Decoding Seymour’s presentation on the Libertarian [Treaty] Principles Bill

With oral submissions to the select committee on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill (Treaty Principles Bill) now concluded, it is timely to revisit the first presentation. David Seymour’s appearance before the select committee was revealing—not because he said anything that was particularly new, but because so few seem to grasp the broader implications of the bill beyond te Tiriti, or the deeper ideological framework underpinning his arguments.

While his rhetoric focused on equality, freedom, and emancipation, the meanings he gives these terms are more elusive. My view may be controversial, but I would have liked Seymour to have much more time before the select committee—time for them to properly interrogate his assertions and the bill’s wider effects. As it stands, the select committee did not challenge him on what I consider to be some of the most critical questions: What would the bill actually do? What are the meanings and consequences of the proposed principles? If passed, how would it affect the interpretation of nearly all our laws?

Replacing Treaty Principles with Libertarian Rights

I hold that the Treaty Principles Bill is not just an attack on te Tiriti; it is also an attempt to reshape New Zealand’s legal foundations through ACT’s particular version of libertarianism, rooted in property rights, individualism, and market primacy. It signals a shift away from legal recognition of collective identity or historic injustice, narrowing the law to market-based individual rights. The question is: Did the select committee understand what Seymour was actually saying? And just as critically, do we?

Seymour has successfully framed the Treaty Principles Bill as being about the Treaty of Waitangi. Much has been said about how the bill would redefine the Treaty out of having any meaningful legal effect. I agree with that analysis, and have made my own contributions to that discussion here, here and here.

However, what has been largely overlooked is an equally crucial aspect of the bill—what it seeks to replace te Tiriti with. While the bill is framed as targeting Treaty principles, its underlying logic has far wider implications for New Zealand’s legal system. If passed, it would not simply neutralise Treaty principles—it could introduce a rights framework that undermines all forms of group recognition and collective protection in law.

Seymour told the committee that he would explain “the why, the motivation for bringing it here and what I hope that it will achieve.” While his chosen focus and responses may have seemed off-topic to some, he was in fact being quite upfront. It is for this reason it seems a missed opportunity to have spent the required time to understand the views of the bill’s architect, misguided as they are.

Behind the smokescreen of Treaty rhetoric, Seymour has increasingly revealed the bill’s deeper purpose—replacing te Tiriti and its principles in legal interpretation with a framework of libertarian rights. Its provisions reflect a consistent ideological stance—one that reorients the legal system towards ACT’s ideological commitments to property, market primacy, and individualism.

David Seymour Photo by U.S. Embassy Wellington, public domain via Wikimedia Commons. Margaret Thatcher Photo by J. Eggert, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0).

To give Seymour some credit, he has not hidden this effect entirely. He has laid out his beliefs in terms that reflect a coherent ideological vision—one that may not be fully grasped by the public or the committee, but which has deep implications for our legal and constitutional frameworks. However, we have failed to pick up on it for two reasons.

First, we have been drawn into the framing that this bill is solely about the Treaty, and therefore perceive it as an attack only on Māori, rather than a restructuring of society as a whole.

Second, he speaks in a language that is unfamiliar to the majority of New Zealanders—the language of libertarianism. In New Zealand, we don’t have a particularly strong grasp of political ideologies, to the point that both media and academics seem largely oblivious to this one, even as it is being presented with increasing boldness.

Understanding Libertarian Language

Part of my self-employed work is as a professional translator and interpreter, usually between te reo Māori and English, and occasionally Swedish. In my cross-cultural coaching and consulting, I also find myself translating between different worldviews, even when all participants are speaking English.

In this analysis I aim to translate libertarianism into plain English, recognising that there is power in both deepened understanding and in calling things by their true name. Let’s take a closer look at some of Seymour’s statements to the select committee.

Seymour’s Libertarian Lens

Seymour:

“I want to be clear that my beliefs behind this bill and my belief in freedom under the law is a long-held and sincere belief. What we've witnessed in recent decades, as the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have sought to define the principles of the treaty, is incompatible with freedom under the law, with a free society where each of us have equal rights.”

Interpretation:

To interpret through a libertarian lens, what I think he is really saying is: I have long held libertarian beliefs and I am deeply committed to them. I want to make it very clear that my libertarian ideals are behind this bill. Under libertarianism, it is inadmissible that we recognise groups of people, or even society as a whole. All that exists is individuals who must be treated in a homogenous way under the law (of the free market). The way the courts and Waitangi Tribunal have defined the principles of the Treaty, to recognise the ongoing rights of the Indigenous people – the hapū and rangatira who signed te Tiriti – is incompatible with my ideological beliefs. The market must not be constrained by government (including the courts/Tribunal) because the market itself is the ultimate arbiter of justice and deserved outcomes. And I want New Zealand to be libertarian.

Libertarianism, particularly in its purist forms, disallows group-based legal distinctions. The Bill reflects that logic, treating the recognition of collective identity or historical disadvantage as illegitimate under the law.

The Misuse of ‘Racism’

Seymour:

“Dividing people into racial groups is the definition of racism. Just as sexism is to judge a person first by their sex and then by their other characteristics. Their belief that roles in society should be preserved, with race as the primary qualifier, is the definition of racism, something we abhor, should give nothing to, and should all do everything in our power to expunge from our society.”

Response:

Seymour can’t have looked at a dictionary recently. This is not the definition of racism. Or sexism for that matter.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines racism as:

1) A belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

2) The systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another.

Racism is therefore not the recognition of ethnicity or Indigeneity – it is the belief that being of a particular ethnicity makes one superior or it can be the oppression of an ethnic group to the advantage of another. Both of these are arguably inherent aspects of the Treaty Principles Bill.

The likely reason Seymour wants to eliminate differential treatment by ethnicity (or any other characteristic) is to let the free market rip and decide winners and losers—a market he imagines to be neutral, but which in reality is propped up by corporate welfare, entrenched racism, and environmental degradation.

The False Dichotomy of Individual vs. Collective Identity

Seymour:

“When you see people as a member of a group first and an individual second, you miss interesting things about them. ”

Response:

There is a big leap of logic here that seeing someone as a member of a group means you see the group first and the individual second. It is entirely possible, and common, to identify as part of a group, or be identified as part of a group, but for that to be secondary to being human.

My observation and experience is that te ao Māori first and foremost recognises whakapapa – the kinship of people to the natural world and of all of us to each other. And within that, the tighter bonds of kinship within iwi, hapū and whānau groups are acknowledged.

My mind turns to the well known whakataukī: He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tāngata, he tāngata, he tāngata. (What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people.)

This whakataukī exemplifies the uniting, connecting and inclusive Māori worldview.

The Libertarian Fear Tactic: From Upholding an Agreement to Totalitarianism

Seymour:

“You also open the door to dehumanising oppression. It reminds me of Plato's chilling Republic, where people are divided into classes, forced to act in certain ways in order to preserve the totalitarian state. Now, we're certainly nowhere near that, but it reminds us of the direction in which you travel once you go down this partnership between races conception of our founding document.”

Response:

David Seymour’s opposition to Treaty-based rights follows a classic libertarian slippery-slope argument: that any differentiation of groups under the law leads ultimately to totalitarianism.

He invokes Plato’s Republic, warning that viewing our constitutional foundation as a “partnership between races” would lead to oppression and the dangerous path to authoritarianism. He appears a little awkward as he says this, perhaps aware of how this ideological belief seems profoundly disconnected from the reality of Aotearoa New Zealand.

The framing of the Treaty as a partnership between races is false – it is an agreement between the Crown and hapū and rangatira.

Seymour’s warning of dehumanising oppression reflects the belief of some key libertarian and neoliberal thinkers, such as Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, that state recognition of collective rights and interests—whether for class, ethnicity, or historical injustices—erodes individual freedoms.

Hayek was primarily concerned with economic regulation, fearing central planning and state control. Seymour extends this logic to Treaty rights, treating them as if they were a state-imposed intervention rather than a constitutional agreement. He frames te Tiriti protections as an unjustified state overreach, ignoring the fact that they exist to limit state power over Māori land, resources, and governance – something that in theory his ideology would support if applied to everyone. Oh. The Treaty Principles Bill does apply to everyone.

By erasing the realities of the Treaty, Seymour uses the language of “freedom” to argue for the removal of Treaty protections, portraying them as unjustified state control (i.e. interfering with the market) rather than a foundational agreement which safeguards the Indigenous people against state control.

The Myth of Equal Opportunity

Seymour:

“First of all, no, freedom under the law doesn't guarantee wealth, doesn't guarantee material equality. But what it does just so happen to do across a range of times, cultures and places is create the best opportunities in human history for disadvantaged people to achieve prosperity.”

Interpretation:

If Seymour had stated this in plain English, I think he would have said: Each person will have to fend for themselves. If they inherit wealth or have the fortunate circumstances to do well, good for them. Anyone who puts in the hard yards could prosper. If you don’t make the most of the opportunities there for us all, it’s your own fault. Good luck, in the future of the free market.

The Libertarian Reframing of Privilege

Seymour:

“Once you have an idea that relates to emancipating people and freeing them from systems that oppress them by giving some privilege to one group at the expense of another, which the partnership principle most certainly does, then eventually the tide for human freedom, the tide that people will want to join because they see that each of us are born with time on earth to make the most of our talents so we can be as happy and flourish as much as possible in that time that is ours and ours alone.”

Response:

It is important here to understand what is meant by privilege. The assertion that Māori have privilege certainly doesn’t stack up in the conventional way of understanding this term. Māori are disadvantaged in the overwhelming majority of statistics, and the intergenerational impacts of colonisation, land-loss and displacement can hardly be considered an advantage.

However, as with many terms, libertarianism distorts and inverts the meaning. Privilege to libertarians, means any targeted right, interest or protection given to anyone, that does not apply universally to everyone—regardless of how robust the justification is. This could include affirmative action for women and minorities, accommodations for disabilities, and union protections for employees against large employers.

But what they ignore is that these rights exist to correct historical, systemic, or structural disadvantages—not to give certain groups an unfair advantage. Libertarianism views laws designed to ensure fairness as special treatment, while assuming that the default system is already neutral.

Redefining Rights

Seymour:

“What this bill does, however, is make it clear that we are committed to continuing to honouring the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had in 1840. What we'd like to do is ensure that that happens within a democratic framework where each New Zealander has the same rights to make claims to their property, to their language, to their culture. And so we're committed to protecting Māori rights, but within a framework of equality before the law for all.”

Interpretation:

As consistent with ACT’s stated positions, we believe in unhindered property rights for everyone, and individual rights to spend your own resources on the continuation of your language and culture. No special effort should be made to redress the impact of colonisation on the Māori language or culture. The collective tino rangatiratanga rights of hapū and iwi Māori should be redefined to be solely property rights and individual sovereignty, and these rights should be extended to everyone.

This simultaneously reduces the rights of hapū and iwi Māori, and entrenches unhindered property rights and individualism – likely to further accelerate the explosion of wealth and property inequality. It transforms the Treaty of Waitangi into a vehicle for libertarianism.

A Non-Answer to a Crucial Question

I quote here an illuminating exchange that occurred at the select committee, where Seymour’s use of libertarian language reveals his underpinning values and worldview—despite his repeated failure to fully engage with the questions posed.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer asked Seymour: “My question is, if the Treaty Principles Bill, or the Treaty principles were removed from legislation, how would Māori rights and interests be protected in areas like health, like education and resource management?”

Seymour: “Well, they would have exactly the same rights as any other person in this country.”

Interpretation:

They would not be protected. This is a key tenet of libertarian thought, which insists that all individuals should be treated the same under the law, regardless of historical context or systemic inequalities.

We can already see with the current government the directions that is likely to lead. Those with wealth are able to drive the policy to enrich themselves, those without money suffer.

Seymour goes on to talk about charter schools, a typical libertarian approach to privatising education.

Seymour: “What's important is that in order to help all people, we need to do much, much better in the housing market, in the way we provide health care, in the way that we provide education. That can be achieved with a lot more devolution. It doesn’t require us to separate the country into a partnership between two races.”

Interpretation:

Interpreted through this framework, strongly reducing the provision of public services by government, such as through privatisation, would be beneficial to everyone. Māori, along with everyone else, would have the opportunity to participate in privatised systems.

Ngarewa-Packer: “If I can just supplement and clarify. My question was actually specifically about Māori rights and interests and how they would be protected. I guess if I could follow up on that, is then how would this bill improve outcomes for Māori communities who already face significant disparities. And how will this bill ensure Māori are not further marginalised?”

Seymour: “Well, first of all, how would it improve the outcomes for Māori? I think having a free society where everyone's equal before the law, where you can get a resource consent to build a home for someone or start a business with less of the rigmarole that many people complain about right now because they've effectively got two consultation obligations, that is prosperity, that is good for all people.”

Interpretation:

In a libertarian society no groups are acknowledged, there are no government limitations on the use of property and there is minimal regulation. According to me, this leads to wealth and trickle down effects that my ideology claims are good for all individuals.

Ngarewa-Packer: “I specifically asked for Māori communities, Minister.”

Seymour: “Well, I think the difficulty we might be having here is that I believe that Māori communities, Māori are people. We are people. We are New Zealanders.”

Interpretation:

There are only individuals, no groups. This is reminiscent of the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher, stating, “There is no society: there are individual men and women, and there are families.”

Ngarewa-Packer: “And we have our own communities.”

Seymour: “Yes, a lot of people have their own community, but in a society with greater prosperity, greater growth, where it's easier to own a home, where we have more devolution and flexibility of social services, it actually benefits everybody. So we don't need to divide ourselves by race in order to achieve...”

Interpretation:

When we limit the role of government, deregulate, privatise and entrench individualism—as the Treaty Principles Bill proposes—libertarian ideology asserts that benefits all individuals, because the market is seen as the ideal allocator of services.

Ngarewa-Packer: “So the Minister doesn't acknowledge Māori communities.”

Committee Chair: “Sorry, we'll end up on that point.”

The Denial of Collective Identity

If David had answered Debbie’s question, I suspect the Minister could have stated that he does not acknowledge Māori communities. He does not acknowledge any groupings. He does not believe that they truly exist. He only recognises individuals. If passed, the government’s Treaty Principles Bill would require that going forward, the government and courts also only recognise individuals and no specific groups (remember this applies to all groups, not solely Māori).

In practice, libertarians interpret equality before the law as a prohibition on state recognition of group rights or differential treatment – even where such measures are designed to remedy historical injustices or are otherwise well justified. Notably, the Minister appeared to confirm throughout his presentation to the select committee that the Treaty Principles Bill would delegitimise the recognition of group rights and advance a libertarian model of the state.

Seymour’s responses suggest more than a passing alignment with libertarian thinking—they reflect a consistent worldview in which individual rights, as defined by market logic, override historical, collective, or Treaty-based obligations. Remember that the Treaty principles are used by the courts to interpret nearly all our laws – even when not explicitly mentioned.¹

This is a libertarian sleight of hand—using “equality before the law” as a rhetorical weapon to dismantle existing legal obligations. Hayek’s warnings about totalitarianism and tyranny may have been aimed at the dangers of state overreach, but in Seymour’s hands, they become an excuse for the state to walk away from its Treaty commitments altogether.

Leveraging Racism to Advance Libertarianism

We as a nation are calling foul to racism – our loud (and necessary) voices are responding to and condemning the removal of Indigenous rights. However, we are also inadvertently upholding and entrenching the wave of misleading framing Seymour has surfed – that the Treaty Principles Bill is only about the Treaty and primarily affects Māori.

The so-called ‘debate’ is allowing the ACT Party to leverage racism as a tool to advance libertarianism. Most New Zealanders have yet to realise how the proposed principles would affect them—not just Māori, but also women, disabled communities, workers, minorities, and any marginalised or disadvantaged group.

Speaking Different Languages: The Libertarian Misdirection Strategy

Libertarianism is making inroads into New Zealand through multiple avenues. One of the most powerful tools we have to resist this corrosive ideology is the ability to recognise its language and thinking. Only then can we challenge it directly, rather than being drawn into debates on its terms—where its assumptions, objectives, and consequences remain unexamined.

Understanding what we’re up against won’t win the battle on its own—but naming the ideology and exposing its impact is essential. The harm it is causing to our society is real, despite the government’s claims to the contrary. If we fail to recognise the terms in which these ideas are framed, we risk being outmanoeuvred by them.

David and Debbie are talking past each other—neither is truly engaging with the other’s intended meaning. They are locked in parallel monologues: one unintentionally, the other, more likely, by design.

Like many of us, Debbie is either unaware of, or not addressing directly, the common slogans and foundational philosophies of libertarianism. David, meanwhile, is operating on an entirely different plane of meaning, refusing to step down from it or even acknowledge that he is speaking from a distinct paradigm. This tactic has been evident in his interviews on the Treaty Principles Bill for over a year, and it has served him well.

You don’t need to be an interpreter to see that this exchange is set up to fail. For meaningful discussion to take place, words must have shared definitions—or at the very least, those using them must be explicit about their intended meaning.

Conclusion

That this mismatch persists even at the select committee stage is deeply concerning. The debate rests on conflicting assumptions, yet there is little time to unpack underlying premises or make any real attempt to bridge the ideological divide.

What is at stake here is much more than the Treaty. The Treaty Principles Bill, as revealed through Seymour’s own testimony, is not simply a redefinition of te Tiriti’s legal impacts—it is an ideological Trojan horse. While presented as a push for equal rights, the Bill conceals a sweeping libertarian agenda aimed at removing collective rights from the law and replacing them with a narrow framework of individual entitlement rooted in market logic.

Seymour’s testimony reveals a consistent worldview—one that reduces te Tiriti to property rights, rejects any recognition of systemic injustice, and treats legal protections for communities as unwarranted interference. His language of neutrality and fairness may sound reasonable. But when translated through the lens of ACT’s ideology, it becomes clear that the Bill is designed to erase the recognition of structural disadvantage and groups altogether.

His repeated insistence that “we are all individuals” may sound innocuous to some, but it is the rhetorical foundation for a politics that denies the existence of systemic injustice, group or cultural identity, and intergenerational harm.

By flattening all difference into a false notion of sameness, the bill proposes a dangerous shift in New Zealand’s legal and moral foundations. Under the guise of neutrality, it denies the legitimacy of the relationships and obligations that underpin our constitutional order, offering no meaningful protection for Indigenous rights—or for any group disproportionately affected by inequality. It removes the very tools our legal system has used to redress those imbalances.

Worse still, the broader ideological project has gone largely unchallenged. Seymour’s framing has been accepted on its own terms by many in the media and political class, with too few recognising the deeper shift he is trying to engineer. While public concern has rightly focused on the Bill’s effect on Māori, its implications extend much further.

Although National has said the Bill will not pass this term, ACT is likely to return to it—again and again. If passed, it could accelerate the erosion of collective protections for workers, disabled communities, ethnic minorities, women, and anyone whose wellbeing depends on law recognising the realities of disadvantage. It signals the retreat of the state from its obligations, leaving us with little more than the market—and its built-in injustices.

We cannot afford to underestimate the scale or ambition of this project. Nor should we be seduced by familiar language that conceals structural harm. Now is the time to sharpen our understanding, name the forces at work, and resist this attempt to rewrite New Zealand’s legal and moral foundations.

If Seymour’s appearance before the select committee revealed anything, it is that libertarianism is no longer hiding in plain sight—it is stepping confidently into the heart of our lawmaking process. Whether or not this is recognised by the Bill’s supporters, it marks a profound shift in New Zealand’s direction. Our task now is to ensure we do not sleepwalk into its embrace.

Or you can buy me a coffee to support my work! Your support, if you’re able, is greatly appreciated.

1. Hille, K., Jones, C., & Ward, D. (2023). Treaty law: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in law and practice. Wellington: Thomson Reuters.