David Seymour: Is He Wasting Taxpayer Dollars?

"Best hair in the coalition." David Seymour.

David Seymour

The phrase "wasting taxpayer dollars" often sparks heated debate, particularly when applied to political figures and their policies. In New Zealand, David Seymour, as Minister for Regulation and leader of the ACT party, has positioned himself as a champion of reducing government bureaucracy and inefficiency. While his stated aim is to save money and free up businesses, some of his initiatives draw criticism, prompting the question: is he truly saving taxpayer dollars, or is the process itself a wasteful exercise? This blog will explore this assertion, particularly looking beyond the recent discussions around the hairdressing industry and considering the broader impact of his policy approaches.

The Hairdressing Debacle: A Snippet of the Issue?

The recent focus on changes to the hairdressing industry regulations, driven by David Seymour, has raised eyebrows. While the Minister argues that removing "absurd rules" about salon seat spacing, lighting brightness, and even allowing dogs will save the industry approximately $1 million per year in compliance costs, the initial cost of the review itself was around half a million dollars. Critics argue that these seemingly minor regulations were not a significant burden, and the administrative effort to review and revoke them could be seen as disproportionate to the actual savings. Furthermore, many hairdressers themselves have expressed that they were unaware of some of the rules being cut, leading some to question the real-world impact and necessity of this particular reform. Is this truly a lean, efficient government at work, or an exercise in symbolic "red tape cutting" that diverts resources?

Beyond the Barber's Chair: The Treaty Principles Bill

Perhaps a more significant example of potential taxpayer dollar "wasting" under David Seymour's purview is the controversial Treaty Principles Bill. This Bill, aimed at redefining the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, has been a cornerstone of ACT's agenda. However, even within the governing coalition, the National Party has indicated they will not support the Bill beyond its first reading and select committee stage.

The estimated cost of advancing this Bill, including drafting and the select committee process where submissions are received and reviewed, has been reported by Labour and unions to be over $4 million. This figure immediately raises questions. If the Bill is ultimately not destined to become law, is dedicating millions of dollars of taxpayer money to its progression a responsible use of public funds?

In a country facing significant economic pressures, where every dollar counts, spending millions on a legislative process that seems destined for a dead end appears, to many, as a wasteful allocation of resources. This is particularly poignant when juxtaposed with cuts to other critical social programs.

The School Lunch Contrast: A Matter of Priorities

As highlighted in a previous blog, the debate around school lunches provides a stark contrast in priorities. While the government, including David Seymour's influence, seeks to reduce spending on programs like Ka Ora, Ka Ako (the Healthy School Lunches program), potentially impacting over 150,000 children, millions are being spent on the Treaty Principles Bill.

My earlier blog clearly outlined the fundamental value of school lunches: "Having a lunch at school is fundamental for a child, it helps with concentration, in turn leading to better learning... Hunger distracts a child’s attention, and they struggle to learn." It also pointed out the economic benefits, such as supporting local businesses and reducing financial strain on families.

The argument is not necessarily that all government spending is good, or that all regulation is bad. Instead, it questions the allocation of resources. Is the "saving" of $1 million from hairdressing regulations, or the perceived ideological benefit of debating the Treaty Principles Bill, a greater priority than ensuring vulnerable children are fed and able to learn effectively? When a government claims to be tightening its belt, yet commits millions to initiatives with uncertain or questionable tangible benefits for the average citizen, the assertion of "wasting taxpayer dollars" gains considerable weight.

Conclusion

David Seymour's stated mission is to reduce unnecessary spending and regulation. While some of his initiatives may genuinely streamline processes, the examples of the hairdressing law changes and, more significantly, the progression of the Treaty Principles Bill, raise legitimate concerns about how taxpayer dollars are being prioritised and spent. When millions are allocated to a bill with little chance of passing, or to review regulations that many affected businesses weren't even aware of, while vital programs like school lunches face cuts, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue against the assertion that, in some instances, taxpayer dollars are indeed being wasted. The true measure of efficiency lies not just in cuts, but in wise and impactful investment for the betterment of all New Zealanders.

From a political perspective, the electorate Seymour represents, and the issues raised, are what got him elected and what he hopes, will keep him as their representative.