June 13, 2025

#opinion Claudette Hauiti reflects on David Seymour’s views on race.

Claudette Hauiti Posted On June 13, 2025

When David Seymour, leader of the ACT Party, addresses Māori issues, his kōrero is unmistakably provocative. For some of the 8.64% of those who voted for him in 2023, his statements are seen as reasoned critiques of public policy. But to others, particularly hāpori Māori and Tāngata Tiriti allies, they represent something more troubling: an ongoing campaign that seeks to extinguish the place of Tāngata Whenua in Aotearoa and fuels racial division.

Seymour has repeatedly denied accusations of racism. In fact, he has turned the charge back on his critics. “People should oppose racism all the time, not just when it’s politically convenient,” he said in a 2023 ACT press release. But for critics, Seymour’s consistent framing of Māori as legally “privileged” and his dismissal of co-governance and Treaty partnership as “revisionist” history amount to more than just political disagreement. For some critics, his overuse of ‘privileged-Māori’ perpetuates the illusory truth effect, suggesting that simply hearing or reading something multiple times can make it seem more plausible and therefore more likely to be true. Others call it just plain old dog whistling. And just last week, following the Budget2025 announcement, Seymour denounced targeted Māori funding as racist, stating, “there’s funding for New Zealanders.” He followed up by questioning whether we should ignore the 0.1% of human DNA that differs among individuals. He also quipped that the pātai on targeted funding was itself racist.

Seymour’s long-standing position is that contemporary interpretations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi are flawed and dangerous. “We don’t regard the Treaty as a partnership,” he told RNZ Midday Report 2024. “That’s a misinterpretation that has grown out of the land’s decision nearly 40 years ago now.” This view is central to ACT’s now-defunct Treaty Principles Bill, which sought to rewrite how Te Tiriti is interpreted in law. Seymour’s argument is that the Treaty guarantees individual rights, not collective rights for Māori.

He elaborated further in Parliament in March 2023during the Education and Training Amendment Bill: “For millennia, people have been signing agreements and treaties to bring people together, until this recent revisionist interpretation of the Treaty-that, actually, you should have a different set of political rights in New Zealand if you happen to be Māori but you have a different set of rights if you are non-Māori.” A dog whistle; ‘Māori aspirations as threats to national unity’?

In contrast, the Regulatory Standards Bill may cloak itself in procedural neutrality, but its prioritisation of individual property rights over collective responsibilities echoes a Eurocentric legal framework. Such a framework does not recognise the relational, whānau- and hapū-based values underpinning Māori social and political organisation. This is the more insidious threat masquerading as good governance while reinforcing structural inequity. In both cases, Māori are not simply excluded from the process; the very foundations of tino rangatiratanga are destabilised.

Seymour has also repeatedly condemned co-governance arrangements-where Māori and the Crown share decision-making in areas such as water management or health-as racially divisive. In 2023, he drew harsh criticism for likening co-governance to “ethnostate” politics.

“Ethnostate is a state where your citizenship or your rights are connected with your whakapapa, your ancestry, and we have a government that is formalising that into law,” he told multiple media outlets, including Te Ao with Moana, NewstalkZB, and NZHerald. That kind of comparison has been labeled inflammatory, with Māori commentators and legal scholars warning it echoes white nationalist talking points.

ACT’s opposition to Māori-specific initiatives extends to social policy as well. Seymour questioned the prioritisation of Māori in COVID-19 vaccination rollouts, describing it as paternalistic and unnecessary. However, the Ministry of Health and Māori health experts pointed out that Māori had higher rates of pre-existing conditions and lower access to healthcare, facts that Seymour appeared to dismiss.

Tensions rose further this year when Seymour attacked Te Pāti Māori, calling them “race fanatics” and “racial supremacists.”

“People who believe that before you can talk about anything else you have to talk about your ethnic background,” he said.

The comments were made after Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi criticised National MP Karen Chhour for supporting ACT’s now defunct Treaty Principles Bill. Seymour’s attempt to defend Chhour by turning fire on Te Pāti Māori widened the rift. Many Rangatira said it confirmed a pattern: Seymour is more willing to weaponise ethnicity than to engage with it meaningfully.

In 2014, former ACT Party Leader Jamie Whyte said in a speech to ACT’s Waikato Conference. “There is no question that the law in New Zealand is not racially impartial,” he said. “Māori are legally privileged in New Zealand today, just as the Aristocracy were legally privileged in pre-revolutionary France.” “Many Māori are better off, better educated, and in better health than many Pākehā. And these are often the Māori who take most advantage of their legal privileges.”

Seymour has continued to portray Māori as a powerful, advantaged group exploiting a system designed to uplift them.

Seymour argues he is fighting for fairness-one law for all. But critics say his vision erases the foundational place of Māori in Aotearoa and risks inflaming racial tensions in the process. His opponents, including human rights advocates, iwi leaders, and academics, argue that ACT’s policies and Seymour’s words promote a dangerously narrow, monocultural interpretation of nationhood.

When Seymour stood on the Waitangi Treaty Grounds in February 2025, he attempted to offer a conciliatory vision: “One, to cherish the Māori language and culture. Two, to put right the wrongs of the past. Three, to give every child an equal chance to flourish.”

But again critics say his policies and his language-frequent references to “legal privilege,” “race-based laws,” and “ethnostates”-undercut such sentiments. Actions, they argue, speak louder than polished podium lines.

Nā te Etita: All quotes have been attributed to public statements made by David Seymour and verified through ACT Party communications, parliamentary records, and national media.