Dr Albert K. Barume was appointed as Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples in December 2024.

David Seymour’s letter to the UN Special Rapporteur for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K Barume, has managed to rile almost everyone, not least his coalition partner Winston Peters.

Barume, doing his job, had written to the New Zealand government asking for an explanation, after an outpouring of concern from Māori about a wide range of issues, including the controversial Regulatory Standards Bill.

Seymour’s response was as inflammatory as it was revealing, writes Tina Ngata.

Rather than engage with the substance of the UN’s concerns, David Seymour accused the Special Rapporteur of misunderstanding his legislation. He referred to himself as an “Indigenous New Zealander”, saying Barume had no place to speak on “behalf of me and my fellow Māori”.

He was employing a tactic we’ve seen domestically many times: invoking his ancestry to deflect criticism of his racist behaviour.

Regardless of any claim to whakapapa, it remains the case that David Seymour is leading a direct legislative assault on Māori, the likes of which has not been seen or experienced in generations. 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.

Of further concern is the aggressive tone, and his blatant contravention of a longstanding United Nations protocol of confidentiality in communications between UN rapporteurs and member state governments. The trampling of diplomatic decorum was embarrassing for all, and infuriating for one minister in particular — Seymour’s coalition partner, Winston Peters.

Seymour wrote his rebuke within his capacity as the Minister for Regulation, when the responsibility for responding to letters from the United Nations sits with Peters as the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Peters later explained that he was going about the process of speaking with other ministerial colleagues who were affected by the letter when he found out that Seymour had responded. After some undoubtedly tense discussions, it was agreed that Seymour’s letter would be retracted, and the formal response would come from Peters by the due date of August 11.

Christopher Luxon’s reaction to it all may prove even more consequential.

In a subsequent press briefing, where Seymour confirmed he would be withdrawing the letter, Luxon dug the hole even deeper by confirming that he agreed with Seymour’s sentiments, calling the letter from the Special Rapporteur a “load of bunkum” and a “waste of time”. He made those comments not only as himself, but also on behalf of his ministerial colleagues. Within hours, this was reported back to the United Nations Human Rights Council, which is currently meeting over the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Luxon’s comments directly undercut his own foreign minister, rendering Peters’ forthcoming process and response redundant, and leading to Peters, a seasoned international diplomat, delivering sharp barbs at both of his coalition partners, reminding them that “experience is important in this business”.

We’ve yet to hear how Luxon’s party members feel about his claims that they all consider United Nations human rights processes a “waste of time”.

His dismissive comments underscore the gradual erosion of New Zealand’s international standing. Our country has historically been viewed as a principled voice in global forums, reliably acting as a promoter of human rights and multilateralism. But that reputation is eroding under the current government, as a result of its treatment of Māori, its backtrack on climate change commitments, and its hostility to scrutiny.

Seymour’s response to Barume — accusing the UN of interfering in domestic politics without sufficient understanding — echoes the kind of rhetoric typically associated with authoritarian-leaning states, not liberal democracies.

Both Seymour’s and Luxon’s responses completely disregard the fact that commenting on the 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 belittling those mechanisms, we lose the right to hold other nations to human rights standards, and the end result is a lawless international order.

Māori, for our part, will continue to engage with the international community as we see fit.

Barume’s queries did not arise out of the blue. His assessment was sought by Māori, who have, since 1924, engaged in transnational forums as nations in our own right.

We have never, and will never, allow any single government ministry, or minister, Māori or not, to represent our collective interests in the United Nations.

Further, we have an inalienable right to international protection from colonial harm. That right is enshrined in the United Nations Charter for Human Rights, which David Seymour claims to champion.

An open letter from Māori to Barume has confirmed that his concerns about the Regulatory Standards Bill are indeed shared by a broad representation of Māori. It invites the Special Rapporteur and the United Nations Human Rights Council to continue their oversight.

The letter has gained over 10,000 signatories, including numerous iwi rūnanga, hapū, marae and organisations, and will be open until August. The message is clear: We will not sit by as passive recipients of colonial violence, and we will call out your behaviour, protect our Tiriti, and demand justice in accordance with the international protocols Aotearoa has signed up to.

In the weeks ahead, all eyes will be on whether this coalition can withstand the internal pressure of its own contradictions. What began as a volatile alliance of convenience is now buckling under the weight of competing egos, conflicting mandates, and a deepening public distrust.

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. That includes the promise to reject the legal standing of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and the prioritisation of a bill that flies in the face of the UN Human Rights Council recommendations.

The man is doing his job.

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 UN 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.

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.

Tina Ngata (Ngāti Porou) is a researcher and scholar, and the author of Kia Mau: Resisting Colonial Fictions. Her work involves advocacy for environmental, Indigenous and human rights. This includes local, national and international initiatives that highlight the role of settler colonialism in issues such as climate change and waste pollution, and which promote Indigenous justice as best practice for a globally sustainable future.

E-Tangata, 2025