APIAPE: Agents of Private Interest, Architects of Public Erosion

David Seymour: Strategy, Repackaging, and Control

Calculated Libertarianism, Public Consequences

Deputy Prime Minister | Minister for Regulation | Contested Reforms

Current Portfolios

• Deputy Prime Minister
• Minister for Regulation
• Associate Minister of Justice
• Associate Minister of Finance
• Associate Minister of Health
• Associate Minister of Education

Rhetoric, Consensus-Claims, and the Legislative Record

David Seymour, leader of the ACT Party and Associate Minister across critical portfolios, presents a brand of principled, efficiency-driven reform. This dossier argues that—across multiple bills—his approach tends to centralise decision-making and narrow independent checks.

In particular, critics contend that proposals such as the Medicines Amendment Bill would concentrate approval powers in the executive by relying on foreign decisions, potentially reducing domestic scrutiny and delaying generics via extended data exclusivity. Supporters describe this as cutting “red tape”; opponents view it as weakening safeguards.

Those concerns are consistent with objections raised to Seymour’s Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill and the later Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB). Opponents argue the RSB repackages elements of the earlier Treaty bill’s effects—shifting emphasis from partnership and equity to abstract “principles” that are not enforceable in court, while enabling broad ministerial discretion.

Communication style is part of the critique. In a widely discussed E-Tangata essay, Dr Brian Tweed (Massey University) characterises Seymour’s rhetorical method as “political ventriloquism”—projecting implied majorities (“people say…”, “we all know…”) to manufacture consent. Tweed argues this technique normalises contentious changes by framing them as common sense.

Behind a media-savvy liberal image, this analysis sees a consistent pattern: redefine obligations tied to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, preference market mechanisms, and treat independent oversight as delay—changes that may read as efficiency gains but, in practice, shift power upward.

Note: This section presents analysis and opinion based on the texts of the bills cited and public reporting. Readers can review the primary legislation and detailed submissions linked elsewhere on this page for their own assessment. See: Understanding Political Ventriloquism.

Foreign Control Extended: Seymour’s Push to Remove Land from Public Oversight

Proposed law could weaken the national-interest test and accelerate consents

Under the coalition’s proposal — the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — the rules for screening foreign purchases of New Zealand land and assets would be significantly changed. As outlined, the bill would consolidate existing safeguards into a single national-interest test, introduce expedited timeframes for consent decisions, and expand the use of secondary legislation to shape which transactions require scrutiny.

• Compressed timelines: proposes a 15-day initial consent window (extendable only where a national-interest risk is identified), increasing the risk of rubber-stamping complex deals.
• Broader carve-outs by notice/regulation: empowers ministers or regulators to create classes of transactions subject to reduced parliamentary scrutiny via secondary legislation.
• Purpose reframed: shifts the Act’s emphasis from regulating in the national interest toward facilitation, potentially sidelining climate, equity, and Te Tiriti considerations.

In practice, these settings could narrow the circumstances in which strategic land and assets are tested against the public interest — and make it administratively harder to intervene when risks emerge late in the process.

Read the full opposition: Ukes Baha – Submission on the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Medicines Amendment Bill: Deregulation Disguised as Reform

In 2024, the Medicines Amendment Bill (134–1) was introduced as a speed and “efficiency” package for medicine approvals. Critics warn that, as drafted, it could weaken public-health safeguards and reduce democratic accountability.

What the bill would enable (as drafted)

• Reliance on foreign decisions: allows the Minister of Health to approve medicines by relying on overseas regulators’ decisions, reducing the role of full domestic assessment by Medsafe.
• Expanded ministerial discretion: creates a fast-track pathway where approvals could be granted without standard checks and balances ordinarily applied to assess safety, suitability, and local context.
• Protection of clinical data: introduces or strengthens exclusivity for clinical data relied on for approval (often described as up to five years in commentary), which can delay generic entry and keep prices higher for longer.

Why this matters

• Safety & suitability risks: heavy reliance on foreign approvals may reduce New Zealand’s ability to challenge products later found unsafe overseas, or ill-suited to local needs.
• Reduced transparency: concentrating approval power in the Minister can lessen public scrutiny and independent technical review in contentious cases (e.g., novel biologics or gene therapies).
• Higher costs for longer: data-exclusivity settings can slow timely access to generics, increasing fiscal pressure on Pharmac and out-of-pocket costs for patients.

Common counter-frame — and the response

Proponents describe the bill as cutting “red tape” and aligning with trusted regulators. However, speed gains do not require sidelining Medsafe’s role or weakening oversight. New Zealand can implement reliance pathways with local verification, published rationales, and review rights.

Safeguards to require (if the bill proceeds)

• Local verification: require Medsafe to publish a NZ-specific risk/benefit addendum for any foreign-reliant approval.
• Transparent decisions: mandate public decision summaries, evidence sources, and reasons for any ministerial fast-track.
• Time-limited, narrow discretion: confine ministerial fast-track to defined emergency circumstances with sunset clauses.
• Balanced data rules: limit data exclusivity to the minimum consistent with access and generic competition.
• Equity checks: require an impact statement on access for Māori, Pacific, rural, and low-income communities.

For a line-by-line critique of provisions, cost impacts, and alternative models that protect both speed and safety, see: Ukes Baha – Submission on the Medicines Amendment Bill .

Treaty Principles Bill: A Broad Attack on Public Consent and Constitutional Balance

The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill sought to legislate a new definition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles. Critics argued this would not only end co-governance settings, but also narrow environmental safeguards, weaken collective decision-making, and sideline the constitutional norm of consent. In this view, Te Tiriti is a living partnership between Māori and the Crown that protects everyone’s right to be heard on shared resources and public power.

Why critics objected

• Centralising power: shifting Treaty interpretation from courts/tribunals toward a statutory redefinition set by the executive and a simple parliamentary majority.
• Undermining partnership: reducing direct Māori participation in decisions affecting whenua, wai, and taonga, with flow-on risks to equity and stewardship.
• Destabilising the constitutional balance: replacing decades of jurisprudence and practice with a fixed definition that could not adapt well to new contexts.

I lodged a formal opposition arguing that Te Tiriti functions as a constitutional framework and should not be unilaterally recast for political convenience. The core call: retain voice, protect the land, and uphold partnership in practice.

Read the full opposition: Ukes Baha – Submission on the Treaty Principles Bill

Record engagement — and the outcome

Public participation was unprecedented: reports indicate ~307,000 written submissions with roughly ~90% opposed, and 80%+ of 529 oral submissions also opposing. The bill was later defeated in the House by 112–11. During the debate there were heated exchanges; for example, Labour MP Willie Jackson was removed from the chamber after refusing to withdraw remarks about Seymour (as reported by RNZ). Seymour maintained his party would continue to pursue its objectives, saying “watch this space.”

Source: RNZ coverage of the bill’s defeat and reactions.

If a successor is attempted: minimum safeguards to require

• Co-design with Māori: a formal, resourced process with iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations, including the Waitangi Tribunal’s input.
• Constitutional impact statement: published analysis on effects for rights, environmental kaitiakitanga, and local decision-making.
• Higher bar for change: super-majority or entrenchment-style protections for any redefinition of Treaty principles.
• Judicial interpretability: ensure any “principles” remain justiciable so courts can protect rights in practice.
• Genuine public consultation: adequate timeframes, transparent summaries of submissions, and reasons for decisions.

The Regulatory Standards Bill: Rebrand or Return — With Wider Consequences

After record public rejection of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, the government advanced the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB). While framed as neutral “regulatory quality,” the RSB removes explicit Te Tiriti visibility and, in key places, centralises control while reducing remedies. Critics see it as functionally similar to the earlier project, re-packaged through process and structure.

What changes — and why it matters

• Principles without teeth: The bill’s “responsible regulation” principles are expressly non-enforceable and do not affect validity (your analysis cited Clauses 24–25). That means no direct rights or court-tested remedies.
• Minister-shaped scope: Broad carve-outs and exemptions allow Ministers to define what’s in or out (you identified Clauses 10, 14, 19), risking rule-by-notice over open legislative debate.
• Board without independence: The Minister appoints and can remove members of the Regulatory Standards Board (Clause 38), while inquiries proceed “on the papers” only (Clause 29) — limiting public hearings and real-time testing of evidence.
• Executive guidance over judicial interpretation: Joint ministerial guidance shapes how principles apply (Clause 27), while courts are sidelined from giving the principles binding effect.
• Compulsion powers: Wide information-gathering powers over agencies and contracted providers (Clauses 42–47) risk becoming tools of ideological audit unless tightly safeguarded.
• Consultation compressed: A short public window (four weeks) for submissions is out of step with the breadth of constitutional and sectoral impacts.

The upshot

Rather than strengthening oversight, the RSB designs simulated checks: high-sounding principles with low legal consequence, a minister-dependent board, and flexible carve-outs that can shield the most sensitive areas of government from scrutiny. In substance, it broadens executive discretion while narrowing public remedies.

Read the detailed opposition: Ukes Baha – Submission on the Regulatory Standards Bill

Early Childhood Education Reform: Centralising Control, Market Before Children

Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill (191–1)

Billed as “effectiveness” and “burden reduction,” this amendment recentres power in a new Director of Regulation and reframes early childhood education (ECE) as labour-market support. In practice, it concentrates licensing, monitoring, and enforcement in one office, expands compelled data collection, and enables delegation of core regulatory powers to private actors — a design that favours large providers while squeezing community-led, kaupapa Māori, Pasifika, and rural services.

What it does

• Creates a single gatekeeper: Director of Regulation controls licensing, monitoring, investigations, prosecutions, complaints, and “regulatory strategy.”
• Blurs independence: The Director must act “independently” yet is appointed by and accountable to the Secretary — a structural ambiguity open to politicisation.
• Enables outsourcing of control: Delegation powers allow licensing/enforcement to be handed to non-Ministry personnel with Secretary consent.
• Expands data demands: Compelled provider information, including identifiable data “for statistical purposes,” with weak independent oversight.
• Marketises the purpose: Statutory purpose adds labour-market participation; objectives emphasise “choice” over community governance and cultural integrity.
• Re-badges past decisions: Transfers Secretary decisions and live matters to the Director, muddying accountability for contested cases.

Why it matters

• Centralisation over care: Upwards shift of power risks regulatory capture and one-size-fits-all compliance.
• Privacy & trust risks: Weak guardrails around identifiable child/family data undermine confidence.
• Equity impacts: Small/community providers face disproportionate compliance pressure; large chains gain advantage.
• Quality at risk: “Avoid unnecessary costs” as a guiding principle incentivises minimum-standard oversight.

Submission deadline: 1 September 2025

Read more: Why this bill undermines child-centred education  |  Full submission text

School Lunch Programme: Quality Failures and Accountability

Following changes led by the Associate Education Minister, reports from schools and media highlighted problems with the relaunched lunch scheme — including undercooked food, packaging contamination, limited variety for vegetarian students, and instances where halal requirements were not met. These issues undermined confidence in a programme intended to support child wellbeing.

Documented concerns

• Food safety/quality: reports of melted plastic in meals and repeated menus over short periods;
• Cultural/dietary misses: complaints that pork products were served to Muslim students and that vegetarian options were inadequate;
• Operational strain: some schools reported covering shortfalls and additional costs while problems were resolved.

Ministerial response and public reaction

In defending the programme, David Seymour quipped, “A lot of people I know, if someone gave them butter chicken for free 13 times, they wouldn’t be complaining. They’d actually be thrilled. Namaste.” The remark — reported by The Spinoff — drew sharp criticism, with opponents arguing it minimised legitimate concerns about food safety and cultural appropriateness.

Seymour later characterised problems as “teething issues” and apologised for the rollout shortcomings. Critics, however, described the rhetoric as dismissive and argued that accountability should focus on remedying quality controls, not reframing public feedback.

What would fix it

• Independent QA checks at production sites, with routine spot testing and published results;
• Hard dietary safeguards (e.g., verified halal/kosher lines, allergy controls, and vegetarian/vegan options) with supplier-level certification;
• Transparent incident reporting so schools and families can track issues and resolutions;
• Cost protection for schools when suppliers fail to meet standards;
• Meaningful engagement with principals, boards, and communities — including culturally competent review panels.

The core test isn’t media management — it’s whether meals are safe, culturally appropriate, and reliably delivered. That requires measurable standards, independent oversight, and timely remediation when things go wrong.

Source: The Spinoff – “Echo Chamber: David Seymour says ‘namaste’ to school lunch woes,” by Lyric Waiwiri-Smith, 5 March 2025. The Spinoff is a member of the NZ Media Council.

Weaponised Outrage, Strategic Silence

During the 2023 Posie Parker protest, after Marama Davidson was knocked by a motorbike and spoke emotionally — saying that “white cis men cause violence in the world” — David Seymour publicly called for her resignation, framing the comment as incompatible with ministerial standards. The speed and emphasis of that response contrasted with his handling of more structural issues within his own political sphere.

The contrast in practice

• Symbolic offence, maximal outrage: Rapid calls for resignation over a single remark at a volatile event.
• Structural harm, minimal urgency: When serious abuse disclosures surfaced within ACT, initial responses pointed survivors toward private employment advice rather than law enforcement — a stance later criticised by victims’ advocates.
• Service failures reframed: Quality and cultural-safety problems in the school lunch rollout were characterised as “teething issues,” with critics arguing that rhetoric minimised legitimate concerns.
• Democratic pushback dismissed: Record-breaking opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill was met with insistence that critics had not addressed the “substance,” signaling intent to revisit similar measures.

Why this matters

The pattern appears strategic. Outrage is reserved for symbolic wins where a headline can be secured, while silence or deflection meets systemic failure that would demand accountability, resourcing, and independent scrutiny. The result is a politics that prioritises narrative control over problem-solving.

What accountability would look like

• Like-for-like standards: Apply the same urgency to institutional harms (abuse responses, public service delivery failures) as to headline-grabbing remarks.
• Independent escalation pathways: Default referral of abuse disclosures to police and victim services; publish a transparent protocol.
• Substance over spin: Engage substantively with mass public submissions and expert evidence; report back with changes or clear reasons for disagreement.
• Measured public communication: Avoid framing critiques as confusion or ingratitude; address the specific failures and fixes.

In short: this isn’t moral clarity — it’s opportunism. Leadership means fixing systems, not just winning skirmishes in the headlines.

Free Speech or Political Shield?

David Seymour frequently presents himself as a defender of robust expression, backing the right of groups such as Speak Up for Women and Posie Parker to be heard. He frames this stance within a classic liberal argument: progress requires space for unpopular or uncomfortable views.

The stated principle

In public debates, Seymour argues that open platforms and tolerance for offence are essential to a free society. He cites historic movements to claim that speech — even when divisive — must be protected to advance ideas.

The practice in crisis

• Abuse disclosures handled privately: When serious allegations about then-ACT President Tim Jago were raised with the party, media reporting and victims’ advocates say the initial response referred the complainant to an employment lawyer rather than law enforcement, with a follow-up indicating the party might “consider the matter closed” if there was no further contact. Advocates later criticised this approach as inadequate for the gravity of the claims.
• Public defence vs. internal duty of care: The energy devoted to defending controversial public speech contrasted with a cautious, process-heavy response to an internal disclosure of harm — a gap that, critics argue, privileges narrative battles over safeguarding people.

Why that contrast matters

Defending speech is not the same as defending safety. A consistent standard would pair strong free-speech rhetoric with equally strong protocols for responding to harm: automatic referral of abuse disclosures to police and specialist services, transparent escalation pathways, and timely public accountability.

What consistency would look like

• Default to independent authorities: Refer abuse disclosures to police and victim-support services as a first step.
• Publish a protocol: A clear, public policy for handling disclosures — who is notified, when, and how.
• Match urgency to harm: Apply the same speed and seriousness shown in free-speech debates to internal safeguarding.
• Report back: Where privacy allows, communicate outcomes and improvements to rebuild trust.

Put simply: protecting debate should not come at the expense of protecting people. Without credible safeguarding, “free speech” risks becoming a political shield — robust in principle, selective in practice.

Pattern of Provocation and Harm

A recurring tactic in David Seymour’s public life is to test social boundaries with provocative statements or actions, then reframe the backlash as proof that “common-sense reform” is being silenced. The effect is distraction from policy substance and a steady normalisation of division.

• “Blow up” the Ministry for Pacific Peoples (MPP) joke: A quip presented as humour but widely criticised as irresponsible given historic threats toward minority communities. The incident shifted attention away from policy debate toward outrage management.
• Publishing Māori vaccine access codes: Released invitation-only codes intended to lift vaccination rates for at-risk Māori, arguing the policy was discriminatory. Public health experts condemned the move as undermining targeted equity initiatives.
• Co-governance framed with apartheid analogies: Regularly characterises Māori-Crown partnership arrangements as “separatism” or akin to apartheid. Critics note these comparisons inflame tensions and misstate the constitutional role of Te Tiriti.
• Engagement with global libertarian networks: Engagement with organisations and events aligned to Atlas-style think-tank advocacy is cited by critics as evidence of imported ideology shaping domestic agendas.

Why this playbook matters

• Distraction over disclosure: Outrage cycles crowd out scrutiny of the legislation itself.
• Chilled participation: Communities most affected by policy bear the brunt of stigma and fatigue.
• Skewed baselines: Repeated provocation shifts what’s considered “normal” in civic debate.

The pattern isn’t reform; it’s agenda-setting through provocation. Policies that marginalise are presented as fairness, while those who object are cast as unreasonable. Naming the tactic is the first step to resisting it.

Letter to Police on an Active Case (2022)

In 2022, David Seymour wrote to New Zealand Police regarding former eye surgeon Philip Polkinghorne, who at the time was a person of interest in his wife’s death. The letter was sent before any charges were laid and expressed support for Polkinghorne.

The move drew cross-party criticism. Christopher Luxon described the letter as “ill-advised,” and Labour leader Chris Hipkins argued it was inappropriate for a sitting MP. Seymour said he was acting as a constituency MP and did not intend to influence the investigation’s outcome.

Critics and constitutional commentators note that elected representatives contacting police about a live homicide inquiry risks blurring roles and could be perceived as pressure on law enforcement, even where no explicit direction is given. The episode is widely cited as a lapse in judgment that undermined confidence in appropriate boundaries between Parliament and police.

Handling of Abuse Disclosures Involving Former ACT President Tim Jago

Former ACT Party president Tim Jago was later convicted on multiple counts of indecent assault relating to offending in the 1990s. Before his resignation, the ACT Party was notified of historical allegations. According to public reporting and correspondence cited in the media, David Seymour replied to the complainant’s wife by providing contact details for an employment lawyer rather than referring the matter to Police, and later indicated the party would consider the matter closed if it did not hear back within 10 days.

Victim-advocacy experts, including Independent Victims Advisor Ruth Money, criticised that approach, arguing that disclosures of child sexual abuse should be directed to Police and specialist services. Seymour has said the party acted on legal advice and within appropriate processes.

Whatever the legal rationale, the episode exposed gaps in safeguarding inside political organisations. Minimum standards should include clear reporting pathways to Police, trauma-informed responses, and independent oversight to avoid conflicts of interest.

Tim Jago: Conviction and Questions for ACT’s Response

Former ACT Party president Tim Jago was convicted on multiple counts of indecent assault relating to offending against two teenagers in the late 1990s, according to court reporting. Those offences involved serious breaches of trust by an adult in a position of authority.

Publicly reported correspondence indicates that on 7 November 2022 a complainant’s wife alerted ACT to historical abuse concerns, writing that Jago posed a risk and should not hold positions of trust. Media have published emails showing David Seymour replied with contact details for an employment lawyer, and later noted the party would consider the matter closed if there was no further contact within 10 days. Critics argue this amounted to a private legal referral rather than escalation to Police or specialist services.

Name suppression orders remained in place for an extended period during proceedings. After Jago abandoned his suppression bid, the public learned he had been convicted. One survivor who waived name suppression told RNZ the party’s initial response felt like a “cold shoulder”, and Independent Victims Advisor Ruth Money publicly argued that disclosures of child sexual abuse should be directed to Police and specialist agencies.

ACT has said it acted on legal advice and within appropriate processes. In my view, regardless of legalities, this episode exposed gaps in safeguarding inside political organisations. Minimum standards should include clear, trauma-informed reporting pathways to Police, independent oversight to avoid conflicts of interest, and policies that prioritise survivor safety over institutional risk.

Legislative Hyperactivity, Societal Restructuring

David Seymour is not just passing legislation — in my view he is driving a wide-ranging redesign of New Zealand’s civic, legal, and cultural settings. The volume and tempo of proposals amount to what I call ideological hyperactivity: changes that overwhelm scrutiny, embed market-first settings, and normalise stronger executive discretion.

Across a single term, Seymour has advanced or supported measures including:

• Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill — sought to redefine Te Tiriti principles in statute. My assessment: would have narrowed Treaty obligations and weakened constitutional balance.
• Regulatory Standards Bill — re-packaged after the Treaty Principles defeat. My assessment: presents “principles” with no remedies, while broadening ministerial carve-outs and discretion.
• Medicines Amendment Bill — enabled ministerial approvals based on overseas decisions. My assessment: sidelines Medsafe’s role and risks speed over safety, transparency, and equity.
• Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill — created a Director of Regulation with sweeping powers and reframed ECE as labour-market support. My assessment: centralises control, expands data intrusion, and privileges large commercial providers over community-led, kaupapa Māori, Pasifika, and rural services.
• With Nicole McKee, a package of tribunals, occupational, and AML/CFT changes. My assessment: expands investigatory reach while diluting independent safeguards.
• With Laura McClure, the Employment Relations Amendment. My assessment: risks reframing dismissals as “by agreement” and constraining grievance evidence.
• School lunch programme changes — budget reductions and a relaunch that drew widespread criticism over quality and cultural appropriateness. My assessment: cost-saving was prioritised over child wellbeing and delivery standards.
• Ministry of Regulation agenda — a deregulatory push across portfolios. My assessment: weakens environmental protections and democratic checks by design.
• Response to ACT’s internal abuse scandal — Seymour defended the party’s handling; survivor advocates say it fell short. My assessment: revealed gaps in safeguarding and accountability.

This legislative flood reads less like reform and more like restructuring: it concentrates decision-making, shrinks public obligations, and redraws the boundaries of government to favour executive discretion and private interests.

Seymour frames this as “freedom.” My view is different: when the practical effect is to silence scrutiny, centralise power, and thin out protections, the outcome is not liberty — it is erosion by design.

What You Can Do

• Lead with evidence. Share clause-level points and sources, not labels. Hold public officials to account—especially on reforms that affect lives, rights, and trust.
• Read the opposition to the Medicines Amendment Bill — analysis arguing the current design prioritises speed over independent oversight.
• Read the opposition to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill — analysis that it undermines Te Tiriti integrity and constitutional balance.
• Read the opposition to the Regulatory Standards Bill — analysis that its “principles” lack remedies while expanding ministerial discretion.
• Submit, don’t just post. When select-committee calls open, file or update a submission with specific fixes (e.g., amend clauses, add safeguards, require transparency).
• Share responsibly. Share this dossier to help others follow the pattern and review sources; avoid personal attacks and stick to verifiable facts.
• Track the pattern. Keep a simple log (bill, clause, effect, source) so changes are easy to explain to friends, whānau, and community groups.
• Stay engaged between news cycles. Write to MPs, attend hui, and support affected communities and credible advocacy groups working on health, education, and Treaty issues.

Every documented case strengthens public memory — and demands accountability.
🔙 Back to APIAPE Index