David Seymour defends role in Oxford Union 'stolen land' debate
Newly minted Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour says his self-funded trip to participate in the Oxford Union is worth doing despite his growing workload back home, because the world can learn from New Zealand's experience.
Seymour has followed in the footsteps of some of the world's most prominent people, speaking at an Oxford Union event in England.
Oxford Union claims to be the "most prestigious debating society in the world'', on its website.
Established in 1823 with a commitment to freedom of speech and expression, the union's members largely remain University of Oxford students.
The Deputy Prime Minister has followed in the footsteps of some of the world's most prominent people, speaking at an Oxford Union event in England. (Source: 1News)
ADVERTISEMENT
Seymour was opposing the moot "This House Believes No One Can Be Illegal on Stolen Land" alongside United States immigration reform advocates RJ Hauman and Art Arthur.
The proposing side are historian Aviva Chomsky, Palestinian peace activist Nivine Sandouka and Australian Senator and Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens Mehreen Faruqi. Both sides will also include a student speaker.
"I believe we're one of the most successful societies that there are in a world that is very troubled in many ways," Seymour told 1News.
"A country like New Zealand that does practise the rule of law, that has sought through treaty settlements to right the wrongs of the past, that does welcome migrants."
Seymour said he thought the invite was a prank until he saw that Labour MP Willie Jackson had participated in a debate at the union last year.
He is opposing the moot "This House Believes No One Can Be Illegal on Stolen Land" alongside United States immigration reform advocates. (Source: Breakfast)
On now being linked to the group of distinguished people that have spoken at Oxford Union events, Seymour said humour was his best chance for standing out.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Albert Einstein's been here, so I'm not the smartest.,They've had people like Elton John, so I'm not the most famous and I don't know if I'll be the funniest, but that's probably the best area to compete," he said.
Toitū Te Tiriti spokesperson critical of moot
Toitū Te Tiriti spokesperson Eru Kapa-Kingi has criticised Oxford Union's debate topic of "This House Believes No One Can Be Illegal on Stolen Land," saying discussing topics like this under the principle of freedom of expression is "ultimately dangerous".
Toitū Te Tiriti spokesperson Eru Kapa-Kingi.
He says this principle creates "opportunity for more embedded stereotypes which will damage not only current generations but also future generations of indigenous communities who are in the process right now of reclaiming and reviving their own identity, culture and political authority".
Kapa-Kingi helped lead the hīkoi to Parliament opposing the Treaty Principles Bill, which failed at the second reading in Parliament.
He's also been critical of Seymour participating in the debate, saying it's problematic.
ADVERTISEMENT
"He has neither the qualification nor the lived experience to talk either about illegal immigration or the colonisation of indigenous cultures, particularly through the theft of land…
"Also, given David Seymour's most recent track record in terms of the Treaty Principles Bill and most recently the Regulatory Standards Bill, direct attacks on indigenous rights, tangata whenua (Māori) rights in Aotearoa, this is a provocative move inviting him to partake in this debate concerning those exact rights.'
Kapa-Kingi said he questions the integrity and credibility of the debate, perceiving the event as a "deliberate attempt to incite what will inevitably be hateful rhetoric, damaging rhetoric to indigenous communities".
Parliament punishment, free money?, getting wicked again (Source: 1News)
Kapa-Kingi said Māori with formal qualifications and lived experience would be a better pick to take part and 'carry the kōrero with respect, honour and in a way that's genuinely productive and genuinely thought-provoking".
Seymour has rejected the comments, saying everyone is allowed to share their perspective on an issue.
"I think that they need to start respecting each person's dignity and right to have views and share them, instead of trying to say that some people are less able to express a view which seems to be exactly what they believe.'
ADVERTISEMENT
Seymour claimed the protest group divides society "into victims and villains and we should each know our place".
"Well actually I think that we all get a time on earth and should be able to make the most of it, share the ideas that are important for us, throw away the ones that we don't like."
A long history of distinguished guests
As well as debates, the Union has a long history of hearing from distinguished people from around the world. This has included Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa and Malcolm X. Controversial speakers have also been invited over the years, sparking dramatic protests.
New Zealand's most famous Oxford Union debate moment came in 1985 when former Prime Minister David Lange responded to a student speaker that he would answer his question, "if you hold your breath just for a moment... I can smell the uranium on it as you lean towards me!"
David Lange at the Oxford Union event in 1985. (Source: TVNZ)
Lange won the debate, arguing that "nuclear weapons are morally indefensible" and drawing international attention to New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Will Invercargill Join Councils Taking Ethical Stand On Illegal Israeli Settlements?
Press Release – Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa The proposal was brought by local residents and members of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa. If adopted, Invercargill would become the latest in a growing wave of local councils including Christchurch, Nelson, and Environment Canterbury aligning … Invercargill City Council is set to vote on Tuesday on a change to its procurement policy to exclude companies linked to illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land. The proposal was brought by local residents and members of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa. If adopted, Invercargill would become the latest in a growing wave of local councils – including Christchurch, Nelson, and Environment Canterbury – aligning spending in this way. 'This is about responsible stewardship' said the group, 'making sure ratepayer money isn't used in ways that contradict New Zealand's foreign policy or international law.' A staff report released ahead of the vote supports adopting the change into the Council's Supplier Code of Conduct. It confirms the move aligns with UN Security Council Resolution 2334 — co-sponsored by New Zealand in 2016 under a National government — which called the settlements a 'flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle' to peace. 'Western governments have failed for decades to hold Israel to account,' said the group. 'Last year the International Court of Justice ruled Israel's 57 year long occupation breaches international law on apartheid and racial segregation. No council wants to fund companies complicit in war crimes — this is the moment to act.' The staff report noted that the proposal, which targets a narrow list of companies named by the UN as involved in illegal settlements, would add weight to government rules which allow companies to be excluded on human rights grounds. Councils, while not legally required, are encouraged by the Auditor-General to follow these to avoid stakeholder challenge. 'International law protects all of us — especially New Zealand as a small country,' the group added. 'When we let powerful countries violate the rules with impunity, we all become more vulnerable.' The initiative has drawn support from a wide range of national and local organisations, including trade unions, faith leaders, and businesses. The group will present the same proposal to Environment Southland the following day.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Will Invercargill Join Councils Taking Ethical Stand On Illegal Israeli Settlements?
Invercargill City Council is set to vote on Tuesday on a change to its procurement policy to exclude companies linked to illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land. The proposal was brought by local residents and members of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa. If adopted, Invercargill would become the latest in a growing wave of local councils – including Christchurch, Nelson, and Environment Canterbury – aligning spending in this way. 'This is about responsible stewardship' said the group, 'making sure ratepayer money isn't used in ways that contradict New Zealand's foreign policy or international law.' A staff report released ahead of the vote supports adopting the change into the Council's Supplier Code of Conduct. It confirms the move aligns with UN Security Council Resolution 2334 — co-sponsored by New Zealand in 2016 under a National government — which called the settlements a 'flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle' to peace. 'Western governments have failed for decades to hold Israel to account,' said the group. 'Last year the International Court of Justice ruled Israel's 57 year long occupation breaches international law on apartheid and racial segregation. No council wants to fund companies complicit in war crimes — this is the moment to act.' The staff report noted that the proposal, which targets a narrow list of companies named by the UN as involved in illegal settlements, would add weight to government rules which allow companies to be excluded on human rights grounds. Councils, while not legally required, are encouraged by the Auditor-General to follow these to avoid stakeholder challenge. 'International law protects all of us — especially New Zealand as a small country,' the group added. 'When we let powerful countries violate the rules with impunity, we all become more vulnerable.' The initiative has drawn support from a wide range of national and local organisations, including trade unions, faith leaders, and businesses. The group will present the same proposal to Environment Southland the following day.
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
The efficacy of a submission is dubious in this Bill's case
David Seymour. File photo: Gregor Richardson We can now see on the Ministry of Regulation website a "summary of submissions" as a result of a consultation on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill. The summary is dated May 2025, so we cannot be sure as to when it was published. We do know that the Bill itself was given its first reading on May 19 and is now before the select committee. The minister in charge of the Bill would have us believe that there is both widespread support for a grave need to legislate a prescriptive standard for our laws and regulations to comply with, and also that his, or the Act New Zealand party's, formula for such legislation is that which the public was asked to make a submission on, in December 2024. On closer examination, the minister's pronouncements would appear to be somewhat of a stretch, or perhaps he is not familiar with the summary of the submissions made on the proposal and now published by his own ministry. The executive summary contained in the document records the receipt of "approximately 23,000 submissions" (1) and that "analysis showed that 20,108 submissions (around 88%) opposed the Bill, 76 submissions (0.33%) supported or partially supported it, and the remaining 2637 submissions (about 12%) did not have a clear position". It does not take a genius to conclude that by a huge majority of those that responded to the consultation, this Bill is not wanted nor seen as necessary. Less than a third of 1% of those citizens who knew or cared enough about this important issue expressed support for it. A summary of reasons for opposing the proposed Bill included that it would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking"; "undermine future Parliaments and democracy"; "lack recognition and provision for the Treaty of Waitangi"; "prioritise individual property rights over the collective"; and "lead to worse social, environmental and economic outcomes". Notwithstanding this overwhelming expression of opposition to the proposed Bill, we find it introduced to the House with none of these matters having been addressed, the minister in charge (David Seymour) stating with confidence that it will be passed in the current session of Parliament and come into effect on January 1, 2026. That the minister, with the support of his coalition partners, can bring this Bill into law is not questioned. The question is whether it is in the interest of his major coalition partner to continue to support this Bill without, at least, addressing the issues that have been raised by an overwhelming majority of submissions in its consultation stage. These will no doubt be mirrored in the submissions to the select committee, charged with considering the Bill, as was the case with the Treaty Principles Bill. The potential negative effects of this Bill arguably outweigh those of the Treaty Principles Bill, which both National and New Zealand First did not support past the first reading. Historically, two National party-led governments have rejected legislation in the same form as now presented for very sound constitutional and political reasons. These reasons remain as sound and as pressing as ever. Our prime minister will be treading a very narrow path should he choose to overlook the historical rejections of this Bill by earlier National Party-led governments and enact legislation contrived and promoted by the founders of Act, which blatantly tips the balance in favour of the protection and enhancement of property rights over those of good governance and preservation of the common good. Such a step, in combination with the negative response to the recent unseemly passage of the Fair Pay Amendment Act 2025 and the excessive response by the coalition parties to the performance of Ka Mate in the House, could see dark clouds gather over the prospects of this coalition retaining the Treasury benches come November 2026. • Noel O'Malley is a Balclutha lawyer. He is a past president of the Otago District Law Society.
