Social Media Posts Accusing Regulatory Standards Opponents Of 'Derangement Syndrome'
The Deputy Prime Minister is rubbishing claims that social media posts he has made about opponents of the Regulatory Standards Bill are a breach of the Cabinet Manual. In recent days, David Seymour made a series of social media posts singling out prominent opponents of the Bill, and accusing them of suffering from "Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome." Wellington's 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 over the posts. The Regulatory Standards Bill aimed to ensure regulatory decisions were "based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency," according to Seymour, who had introduced the Bill as Minister of Regulation. Opponents criticised it as advancing corporate interests, and an attack on nature and Te Tiriti. Seymour's targets included academics such as Dame Anne Salmond, Dr George Laking, and Metiria Turei, as well as Labour MP Willie Jackson. Newsroom published an opinion column by Dame Anne, in which she called the bill a "dangerous piece of legislation" and said its principles were "largely inspired by libertarian ideals." In the posts, Seymour called the figures the "Victim of the Day" and set out why he believed their arguments against the Bill were wrong. In Dame Anne's case, Seymour said her "real objection seems to be that the Bill sets limits on arbitrary power. That it dares to elevate individual rights, due process, and cost-benefit analysis over ideology. That's not a weakness, it's the point." He said Turei was "spinning conspiracies" and that Jackson had a "wild imagination." The posts prompted Whanau to write to the Prime Minister, accusing Seymour of orchestrating a "campaign of online harassment and intimidation." Whanau's letter said the posts were a "blatant attempt to stifle academic opinion and any dissenting opinion," and a breach of Sections 2.53 and 2.56 of the Cabinet Manual. Section 2.53 called on ministers to "conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to the office," while Section 2.56 said ministers were expected to behave in a way that upheld the highest ethical and behavioural standards. "This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional," it says. Whanau, who at this stage has not been the subject of one of Seymour's posts, called on Christopher Luxon to investigate the matter. "For the Deputy Prime Minister to lead this online harassment campaign is quite concerning, as such actions could incite behaviour that spills into real-world violence. "This is irresponsible and a clear breach of public trust. We expect our leaders to keep us safe, not throw us into harm's way," she wrote. On Monday, standing in for Luxon at the post-Cabinet press conference, Seymour dismissed the criticism, and accused the opponents of the bill of making incorrect statements. "There's no such breach. If people want to go out and make completely incorrect statements, then I'm going to get a bit playful and have some fun with them." He argued that pointing out there was a "curious syndrome that is causing people to say untrue things" was different to outright calling them deranged. "I could say that their incorrect statements are deliberate, and therefore they're lying. I could say they're incapable of understanding what they're saying. "I'm not saying that, I'm being a bit playful saying the only reason I can think of for all these totally factually incorrect statements about the Regulatory Standards Bill is that there's some sort of sinister syndrome out there." Labour leader Chris Hipkins said Seymour's behaviour was "inconsistent" with what was expected of MPs, particularly Ministers of the Crown. "When you're putting photos of people up with the derogatory sorts of claims that David Seymour is, that is online harassment and I don't think it's acceptable," he said. Hipkins said singling out members of the public was different to the cut and thrust of political debate between politicians. "Attacking other politicians is one thing. Attacking members of the public is something entirely different." In a follow-up column, also on Newsroom, Dame Anne said Seymour's campaign was "lame, even laughable" but also an abuse of high office, and she would formally lodge a complaint with the Cabinet Office. The Regulatory Standards Bill passed its first reading in May. Submissions on the Bill closed on Monday. The Finance and Expenditure Committee will consider the submissions, with its final report due by November 22nd. Labour has pledged to repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill in its first 100 days in office, should it return to government next year.
Newsroom
2 days ago
- Politics
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: Victim of the Day
Over the past week, something remarkable has happened. The Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand has fronted an online campaign of harassment of scholars who have shared their views about his Regulatory Standards Bill, naming each of them as a 'Victim of the Day.' Each scholar has been accused of 'Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome,' a description borrowed from Donald Trump's followers, who accuse his critics of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' The portraits of each scholar are placed on David Seymour's Facebook page under this banner, and labelled 'Victim of the Day,' with online responses invited. The use of the term 'Victim of the Day' is, at best, careless. In the United States at present, political violence is escalating, with senators and their families being physically assaulted, even shot and killed. This has been associated with online incitements against individuals. No one in New Zealand, least of all the Deputy Prime Minister, can be unaware of these developments. In the United States, too, direct attacks by the Trump administration on universities, university scholars and their students have escalated from attacks on individual academics to attempts to take direct political control of what is taught on university campuses, by whom, and to whom, backed by the deployment of armed force including police and ICE agents. When universities such as Harvard have resisted these attempts, they have been punished by defunding their research and threats by the Trump administration to their right to admit international students. These and other attacks are happening to universities and other scientific institutions across the United States. At a time like this, it is extraordinary that a Deputy Prime Minister here should initiate an online campaign of intimidation against university scholars, using Trumpian rhetoric and tactics to harass them for exercising their academic freedom. In the United States, as in New Zealand, the independence of universities and academic freedom are designed as checks and balances on executive power, with the rule of law and the freedom of the press. All of these freedoms are being assailed in the United States at present. In New Zealand, the concept of academic freedom is specifically enshrined in legislation. Section 161 of the Education Amendment Act 1990 states: '161 Academic Freedom 1. It is declared to be the intention of Parliament in enacting the provisions of this Act relating to institutions that academic freedom and the autonomy of institutions are to be preserved and enhanced.' This requires that academics are free to offer commentaries within their fields of expertise without direct intimidation and harassment by politicians. The Act goes on to state: '2. For the purposes of this section, academic freedom, in relation to an institution, means – a. the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions.' Without this kind of freedom, new ideas and discoveries are unlikely to emerge. In academic inquiry, they must be rigorously tested against the evidence, including robust exchanges and peer review. For this to work well, the debate has to be reasoned and civil. Academic freedom is a very old doctrine, designed to protect universities from those who seek to control research and teaching to advance particular political agendas, as in the United States at present. Such ambitions are typical of totalitarian, autocratic regimes, with the USSR and South Africa under apartheid as previous examples. This can come from any political direction. In New Zealand, for instance, the Education Act 1989 was drafted in response to an attempt by the Fourth Labour Government to take control over 'what was taught, by whom and to whom' in New Zealand universities. That effort was vigorously resisted, and as a result the Education Act was passed and enshrined academic freedom in our legislation, along with a section that requires universities to 'act as critic and conscience of society.' That, I think, is exactly what the 'Victims of the Day' were doing when they were attacked by the Deputy Prime Minister. From an array of different disciplinary perspectives, they were analysing and discussing the Regulatory Standards Bill as contributions to public debate. In many ways, the campaign launched and fronted by the Deputy Prime Minister is lame, even laughable. At the same time, it is an abuse of high office. For the Deputy Prime Minister of this country to deploy Trumpian rhetoric to single out individual scholars as 'Victims of the Day' is deplorable, given the requirements of the Education Act. It is also troubling, given its direct links with the political assault on universities that is happening in the United States. Worse still, this is a senior politician who has vigorously argued for freedom of speech in universities. Above all, every New Zealand citizen has the right to speak their minds about matters such as the Regulatory Standards Bill without being personally intimidated by politicians. If scholars whose academic freedom is legally protected under the Education Act can be singled out in this way, the freedom of speech of all New Zealanders is at risk. In New Zealand, the Cabinet manual requires ministers to 'behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards. This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional.' This 'Victim of the Day' campaign does not match this description. It is unethical, unprofessional and potentially dangerous to those targeted. Debate is fine, online incitements are not. Ultimately, all ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour. As one of David Seymour's 'Victims of the Day,' I ask that Christopher Luxon upholds the Cabinet manual, and requires the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw and apologise to those he has targeted and harmed in this despicable campaign. I am formally lodging a complaint with the Cabinet Office, and look forward to its response.
