David Seymour Takes His Embarrassing Arrogance International

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour’s attack on United Nations Special Rapporteur Albert K. Barume is not just embarrassing — it is cowardly, dishonest, and a direct insult to Māori and the United Nations.

Special Rapporteur Barume is a highly respected United Nations dignitary, appointed by the Human Rights Council, who has written to the New Zealand government on the request of Māori leaders. His mandate is to monitor and report on the rights of Indigenous peoples. His letter to the Government followed a wave of Māori concerns expressed at United Nations forums over the past 18 months — concerns about the coalition agreement, the Treaty Principles Bill, the Regulatory Standards Bill and the consistent undermining of Māori rights on all fronts.

Barume’s concerns were not extreme nor misplaced. He echoed what Māori legal experts, Iwi leaders, constitutional scholars, organisations and submitters across the country have said in the select committee hearings this past week: that the Regulatory Standards Bill poses a credible risk to settlements, disrespects tikanga and Māori governance, marginalises Māori, and imposes monocultural standards.

Seymour’s response was to accuse Barume’s concerns as “presumptive”, “condescending”, an “affront to New Zealand sovereignty” and to suggest the UN was meddling in domestic affairs. He completely disregards the fact that commenting on human rights issues of member states is precisely what human rights rapporteurs are there to do. This is exactly how the international rule of law is upheld, through international agreements between states that are monitored by commitees and rapporteurs. Once New Zealand starts abusing those mechanisms, we lose the right to hold other nations to human rights standards, and the end result is a lawless international order.

What’s truly condescending is Seymour’s refusal to acknowledge that Māori have the right to international protection. Indigenous peoples everywhere fought for mechanisms like the UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Special Rapporteur precisely because of colonial governments that undermine our rights while claiming to speak for us.

Seymour’s claim that Barume “misunderstands” the bill is the same tired dismissal he’s used to silence all critics of the bill — Māori and non-Māori alike. Even if it were true that the bill is broadly misunderstood – that, too would fall at the feet of the Minister responsible for socialising the bill: Seymour.

In a letter of many lowpoints, perhaps the lowest is Seymour’s invoking of his ancestry. It is commonly noted by Māori that the only time David Seymour mentions his Māori ancestry is for the purposes of deflecting criticism over his abuse of Māori. This cowardly and abhorrent weilding of ones whakapapa devalues what it is to be Māori, and is an affront to Māori across Aotearoa. Regardless of any claim to whakapapa, it remains the case that David Seymour is leading a direct legislative assault upon Māori, the likes of which has not seen or experienced in generations. Consequentially, David Seymour is commonly reviled by Māori communities across the nation, making his reference to “my fellow Māori” laughable. If he truly saw Māori as “his people” then the resounding, repeated chorus of Māori disgust at his behaviour would mean something. He has made it clear that it does not.

And let us not forget the tone Seymour himself has used in this debate. He has directed hate towards individuals and led a smear campaign that has included doxxing and violent threats. He has weaponised mental health rhetoric to mock and undermine those who oppose the bill. His hostile condescension towards people who engaged with democratic processes in good faith have been an embarrassment at a national level, and now international level. His conduct and commentary has been far more offensive than the stated concerns by Special Rapporteur Barume.

The irony is sharp. Seymour often claims to be a defender of “human rights” and “equality before the law.” Yet here he has shown contempt for the very institutions — like the Human Rights Council — tasked with developing and upholding those principles. If Seymour truly believed in the values he espouses, he would welcome scrutiny, not vilify it as meddling in national sovereignty

During the recent select committee hearings on the bill, numerous submitters raised alarm about the lasting impact of the Regulatory Standards Bill upon New Zealand’s international reputation. In my own submission I highlighted that the bill risks violating seven of the eight binding human rights agreements that New Zealand is party to, in addition to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It is further noteable that David Seymour, who specified that his is speaking in his capacity as Minister for Regulation — has taken it upon himself to launch an aggressive foreign policy attack on a United Nations official, while Winston Peters, the actual Minister of Foreign Affairs, has yet to comment. International correspondence of this nature, particularly when it concerns New Zealand’s reputation and human rights obligations, should fall within the remit of the Foreign Minister. Seymour’s overreach into foreign affairs not only undermines ministerial boundaries, but risks dragging New Zealand’s international standing through the mud on Peters’ watch. While there have been numerous mentions of the “tail waggging the dog” in this coalition government, that has largely been directed towards a feckless Luxon. What we are apparently now seeing is Seymour also assuming the right to sideline his other coalition partner Peters as the Foreign Affairs Minister. His inflammatory rhetoric, directed at a UN-appointed official, stomps right over diplomatic decorum and makes New Zealand look defensive and hostile to international oversight.

Barume was absolutely right to question the coalition agreement, which includes commitments that could only be fulfilled through the erosion of Indigenous, human and environmental rights — including the promise to reject UNDRIP’s legal standing and the prioritisation of a bill that flies in the face of Human Rights Council recommendations. The man is doing his job.

Seymour’s letter isn’t about defending national sovereignty. It’s about avoiding accountability — to Māori, to international standards, to actual human rights, and to the truth.

New Zealanders deserve better than a minister who lashes out when faced with legitimate concerns about human rights. The world is watching. Seymour may not welcome external scrutiny — but he cannot escape it, and there will be plenty more of it.