MEDIAWATCH: Why Simon Wilson is worth the Herald subscription

I am a huge Simon Wilson fan.

His scathing appraisal of David Seymour in the Herald yesterday makes him worth getting a subscription just for him…

David Seymour and James Baldwin: The fire this time – Simon Wilson

Act Party leader David Seymour was guest of honour at a party held by his party recently, to celebrate his becoming Deputy Prime Minister.

In his speech, Seymour quoted the American founding father and Boston Tea Party revolutionary Samuel Adams: “It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

Powerful words. Keep ’em angry and active. Keep ’em thinking their goal is noble: freedom! Flatter them with high-blown speech. And that “brushfires”: it speaks of insurrection without declaring it, of burning everything down while plausibly being able to deny you want to do any such thing. It lights a spark.

Seymour is often seen as the house intellectual of the hard right in this country, the guy who articulates, endlessly, the supposed grand principles of his cause: democracy, equality, freedom.

…Seymour responded to him losing by attacking media coverage in NZ that only focused on him losing…

It’s not enough just to say, “We’re good people, look at our values, so you should just let things be”. That’s what Baldwin spent his life attacking, it’s what Buckley tried to defend, it’s what Te Pāti Māori want to overcome and it’s what Seymour defends today.

Buckley and Seymour share something else. Although Baldwin didn’t say anything about his opponent, Buckley responded to him with an angry ad hominem attack.

Seymour does this to an almost feverish extent. Last month he went after Dame Anne Salmond and others who have criticised his Regulatory Standards Bill. He says his critics suffer from “Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome” and has called them “victims of the day”, before complaining they can’t take a joke.

This is strange because usually Seymour casts himself as the victim. He says his critics don’t understand what he’s trying to do. He goes to Waitangi and the pōwhiri gets up in his face. He goes to Parliament and the terrifying Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke does the same thing.

He’s the most powerful person almost every place he goes, but that doesn’t stop him crying foul.

…the victimisation game ACT play whenever they get some of what they dish out speaks of a thin skinned egotism…

The shortcomings of his Regulatory Standards Bill were powerfully explained by Sasha Borissenko in the Herald this week. Supporting documents have been heavily redacted, contradictory, confusing or missing altogether. Public scrutiny has been limited and the bill was opposed by Seymour’s own Ministry for Regulation. It disregards the founding document of the nation.

…they have weaponised free speech into a cudgel, not a principle to defend…

Time slashed for public to have say on controversial Regulatory Standards Bill

The public will get just 30 hours to voice their views on the Regulatory Standards Bill, a fraction of the time given to other major legislations.

Mungo no understand.

The Right Wing are Free Speech Champions, why would they allow public submissions on law be slashed and not stand up for Citizens rights to have a say on law?

It’s almost as if the right wing free speech champions are political hypocrites who only stand for free speech when it benefits corporations, Israeli violence and bigotry.

What a shocking surprise!

The reason the Free Speech Party of ACT wants to strangle the Regulatory Standards Bill is because everyone hates the concept…

Official Documents Reveal Widespread Opposition To Seymour’s Regulatory Standards Bill – Greenpeace

Documents released to Greenpeace Aotearoa under the Official Information Act reveal that both the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and Treasury have joined the growing list of bodies issuing strong warnings against the Regulatory Standards Bill.

In a scathing assessment dated 20 March, the Ministry for the Environment described the Bill as “deeply problematic” and warned that it “conflicts with the fundamental principles of the environmental management system” and “poses risks to the health, safety, economic, social, and environmental interests of current and future New Zealanders.”

Greenpeace is calling on the Prime Minister to withdraw his support for the Bill.

“This damning official advice confirms what Greenpeace have been warning all along: this Bill represents an unprecedented threat to our environment and to the Government’s ability to respond to the climate crisis,” said Greenpeace spokesperson Gen Toop.

The Treasury, in a separate briefing dated 28 March 2025, warned the Bill “could impose costs on agencies exceeding the potential economic and societal benefit” and “may also have a chilling effect on the development and retention of beneficial regulation.”

“What we’re seeing here is overwhelming opposition to the Bill from the very institutions tasked with upholding good lawmaking, public safety, and environmental stewardship. That’s because the real intent behind David Seymour’s Regulatory Standards bill is to tie the hands of future Governments and impose the ACT party’s far-right neoliberal principles on our democracy.”

“This is a dangerous, undemocratic piece of legislation being pushed through via a backroom coalition deal,” said Toop. “It’s time for the Prime Minister to show some leadership and scrap it.”

MfE and Treasury were both particularly critical of the Bill’s proposed expectation that the government compensate corporations for regulations that affect their property. MfE said it risks “reversing the ‘polluter pays’ principle”, and Treasury stated it “goes further than conventional policy in this area” warning it could lead to delays and increased costs on infrastructure projects.

“It’s a simple principle: polluters should pay – not be paid by the public,” said Toop. “But this Bill would flip that on its head, allowing corporations to expect taxpayer compensation for basic environmental and human health protections,” says Toop.

“It is the role of the Government to govern for the collective well-being of the people it serves, and that includes protecting the environment and the climate on which we all depend. This Bill upends that and tries to make our Government serve corporate interests instead.”

Treasury and MfE are the latest to join a growing list of governmental agencies issuing warnings over the bill. The Ministry of Justice has warned it’s not in line with the NZ Bill of Rights Act and “fails to recognise the constitutional significance of the Treaty of Waitangi.”

While Parliament’s legislative watchdog has cautioned that the Bill could lead to “significant unintended consequences,”Whaikaha, the Ministry of Disabled People, hasraised concerns that it may breach international obligations and exclude disabled people from decision-making, and the Waitangi Tribunal called for an immediate haltto the bill after its urgent inquiry.

…allowing Corporations to vet NZ Legislation so they can interpret a narrow Libertarian perspective that sees property rights over human rights is a recipe for privilege above all.

Simon Wilson’s laser like critique of the bigotry behind the facade of political principle is a reminder of the power of a brilliant columnist.

 

Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.