It was raining on Dec. 3, 2025, when I arrived at the Beehive, the executive wing of New Zealand’s parliament buildings, for a meeting with the country’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Regulation, David Seymour.
Wellington has a way of making weather part of the experience. The wind cuts sharply through the downtown core, turning corners into gusts and steady steps into measured ones. Knowing about the conditions is one thing, experiencing them is another. As I made my way through security, there was a sense of anticipation, and a question lingering in the background: would the meeting ahead be smooth sailing, or was a storm brewing?
With me were two colleagues from MDR Strategy Group and a partner from New Zealand’s regulatory sector. We were escorted upstairs to a waiting area by Seymour’s office. The space was modest and functional, with the kind of understated formality typical of government offices.
As we waited, I glanced at my team. Melissa Peneycad, our director of public engagement and AI strategy, was reading the room, scanning for cues about tone and posture, assessing what kind of conversation we were about to enter. Collette Deschenes, our director of communications strategy, seemed to be taking in the moment from a different perspective, attentive to how the interview might unfold. Our New Zealand colleague sat with a quiet sense of pride, having helped broker a meeting that brought together a Canadian firm, an international publication on regulation, and a face-to-face meeting with a senior government leader who also serves as minister for regulation.
There was a brief pause before the door opened.
“So, which one of you is Daniel?”
I stood, introduced myself and the team to David Seymour, and we were invited into his office. He greeted us with a friendly, welcoming manner and a quiet confidence. Having seen him speak at a conference in Brisbane a few months earlier, I was struck by how different the setting felt in person. He carried himself with ease, engaging directly, but with the presence of someone who is thoughtful and deliberate.
After a brief exchange of pleasantries, we spoke about The Registrar magazine, Canada, and his previous work there. The tone was courteous and measured, setting the stage for a conversation that moved naturally into a more substantive discussion.
First elected in 2014, David Seymour is the leader of the ACT Party. He has built a reputation for advancing a distinct, and at times challenging, perspective on the role of government and regulation. His views are well known and often differ from those held by much of the regulatory community in New Zealand and internationally.
While our political ideologies are not aligned, I approached the meeting with a genuine interest in his perspectives and vision, and with respect for both the individual and the office he holds.
For an hour, we discussed regulation, governance and public policy. Seymour spoke with clarity, precision and a clear passion for philosophy, outlining his views in a structured and deliberate way. He took on questions and alternative viewpoints, often returning to first principles to explain how he approaches regulatory decision-making.
Our conversation remained measured and constructive throughout. It was a conversation grounded in discipline rather than performance, and in that sense, it stood apart from much of what defines public discourse today.
His approach to regulation is grounded in a philosophy that emphasizes individual agency, property rights and a constrained role for government. He has described regulation as a restriction on the use and exchange of property, undertaken in pursuit of a public objective, and has argued that such restrictions must be clearly justified.
That perspective was explored in more detail the following day, when Seymour addressed delegates at the eighth International Congress on Professional and Occupational Regulation and Regulatory Research Day hosted by the Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation (CLEAR).
Speaking to an audience of regulators, researchers and policy leaders, Seymour positioned himself as offering a challenge to conventional thinking. He described what he sees as a gap in how governments approach regulation, noting that while fiscal and monetary policy are subject to structured oversight, regulation has not been examined with the same level of discipline.
He pointed to the creation of New Zealand’s Ministry for Regulation and the introduction of the Regulatory Standards Act as steps intended to bring greater transparency and accountability to lawmaking.
Seymour said regulation, by its nature, imposes constraints, and those constraints should be subject to careful analysis. He argued that over time, regulatory systems can accumulate layers of rules and processes that increase complexity and cost without delivering proportional public benefit.
In illustrating this point, he referred to examples where similar projects today require significantly more approvals, consultants and compliance steps than in previous decades, raising questions about whether the additional regulatory activity has produced better outcomes.
His remarks also touched on the need to balance competing interests, including access to services, quality of outcomes and the broader economic impact of regulatory decisions.
For many regulators, particularly those working within professional and occupational frameworks, the primary focus remains on public protection, safety and trust. Regulatory systems are designed to ensure that individuals and communities can rely on competent, ethical and accountable services. From that standpoint, regulation is a safeguard, not a constraint.
Seymour’s views shift the focus toward economic impact and system efficiency, while drawing attention to how regulatory frameworks can, at times, create unintended barriers to access and innovation. These differences are substantive; they reflect distinct ways of understanding the role of regulation in society. And yet, within those differences, there is also a point of connection.
In regulatory practice, there is an increasing focus on ensuring that systems remain relevant to the public they are intended to serve. This includes demonstrating value, improving accessibility and responding to changing expectations. It reflects a broader shift toward understanding regulation as a public-facing function that must maintain legitimacy and trust, rather than simply a system of rules.
I came to see that Seymour’s remarks, while grounded in a different philosophy, also speak to relevance.
His focus is on whether regulatory systems continue to justify their existence, deliver outcomes that outweigh their costs, and remain aligned with the broader public interest. While the language differs, the underlying question is similar: are these systems producing meaningful and relevant results for the people they affect?
While the approaches to regulation differ, the common denominator is the expectation that regulatory systems should have a clear and measurable public impact.
Reflecting on the exchange and his remarks to the international regulatory community, the following day, Seymour did not change my views on the importance of regulation as a tool for public protection. Those views remain grounded in the responsibility regulators hold to the public they serve.
However, what the experience did reinforce was the value of constructive engagement.
The ability to sit across from someone with a fundamentally different perspective, explore serious issues, and do so in a respectful and constructive way is not something to be taken for granted.
We did not come to the same conclusions.
But we had the kind of conversation that makes better conclusions possible.
In today’s environment, that matters. I respect it.
