Written By:
- Date published:
3:08 pm, March 29th, 2026 - 14 comments
Categories: david seymour -
Tags: crisis management, deregulation, fuel crisis, ideological blinkers, Ministry for Regulation, public consultation, resilience, supply side problem
The one-sidedness of David Seymour’s regulatory framework is on full display again in his call for regulatory feedback on how to boost our fuel resilience. He really wants to hear from you, I kid you not. But he’s clearly only looking at one side of the coin, which is supply, and completely ignoring the demand side. New Zealand and New Zealanders have no control over fuel supply but they can control how and how much fuel we use, which is to say we can control and influence the demand.
It’s typical of Seymour’s ideological thinking to repeatedly frame fuel resilience in terms of removing regulatory barriers only. He makes no mention of regulations to reduce our fuel consumption, such as fuel-demand restraint, fuel conservation campaigns, pricing mechanisms, fuel rationing, or demand‑response measures, presumably because they’re supposed to be the remit of his Coalition buddies who’re spearheading the National Fuel Plan and Davd Seymour wants to stay strictly in his lane – it’s rather unusual for one of the Coalition parties to stop wagging the tail. Similarly, there’s no mention of consumer behaviour, structural and systemic shifts, or consumption reduction during potential future disruptions; neither restraints nor incentives are discussed.
Seymour only once hints at the demand side:
If there are regulations that make it harder to […] use fuel efficiently, they need to be identified now. Not when the pressure is at its peak.
This is framed in an operational and efficiency context. I picked my brains briefly and could only think of increasing load-weight allowances for road-transport trucks. Or fire up industrial coal-burners or something like that – I’m really stumped.
This call for feedback is framed in its typical way that regulations and laws are bottlenecks and barriers that hinder. The submission page is slightly less reckless in that way because it at least mentions the idea of regulations or laws “that could strengthen resilience over time”.
I think that Seymour’s call for feedback is harming and hindering our way of thinking about fuel resilience in particular, and about regulations and laws (and government interventions!) in general. Consequently, Seymour’s framing may well have a negative effect on our actions and collective response to a potentially unfolding fuel crisis and thus may result in poorer & worse outcomes for NZ.
I can understand David Seymour, however, I believe. He’s been pushed into the background by recent events, he’s been less visible, less present, and less relevant. But not deterred by this and the growing cost-of-living crisis inflicted upon NZ that’s been worsening by the war in Iran, he’s turning this into an opportunity to hammer down his warped ideas about regulation and sing their praises, and loudly beat the ACT-Atlas drum. I will spare David Seymour some attention by this Post; he’ll lap it up like a thirsty rooster.
Picked up in a puff piece on RNZ website by RNZ Digital Reporters. Is that a euphemism for AI agentic bots? There’s nothing of substance in it, no further insight or context (that’s relevant).
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/590938/ministry-seeks-regulatory-feedback-on-fuel-plan-to-avoid-red-tape-getting-in-the-way
Just when the govt should be acting decisively, Seymour is immobilised by his dysfunctional ideology that's just not cut out to deal with such a countrywide and society wide looming crisis.
With China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Egypt all getting deals now with Iran to get oil through Hormuz. Seymour could always do us a solid favor and negotiate separate fuel ships for good old New Zealand.
In US terms that would be a bigger strike towards a fully independent foreign policy than our nuclear ships ban.
And much more useful. Go for it Seymour!
"…he’s clearly only looking at one side of the coin, which is supply, and completely ignoring the demand side. New Zealand and New Zealanders have no control over fuel supply…"
Sounds like an example of "I need to give an impression of seeking public consultation without running the risk of the consultation resulting in actions I'll be responsible for making happen."
The coalition is putting all it's chips on 0, in that it's gambling against any hiccoughs to supply from overseas. And, crucially, that this will be a short war. That's the best case, but good luck with that.
But, even then, it's policy of using price as a rationing tool will have many wishing:
1. That it didn't encourage people to use PT or wfh when we had fuel
2. Why it's initial measure, giving people $50, encouraged continued consumption instead of restraint
3. Whether it might have been better to intervene instead of koutowing to Seymour yet again
And to top it all off, there's a report it commissioned to come out 6 weeks before the election, the terms of which are to show the bad side of government intervention, encouraging many to wonder if Luxon fiddled while Iran burned.
No matter how you slice and dice it, this is National's anus horribilis
Seymour should encourage the government to import some electric trucks and vans.
For the government fleet?
Or to hire out to transport firms. They could be sold when the crisis passes. If we get low on diesel there will be many people that would be very pleased to get access to a use able truck.
How long would it take from procurement to delivery?
Probably a long time but if they are not useful in this crisis it would be useful to have them ready for the next one. Meanwhile they are cheaper than diesel to run although the purchase cost is higher.
I imagine that Seymour hasn't even tried. Perhaps the freight companies have. There's a brief article that gives a reasonable introduction to electric trucks at
https://theconversation.com/electric-trucks-are-finally-ready-for-prime-time-could-high-oil-prices-speed-up-the-shift-277971#:~:text=If%20the%20barriers%20are%20addressed,for%20their%20smoother%2C%20quieter%20ride.
Great link, thank you.
This caught my attention in particular:
I can’t see our current Government paving the way here in NZ, quite the opposite, actually.
I took up Mr Seymour's offer and submitted to the red tape hot line on the adverse effects of the governments do nothing response to the biggest fuel crisis we have faced.
Good on you, but I doubt your submission will go anywhere because submissions that contain offensive language, swearing, or abuse will be thrown out, probably by AI. I’m sure David Seymour has set the filter on ‘strict’.
ACT, the party of John "nothing to fear, nothing to hide", aside from
taking a bungaccepting a donation from Kim dotcom, Banks