In falling flat on his face in such spectacular and public fashion this week, David Seymour got exactly what he deserved.
He has only got himself to blame for that. In the wake of the massacres at Christchurch’s two mosques, ACT’s sole MP has sought to milk the rage of the gun lobby which has been in high dudgeon since the ‘tyrant” of a prime minister declared that there would be a radical revamp of New Zealand’s outdated and far too lenient gun control laws.
At the same time, Seymour has sought to reassure the wider community that when it comes to banning military-style semi-automatics —something which Jacinda Ardern made very clear was non-negotiable — he is definitely on board.
This is the stuff of nonsense, of course. The positions staked out by Ardern and the gun lobby are irreconcilable.
The bill is being rushed through as quickly as possible in the wake of the Christchurch terrorist attacks. (Source: Other)
It is impossible to have a foot in both camps. Both National and, more especially, New Zealand First, which has long been deferential to gun enthusiasts, realised that very early on.
Much to their credit, Simon Bridges and Winston Peters weighed in behind the Prime Minister.
They had little choice in the matter, however. They were also cognisant that such was the scale of the slaughter and the horror generated by the enormity of the crime that to adopt a softer stance which argued for more limited alterations to existing rules regarding which weapons should be banned and which would continue to be approved for sale and purchase was to guarantee a public backlash — one which could cripple their respective parties from now until Election Day next year.
In marked contrast, ACT is not quite so hostage to such constraints. That party’s share of the nationwide party vote is now so low that it would likely require a blunder of a massive nature for it to drop any further.
Seymour this week appeared to be doing his best to do exactly that, however.
The Epsom MP is no fool. He is clever. He needs to be. Being the sole parliamentary representative of a political party is no easy job —especially when your party is as marginalised as ACT now is and the way you cast your vote makes no difference to the outcome of any argument.
Seymour is guilty of being too clever by half.
He has sought to signal his sympathy for the gun lobby by mounting a sustained attack on Ardern’s short-circuiting of normal parliamentary procedure in order to enshrine her promised ban on possession of military-style semi-automatics into law as quickly as is feasible.
Seymour’s insistence that he is motivated by principle in slamming the limited opportunity for public consultation afforded by the tight timetable set for the legislation amending the Arms Act is too much to stomach, however.
To put no finer point on it, he has been playing politics with something where there is otherwise an across-Parliament consensus on gun control and that for the time being it ought to remain a politics-free zone.
That is pretty despicable on Seymour’s part.
From the moment that the Prime Minister confirmed the current gun control laws would be tightened, Seymour has been vociferous in his criticism of those changes being rushed into law with only minimal time sets aside for public consultation.
Taking such a view would be fair enough were Seymour open in his opposition to the banning of military-style automatics.
But he claims that he too wants to see the kind of law change that would prevent such weapons ending up in the hands of someone as “deranged” as the accused gunman accused of carrying out the mass murders in Christchurch.
He is being disingenuous, however. Like every other MP, Seymour knows that the track record of gun law reform has been abysmal. That has been so because the gun lobby wields sufficient influence to block reform. Taking note of the example set by Australia, politicians here realised long ago that the only way to fulfil the overwhelming wish of the wider public for substantial change is to fast-track amending legislation into law before the gun lobby is able to rally to fight that change.
Seymour wants to have it both ways. He seeks to present himself as someone backing reform, while simultaneously handing the means for opponents of reform the means to delay it and thus block it.
In doing so, Seymour risks valid accusation or trying to make political capital out of the suffering of Christchurch’s Muslim community.
Given ACT’s miserable performance at the last general election — the party registered just over 13,000 votes —the opportunity to appeal to the country’s 250,000 gun owners without having to compete for attention alongside other parties was obviously too enticing to ignore.
Thus, the delight of many that Seymour got his comeuppance this week.
It takes just one voice of objection to block leave being granted for Parliament to take a particular action.
Seymour made it clear he intended to be such a lone voice objecting to a motion seeking leave for Parliament to fast track a bill amending the Arms Act.
But he became so consumed with explaining all this to the media outside the House that by the time he entered the chamber, the motion had been passed and leave was thus granted.
Essentially Seymour fell victim to some quick thinking by Chris Hipkins, the Government’s Leader of the House. Observing that the ACT MP was absent, Hipkins moved the motion and it was passed within a matter of seconds.
For all intents and purposes, Seymour’s presence would have made no difference. Had he refused leave, the Government would have used its majority to put the House into “urgency’’ as an alternative means of rushing the legislation into law.
The parliamentary chamber is an unforgiving environment, however. Anyone making such a gaffe can expect to have to wait for some time before they are allowed to forget it —especially when that MP had tried to be cute at everyone else’s expense.
It is worth noting that the Greens, who have long been very much opposed to governments seemingly riding roughshod over standard parliamentary procedure, had no problem with the course of action followed in amending the Arms Act.
For the Greens and every other party — bar ACT — it was a matter of priorities.
Given the fact that the alleged gunman faces 50 charges of murder and 39 charges of attempted murder, it is crystal clear where the prime priority rests.
Not it seems for Seymour, however. He could only see the potential of being in a minority of one against a majority of 119. In doing so, he ignored the bigger picture.
He has made the wrong call and should be pilloried to the max for doing so.
SHARE ME