A joke too far from ACT

Saturday, 28 June 2025

EDITORIAL: Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been overseas all week, which means New Zealand’s recently appointed deputy prime minister, David Seymour, got to step up as acting prime minister.

According to some, he has been acting the goat as well.

The problem relates to one of ACT’s most cherished pieces of legislation, the Regulatory Standards Bill. Supporters and opponents seem unable to agree on what the law will and will not do. It has therefore been hard for the ordinary public to get a clear sense of either why the law is needed or why it should be resisted.

Critics say it sidelines the Treaty of Waitangi in decision-making and enhances corporate power. Seymour dismisses those critics as conspiracy theorists and even liars.

If it all sounds familiar, it is because the drama around this bill is the sequel to the drama around ACT’s failed Treaty Principles Bill. That bill prompted a spectacular public and political response, from marches to a haka in Parliament to a record number of submissions against it. Even though the bill was never going to pass, ACT must have felt chastened by the scale of the opposition.

Like the worst kinds of sequels, this one is harder to follow, even if it might actually have more impact. Unlike the Treaty Principles Bill, the Regulatory Standards Bill has the support of all three coalition partners, at least for now. Submissions and public hearings are not merely an exercise in political theatre.

But what about Seymour’s behaviour? Let us be old-fashioned for a moment and say that a certain dignity should accompany the role of acting prime minister, or even just a party leader or humble member of parliament.

We may have seen that dignity eroded by some of the language heard in Parliament lately, and also, depending on where you stand, a vigorous haka. Yet nothing justifies Seymour’s “playful” attacks on critics of his bill.

“Playful” is his word, not ours. Seymour and his party have used social media to disparage critics, ranging from distinguished anthropologist Dame Anne Salmond to pop singer Lorde for the crime of having an opinion. Current and former MPs and other academic experts have also been in ACT’s sights, with the claim they have “Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome”.

The idea of a “derangement syndrome” was coined two decades ago during the George W Bush administration to describe critics who are so embittered about a political leader they have trouble assessing them fairly. It implies a critic is biased rather than balanced, motivated by loathing or an ideology rather than a clear consideration of the facts.

It may be a playful joke to Seymour, but it disparages those who make serious contributions to public discourse in New Zealand, such as Salmond.

The same can be said about Seymour’s claim, perhaps meant “playfully”, that opponents of the previous bill were bots. The fact it has become easy to send submissions does not make submitters uninformed.

The lasting effect is that people with something to contribute may be scared off, due to the fear of social media mockery or worse. Some experts on online harassment claim there is a short step from that form of mockery to attacks in the real world. Seymour needs to consider the power imbalance involved.

Seymour is an intelligent and charismatic figure who has done well to lift a minor party from the margin of error to a central place in government. Part of his success is his ability to talk directly to the public, and that includes his sense of humour.

In other words, he knows exactly what he is doing. It is a form of bullying and intimidation disguised as humour. For some, it is reminiscent of US President Donald Trump. Older readers might even recall former New Zealand Prime Minister Robert Muldoon.

Seymour should also be mindful that his jokes have not always landed well. Who can forget his line about the Ministry for Pacific Peoples before the 2023 election? Seymour fantasised about sending Guy Fawkes into the ministry.

Some will say that Salmond is more than capable of taking what Seymour dishes out, and she has a media platform to respond with. She called out his “Trumpian rhetoric and tactics” in an online column.

Whether critics can answer back is not the point. The point is that Seymour’s activity seems inappropriate given the Cabinet guidelines. High ethical and behavioural standards are expected of ministers.

But we do not need to check the Cabinet Manual to know we deserve better from our political leaders. Even acting ones.