Written By:
- Date published:
1:43 pm, November 22nd, 2025 - 28 comments
Categories: act, david seymour, democracy under attack, democratic participation, human rights -
Tags: Atlas Network, freedom
Despite what David Seymour says and wants us to believe, he’s no friend of freedom and democracy but rather the opposite. The evidence is subtle, of course, but unmistakable.
We already know that David Seymour has a conflicted and contradictory attitude towards freedom and democracy, as numerous acts and comments have shown, particularly during his free rampage as leader of the ideological tail arm of the neo-authoritarian Coalition Government. However, his deliberate obfuscation of the concepts freedom and democracy was clearly seen in his recent comment about not consulting on removing the Treaty of Waitangi obligations on school boards, not even, or perhaps especially not with Māori.
Act Party leader and Associate Education Minister David Seymour told Newsroom there was no need to consult on these changes.
“For me, it’s pretty clear you don’t have to consult people if you’re increasing their freedom … If you’re going to put new restrictions on how people live their lives or how they use and exchange their property, then you should be consulting to ask whether or not these new restrictions are justified.”
His reasoning is flawed, but this wasn’t accidental. So, let’s scrutinise his ‘arguments’ that are general rather than specific and on-topic, interestingly enough – skirting around issues is a telltale sign of an insincere person.
Let’s assume for a moment that David Seymour’s claim is true. Even then consultation is essential because democracy is not akin ‘the end justifies the means’; it derives legitimacy, and social/public acceptance, but by both the outcomes and the process by which decisions are made.
Let’s dig a little deeper into this.
What some may consider ‘increase in freedom’, may not be evident and/or real to others. For example, deregulation may increase freedom for some but reduce security, equality, and equity for others. Without consultation, the Coalition and David Seymour won’t know – assuming they are genuinely interested – and they risk prioritising one person’s view of freedom, and associated privilege, over another’s without the necessary checking that may reveal unintended consequences before implementation, which would make it more efficient & effective.
As with justice, democratic systems are designed to deliver both substantive outcomes (i.e., what policies achieve) and procedural fairness (i.e., how decisions are made). Consultation is essential to procedural fairness and without it, trust is diminished even when David Seymour alleges it’s beneficial (without specifically saying ‘to all’). Obviously, because of the critically important role of (public) consultation in democracy, it is embedded in decision-making principles and legislative design guidelines, something that David Seymour is all too aware of as self-anointed Minister for Regulation. For example, the Cabinet Manual (s 5.22), the CabGuide, and the Legislation Guidelines.
Although several decades ago government policy tended to be developed behind closed doors, now, transparency and accountability are accepted norms and consultation is a standard part of most significant policy decisions. In fact, in some contexts, the expectation may extend beyond consultation to include stakeholder involvement or collaboration in the decision-making process (for example, in the Treaty of Waitangi context).
The benefits are abundant: transparency, inclusiveness, legitimacy, quality of decisions, consistency, public understanding & acceptance, preparedness, etc. People generally wish to have a say in their lives and feel at liberty to express their opinions, be it positive-constructive or negative-antagonistic, this is what the freedom as self-rule in a democracy means to people. However, this isn’t a typical Left-Right issue, but it has been hijacked by the hard-Right to fight their war of the individual vs collective (and individual vs individual), i.e., the penultimate and fractious fight of individualism vs collectivism, which is most clearly seen by the hatred of the elite for any form of union in/of the great unwashed.
David Seymour portrays himself as a champion of equality and personal freedom through agency yet paradoxically, he acts as a benevolent dictator and patronises us as little children who receive his goodies without being asked; all we need to say is ‘thank you, Sir, and please, can I have some more?’. Tellingly, he’s in direct opposition with his Party’s constitution [note the imperative to “consult” in the title]:
‘Freedom of thought, conscience, religion, belief, and expression including the right to adopt, hold opinions, and express those opinions, is essential to a free society and must be promoted, protected, and preserved’.
Seymour is more than happy to test the legitimacy of his ministerial authority and forcing narrow consultation with special interest groups such as the Free Speech Union (FSU). This is not the democratic spirit of inclusive & broad consultation but forcing through an ideological agenda masquerading as a campaign fighting for a principle and Human Right (i.e., freedom of expression) for the public good under the pretence that it’s under siege and that we’re in a ‘crisis’. Freedom, and freedom of speech, is not absolute and comes with responsibility and conditions that can make it very hard to navigate at times. So, beware of those who’re cloaked as champions of freedom and democracy and who make simplistic claims about it.
For all people who believe and stand for freedom & democracy, know thy enemy, who has a name and a platform, and know that he’s not alone in weaving his tangly & sticky network and poisoning the minds of (too) many and that will ultimately digest democratic societies from within and leave a hollow skeleton behind.
As his Bill would have serious implications for the Courts, Treaty Settlements and previously made contracts, it is a Trojan Horse for Atlas thinking and values imo.
When he first appeared, Seymour took on the "clown like" veneer of harmless fool, dressing in a high Chef's hat and waving a significant knife, 'posing'. for the reporter for a cooking segment.
Then when he twerked, I knew him for a 'Poseur', selling the "harmless" message all the while plotting in the background. His thinking and scheming is a cancer in our Democracy imo. and his Party full of cruel calculated thinking against workers.
Vote carefully in 26, Don't forget cruelty racism and short cuts to get their way.
Thank you for your thoughtful article.
David 'Hypocrite' Seymour, a twerking dagger at the heart of Kiwi democracy, once said "It’s a sad day for democracy when the governing party uses its majority to screw the scrum." He also referred to tens of thousands of Kiwis who may be disenfranchised (according to attorney general Judith Collins) by the CoC's Electoral Amendment Bill as "dropkicks".
Imho, it's unmistakable who the real dropkick is here.
https://thestandard.nz/everybody-is-wrong-except-david-seymour/
I don't agree with ACT about this but there's no denying it's absolutely in line with libertarian principles, ie the principle that governments shouldn't impose compulsion on a matter of conscience without a compelling reason. A libertarian party won't see any reason to consult widely about removing what it sees as unnecessary compulsion, on the basis that a majority may unjustly choose to compel a minority if given the option.
How does that work? Doesn’t the state compel schools in lots of ways eg to teach maths. Why do Treaty principles breach rights and compulsory subjects don’t?
Maths isn't a political matter in the way a requirement to "give effect to the ToW" is. And even then, there's plenty of argument about what should be a requirement in the curriculum and what should be optional.
Though one could argue that the TOW isn't so much a political matter as an historical fact. It became a political matter when early NZ governments treated it as a 'legal nullity'. That was the position for so long that it became normalised. Therefore, in the 1980's when we decided to stop treating it as a 'legal nullity, this can be seen as a de-politicisation, a restoration of the TOW to its true status as an historical fact. That this change was perceived as political rather than a simple constitutional correction, was pretty much due to historical amnesia.
That might be getting a bit cute and pushing the point too far. Nevertheless, I think there is a clear categorical distinction between privileging the TOW in legislation and privileging private property rights in legislation as the Regulatory Standards Act attempts to do. The primacy of private property rights over (say) the common good or economic equality, is clearly a political ideology. As I have said before, one could simply take Seymour's bill and replace private property rights with public interest as the central 'good' that has to be protected, and its essentially ideological nature would become clear.
I think Seymour’s intention is to stack the Regulatory Standards Board with ACT sympathisers and use it to chill the policy-making process so that existing accumulations of wealth are protected. Though his narrative in defense of it will focus on struggling small business owners avoiding crippling costs due to red tape. This latter is actually a real problem we should try to do something about, but it is not the problem that Seymour’s Bill is most interested in solving.
100%. Atlas Seymour is defending division by wealth with every fibre of his being.
I don't think the government would find that argument persuasive. For one thing, Erica Stanford's argued that the ToW is between Māori and the Crown, and the Crown can't expect individual school boards to take on the Crown's responsibility. For another, the decision to require school boards to give effect to the Treaty was made and imposed by politicians, ie it also was a political decision and wasn't binding on future governments.
ACT doesn't have a leg to stand on with the Regulatory Standards Bill, though – it's a transparent attempt to promote private economic interests at the expense of the public good.
I will never understand the whole cutting red tape for businesses argument.
NZ is already internationally rated as the easiest country in the world to do business in as well as the easiest country in the world to start a business in and the easiest country in the world to get credit in.
They can knock it off…. job done.
But that’s exactly the point, people are not meant to think too deeply and to understand it, they’re meant to simply swallow it as a compelling ‘common sense’ meme. In other words, it’s a smoke screen decoy.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/03/23/an-ode-to-lord-breen-of-seymour/
Otoh, there’s a small libertarian party in NZ Aotearoa that’s keen to impose its ideology.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/579493/winston-peters-vows-to-repeal-regulatory-standards-bill-david-seymour-hits-back
Well yeah, I sure wouldn't vote for them. They unhesitatingly support private interests over the public interest.
ACT. Only has "principles" when it suits them.
"Freedom" for Teachers to criticise attacks on their students learning, or "freedom" to withdraw your Labour, are just two of many examples, of ACT's opposition to their "principles applying to everyone.
ACT is totally fine with “compulsion”, when it suits their backers interests.
A few comments.
Whether the Treaty of Waitangi and engagement with its principles is a ‘matter of conscience’ is subjective and a matter of opinion, which is exactly the reason why consultation would be entirely appropriate as opposed to a unilateral decision by a tiny group of ideologues.
David Seymour’s ‘reasoning’ was wrong in general and principle.
ACT and David Seymour have a collective/cabinet responsibility to consult, and be transparent & accountable. Their ideology, as minor coalition party, shouldn’t bypass these standing conventions even when their internal ‘flawed’ logic may make it appealing (and look easy) to them.
Libertarianism is not fundamentally opposed to (wider) consultation because this is a means to giving people a say in their affairs. (NB minimal state interference and maximal individual autonomy doesn’t equal no state at all) Selective/narrow consultation is a tactical ploy by ACT and blatant opportunistic power-play that disallows others to have their say.
Arguably, wide(r) consultation is a way for Government to protect minority rights and this doesn’t equal forcing majority rule, in fact, it can be quite the opposite. As mentioned in the OP, consultation is a key democratic safeguard that adds feedback, information, and legitimacy, even for libertarians – freedom is a concept of [being] contestable, not absolute (aka dogmatic).
By focussing through a selective and narrow libertarian lens on non-compulsion you (as Devil’s advocate?) ignore all these issues and more.
If the govt was planning to ban school boards from trying to give effect to the ToW, I'd completely agree. However, it's planning to remove compulsion, not apply it. What would consultation on that matter consist of? No political party that peddles a belief in individual liberty, however hypocritical that peddling might be, is going to ask school boards whether they think other school boards should be compelled to do adopt a particular political philosophy.
I don't think of it as "a selective and narrow libertarian lens" or as Devil's advocacy, just me recognising that our political opponents have their own beliefs and often have a plausible case to make for their actions.
Are libertarian (Atlas) ACT pollies being a tad selective when deciding whether political compulsion is ACTceptable or offensive?
What might a study of the CoC's pro- and anti-Māori policies / legislation reveal?
If it will help prevent further replies to me with examples of how ACT MPs are hypocritical, I'm happy to state up front: "Don't vote ACT, folks! Their policies promote private economic interests at the expense of the public good!"
100%, and imho there are other reasons not to vote NAct, folks.
https://www.facebook.com/nzlistener/posts/the-listener-cartoon-of-the-week-chris-slane-shares-his-perspective-on-current-e/1276809401118428/
Not all libertarian parties surely.
After all, an ACT MP supports a school zone in Epsom, as the majority want it.
That practice would indicate, like the RSB and fast tracking, a lack of respect for either democratic mandate or the governance process.
To give effect to the TOW (foundational to Crown protection of our sovereign nation state rights, inheritance of 1689 etc), is akin to the first amendment in the USA.
In the USA those claiming a Christian "dominionism" (Project 2025), are in rebellion against their 1789 republic (freedom of religion which is freedom from religion, thus no state religion).
One can see ACT is also mounting a nation state coup (Treaty principles re-write scam).
No dispute from me when it comes to the hypocrisy of politicians!
That's currently a common view, but when I started school it would have been seen as a bizarre claim and anyone claiming it a crank to be avoided in polite company. We shouldn't pretend that things we strongly believe are universal truths accepted by all. Many people are currently treating liberal democracy itself as a given, and shouldn't – it's recent and fragile, and we'll miss it if it goes.
The founders of the republic established principles.
All men were created equal was a rejection of kings and non representative governance.
That only a few Americans like Aaron Burr and "Tammany" Hall wanted all men to vote was what it was (Burr advocated for women voting as well).
But that did lead to all men voting, not just property owners. Then that which men coveted power over got to vote too (women and slaves).
That the settler government here, behaved like the USA towards the indigenous people, was despite the Treaty.
It took the 1975 Act to make a difference. That led to Kohanga Reo, Tu Tangata and Mana Enterprises (maybe PEP).
Iwi provided hospitality to a rugby team (on rural and urban marae) from the land of apartheid (after it took 135 years for parliament to enact the Treaty) in 1981. They were used to providing hospitality to "white people' who were not fair to others.
All fair enough, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that government MPs are highly unlikely to be swayed by an argument that amounts to "Our cause is righteous, whereas yours is unjust."
Granted. But they might be swayed by an argument that the political costs of chasing this agenda far outweigh any gains. And a recognition that the electorate, in the main, has moved a long way toward recognising the constitutional role of Te Tiriti.
Basically: they can do it, but you’ll only be pleasing an exceedingly small slice of voters, not even all of their own base, while simultaneously alienating a much larger section of the country.
Many of whom they still need on side to govern.
Right now the price of picking a constitutional fight with Te Tiriti is rising fast.
Freedom and Democracy = unfettered capitalist markets and individualism for Seymour. Democracy and freedom can be restricted or ignored if not in alignment with his unfettered markets or individualism. Consultation, local decision making and local democracy can all be ignored or ridden roughshod over where it serves the purpose of delivering individualism and more market.
Recent examples, any small fringe group can launch a hostile take over of a community school in efforts make it a charter school, central government can dictate to councils what their rates rise shall be regardless of the actual needs or desired needs of the council voters/community
What I cannot understand is, where on earth does this extreme RW ideology and wanting to deliberately harm certain sectors of society (oh that's right, there's no such thing as society) come from? Did something happen to them as small children? Or are they just selfish, greedy, rich, cruel, sociopathic narcissists, including their voters?
Fear of the other and a desire to pay less tax.
Seems to me that libertarianism is the freedom to do and think what THEY want.
Fascists masquerading as humanitarians…
+100 and ACT get too much credit here as they all wanted it and voted for it.
As they said in the usual suspects…" the greatest trick the devil pulled was to convince everyone he didn't exist…"