By Chris Trotter*
David Seymour is discovering what Roger Douglas and Derek Quigley learned in 1994 – the first year of Acts’s existence. That the sort of supporters the party wants are pathetically few in number – far fewer than the sort of supporters it doesn’t want.
From the moment it was formed, the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers had everything a political movement needs to succeed: leaders and spokespeople who were well known; a coherent political ideology; a detailed economic programme; access to large audiences of potential supporters; and money – lots and lots of money. In Act’s first year, it has been estimated that the millionaire entrepreneur, Craig Heatley, spent $1 million introducing the new political party to the New Zealand electorate.
On paper, Act should have succeeded, but it did not. After a year of touring the country. After a year of free media, and a million dollars’ worth of ads and pamphlets, the opinion polls showed Act hovering just below, or just over, 1%. Not enough. No matter how many factory owners obligingly “invited” their employees to hear Douglas’s pitch; no matter how many university campuses Quigley visited; the result was the same. At the point-of-sale, Act lacked the one thing a political movement must have to succeed: a message people want to hear.
Act’s message was liberal in the classical, eighteenth century, sense. Douglas and Quigley preached the gospel of the sovereign, self-actualising, utility-maximising individual, and located him in an economic and cultural environment where state interference is reduced to the absolute minimum. The principle Act subscribed to most enthusiastically was laissez-faire. The doctrine of laissez-faire – “allow to do” – embraced more than free markets, it looked forward to a world without bullies and/or busy-bodies. A permissive world based on the “freedom to” become the best person you can be. A libertarian world.
Or not. New Zealand’s leading Libertarian, Lindsay Perigo, walked out of the founding Act conference, denouncing its refusal to declare total war on the state, and insisting that what Douglas and Quigley were proposing was anything but libertarian. Perigo was free to split ideological hairs because he, unlike Douglas and Quigley, had no real experience of down-and-dirty retail politics. Purity and practical politics don’t mix.
Also present at Act’s founding conference, even if she had no intention of taking part, was the redoubtable left-wing activist, Sue Bradford. With considerably more political savvy than Perigo, Bradford denounced Act as an extreme right-wing party dedicated to finishing the job which Douglas had started. This description of Act was picked up by the news media and repeated ad nauseum. No matter how hard it tried, the Act Party was never able to convince the nation that Bradford’s definition was mistaken. She had branded Act for life.
Not that the “extreme right-wing” brand bothered Richard Prebble all that much. Watching from the sidelines, he was content to let Douglas discover the hard way how very few votes there were in the philosophical doctrines of the Eighteenth Century, or, for that matter, in Ayn Rand’s Objectivist fantasies of the 1940s and 50s. Prebble knew where to go looking for the votes Act needed: exactly which stones, in which dark places, it would be necessary to lift up.
Prebble understood better than just about anybody what MMP was making possible. Parties of the far-Left and the far-Right had never prospered in New Zealand for the very simple reason that the First-Past-the-Post electoral system (which the country had just discarded) made it virtually impossible for such parties to win seats. The one party which had succeeded in doing so was the Social Credit Political League, but only when popular hostility to both National and Labour was strong enough to transform Social Credit into a repository for “protest votes”. Even then, Social Credit was never able to win more than two seats.
Prebble was well aware that in the most propitious of political circumstances, upwards of 20% of the electorate could be susceptible to the blandishments of a third party. Since Act could not expect many votes from the Left (not with Jim Anderton’s Alliance competing so successfully against Labour) the votes he needed belonged to those right-wing New Zealanders who believed that on matters relating to Māori, law-and-order, public morality, women, gays, unions and the environment, the National Party had aligned itself far too closely with Labour. Where is the advantage, Prebble asked his Act colleagues, in allowing Winston Peters to go on sweeping up all these votes?
Taking his inspiration from the right-wing of the US Republican Party, Prebble set about transforming Act into a far-right populist party – albeit one represented by carefully chosen neoliberal/libertarian candidates whose personal beliefs were often at odds with the prejudices of the ideological troglodytes who voted for them. Perhaps the best historical analogy is with the “Dixiecrats” of the southern US states. From the 1940s to the 1970s, outstanding political leaders – like Senator William Fullbright – owed their seats to the votes of unapologetic white supremacists.
While Prebble led Act (1996-2004) the party polled between 6% and 7% of the Party Vote. With his departure in 2004, however, the party’s fortunes plummeted. To 1.5% in 2005, recovering slightly to 3.5% in 2008, back to 1% in 2011, and then to 0.7% under the cheerfully libertarian Jamie Whyte in 2014. In 2017, under the stewardship of Act’s incumbent leader, David Seymour, the party won just 0.5% of the Party Vote.
Kept in Parliament by its “Epsom Deal” with the National Party, Act seemed likely to fade into obscurity as a one-MP “appendage party”. Then, like so many aspects of New Zealand society, it was transformed by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. With National a fractious political hulk lying low in the water, many right-wing voters cast an angry protest vote for Act. From a risible 13,000 party votes in 2017, David Seymour’s party garnered a remarkable 219,000 votes in 2020 – beating Prebble’s best result (7%) by half a percentage point.
Seymour’s stewardship of the Act Party since 2020 has for the most part been exemplary. The party’s nine additional MPs have presented themselves as a disciplined and competent team – offering voters a stark contrast to the bad behaviour afflicting all the other parliamentary parties. Act’s staunch defence of Free Speech, and its resolute opposition to much of the so-called “woke agenda” – especially co-governance – has pushed its numbers up and over 10% in the opinion polls. Not even National’s recovery under Christopher Luxon has been sufficient to seriously undermine Act’s support.
What does pose a threat to Act’s projected success on 14 October, is Seymour’s failure to be guided by Prebble’s thinking on candidate selection. Given the deeply conservative character of much of Act’s newfound support – much of it subscribing to the dangerous conspiracy theories growing out of the Covid-19 crisis – the need to scrutinize the party’s prospective candidates within an inch of their lives was urgent. It was absolutely vital that Act’s next 10 MPs were (to continue the American analogy) William Fullbrights – not Majorie Taylor Greenes.
The withdrawal and/or resignation of five Act candidates over recent weeks – a number of them for making claims alarmingly similar to Majorie Taylor Greene’s – has the potential to give voters pause. Some, perhaps many, will ask themselves just how much they actually know about Act and what it stands for.
Here’s clue: it ain’t libertarianism.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
174 Comments
Act’s newfound support – much of it subscribing to the dangerous conspiracy theories growing out of the Covid-19 crisis...
EDIT :I copied and pasted this from the last paragraph of the article. I found it amusing that the first comment on the post was about a Maori coup.
The coup thing is really amusing Sluggy.
That hearing was held in February, and we have now been advised that we should expect a decision any day.
If the appeal is found in our favour, the property rights test will need to be applied in all Marine and Coastal Area Act cases. But if the original decision stands – that only tikanga is needed to claim ownership of the foreshore and seabed – then almost the entire coastline of New Zealand will fall into tribal hands.
When National introduced the law, they assured the public that customary title would cover only a minority of the coastline. Thanks to tikanga, the exact opposite is the likely outcome.
It is surely the responsibility of National to correct this miscarriage of justice and fix the law.
But at this stage, only New Zealand First is pledging a solution: to repeal the Marine and Coastal Area Act and restore Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed.
Dr Robinson believes Labour’s ultimate objective is apartheid: “The intention is for an end to democracy. The intended future is set down in the He Puapua report, where the aim is for two unequal systems of government. That would be fully developed New Zealand apartheid… This is a broken country.”
The problem with calling out "dangerous conspiracy theories" is that so damn many of those so-called, in the last few years, have proven to be not only credible, but also greater in scope than even the conspiracy theorists imagined.
So much so that labelling anything a dangerous conspiracy theory now is essentially just pointing out where things need to be looked at a bit more closely.
That is patently obvious. A few dead teenagers to maximise big pharma and advertising revenue - Meh.
Two Shots for Summer Hipkins ignoring MOH advice on experimental gene therapy for young people.
“...consequently, CV TAG expressed concern about vaccine mandates requiring younger age groups (e.g. <18 years) to be vaccinated with 2 doses of the Pfizer vaccine and stated: ‘consideration should be given to permitting younger people who have had one dose to be permitted to work or undertake other activities covered by the mandate’. This particular detail has not been carried through to the implementation of this advice”
https://cranmer.substack.com/p/covid-and-our-kiwi-kids-part-2?r=1q83zj&…
"In addition, there is clear evidence in the official documents that it was agreed that references to increasing dosing intervals as a method of potentially providing some protection against myocarditis should be removed from public communications."
https://cranmer.substack.com/p/covid-and-our-kiwi-kids-part-1
"The median Infection Fatality Rate was 0.0003% at 0–19 years, 0.002% at 20–29 years"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512201982X
"...We perform matched case-control studies and find increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis during the first week following vaccination, and particularly after the second dose"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31401-5
"We estimate that 22,000 - 30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation. Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable. University booster mandates are unethical because: 1) no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group; 2) vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people; 3) mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;"
Well done. Hopefully Chris Trotter can put his biases aside long enough to read the information.
They knew the risk of the vaccine was greater - particularly to young men - than the risk of the virus.
But they did it anyway.
Many of us were sucked in because they lied and we trusted them.
Hipkins was in the thick of this and tonight I see him chuckling away on TV thinking he is a political genius.
These people are a disgrace.
Drain the swamp.
I'm happily vaxxed, and a centrist voter, but still concerned by some of the same things that concern the tinfoil hat brigade...treatment of parliament protestors, domination of the fringe woke and identity politics, and political bias of mainstream media.
The test case has been the media avoidance of holding James Shaw to account for claiming a BA.
Correct. If by conspiracy theorists the author means those that believe that Bill Gates is injecting RFID tags along with the vaccine so the 5G network can control them, then those guys are voting Freedoms NZ.
If by conspiracy theorists you mean those that thought Covid came from the Wuhan lab and that taking an experimental gene therapy that hadn't been adequately tested in order to prevent a mild flu virus for everyone under 60 might not be a good idea, then sure - but then I think that the majority of the population have woken up to those truths by now. We'll see how many are left to dutifully line up for the new Covid booster due out shortly.
Just like Lee Harvey Oswald was the only guy that shot JFK and for decades anyone who opposed that idea was classed as a conspiracy theorist and the media along with certain govt agencies promoted that idea. Now you are a fool if you believe he was the only one. Everybody is allowd their opinion. I mean who would believe the d... Sue Bradford the most useless ..... there is
"The Charities Services decision to require the Waipareira Trust to claw back $385,000 of interest-free loans from John Tamihere brings renewed attention to the links between Whānau Ora and the Trust.
Revelations earlier this month in the Herald that the social services charity Waipareira Trust had agreed with Charities Services to cease making political donations and take steps to claw back $385,000 of interest-free loans made to its chief executive, John Tamihere, has put the controversial politician and media commentator back in the spotlight for the wrong reasons.
It’s not the first time that a financial scandal has hit the trust or Tamihere. In October 2004, the then Labour Party MP was accused of dishonest financial dealings, including in relation to a $195,000 golden goodbye from the Waipareira Trust that he accepted when he was elected to Parliament in 1999."
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/thomas-cranmer-john-tamihere-a…
Equality of suffrage chap - people spould be ok to discuss it without the racism trope trotted out.
"Canterbury University law lecturer David Round has outlined the danger: “The Treaty is now regularly interpreted to mean a partnership of equals. Maori are not to be subject to the Crown, but are to be its partner. This partnership is a fundamental subversion of democracy. Special reserved Maori seats on local bodies, and even in parliament itself, are just the start. Maori are claiming their involvement in decision making should not be on the basis of one person one vote, but instead on 50:50 representation. Some are already clamouring for a separate Maori house of parliament whose consent would be required for any laws. They seem to be united in expecting representation well in excess of what their proportion of the population would entitle them to. That is what they are demanding in proposals for ‘co-governance’ ~ equal numbers to all other interests combined. That is what they will be seeking everywhere; and once they have this 50:50 representation, then they will form an unassailable voting bloc. Then we will be forever at their mercy.”
As David says, the claim of a Treaty partnership is a fundamental subversion of democracy, since it is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with her subjects. By definition, the Crown is supreme, and the people are subject to her laws.
Amazing how much pearl clutching and gatekeeping the Left feels the need to do about its opponents.
The piece is schizophrenic, the far right is both unpopular and popular enough to continually vote candidates in? The 'centre' is just too reasonable to represent a large portion of the population's interests or beliefs? Attacking the voters as white supremacists for voting wrong, because they just don't know what is good for them.
Underlying this essay is a belief in gatekeeping 'democracy' so it only represents a certain spectrum of the population and a control set of beliefs in line with the liberalism which Chris Trotter advocates. This same idea is the root of the anti-white 'cancel culture' of slandering, attacking and demeaning the masses for thinking wrong.
There is quite literally zero representation of a very large proportion of New Zealand in the legacy media, who in turn propel unpopular, fringe and radical liberal ideology into the media. Literally who, other than a few radical anarchists, actually supports abolishing prisons or emptying them out on the basis that imprisonment creates the criminals? The thought terminating cliches that "prison only hardens criminals" etc, where do they come from and on what basis is it true?
Immense changes have been imposed on our society without any democratic mandate or vote. The legacy media constantly reinforced and conditioned the people of New Zealand to accept these changes by repetition. The problem the contemporary establishment has is a very large portion of the country despises the media and simply doesn't pay attention. Don't give them money, use adblockers, don't buy the paper, spit on journalists when you see them in public etc. They don't act in the public interest, they act to push their agendas and for their own power process.
They rapidly passed the slightly modified Three Waters bill (with 10 water authorities instead of 4) with all the unpopular 50% cogovernance stuff in August of this year. Zero coverage by the media. These leftists just push their agenda through legislation and tell everyone else to suck eggs.
It is why the pearl clutching by these same leftists rings hollow. The ACT party is the 'FUCK YOU' vote to the establishment at the moment, it is not like we are going to get anything out of Labour or the Nats.
Very well said.
Chris Trotter is a long term leftie who has been having a bob each way with the current Govt (eg he has been publicly against their propaganda on Free Speech however cannot overcome his addiction to historical class structures however anachronistic). He also fails to acknowledge the Overton Window in his usually eloquent & wide ranging musings, presumably to suit his case.
Being a fairly reasonable & peaceful people who historically had to pull together in our geographical isolation, it usually takes quite a lot for most NZdrs to get their backs up to the point where they'll push back on each other, including close relatives (eg. 1981 tour).
"You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world..."
The Beatles - Revolution - YouTube
I think we all would have been proud of the govt had we'd rid of child poverty; built 100K warm, dry, affordable houses (while existing house prices trucked along with the 7-10 year theory that they promise us); and Granny Herald found a magazine ranking giving us the pole position for being the kindest, smartest, everything -est people in the world.
“The media have effectively set themselves above the communities they purport to serve. They are interested only in people who agree with them; the rest can be dismissed as deplorables, to use Hillary Clinton’s infamous term.”
http://karldufresne.blogspot.com/2023/09/i-defended-media-then-i-wouldn…
I won't be voting Act, but I would be interested to see what a minority government with confidence agreements looks like. I always held that the argument for moving to MMP to prevent hung governments was flawed - if government is hung on an issue, (filibustering aside) it means either the issue hasn't been discussed enough, or is just a plain bad idea.
It would be nice if we got rid of the party threshold also - if enough people vote for a party to secure a seat, surely they deserve that representation.
Why Seymour cannot be accused of being precious, and can be somewhat challenging, especially with his sense of humour, he is certainly not afraid to challenge politicians on what they are doing. He and Winnie would make a good team of opposing critics of Government, although I am afraid they'd be too busy taking shots at each other!
Occasionally though Seymour doesn't think through his policies. A case in point; he has suggested dumping the current consenting process and only requiring a 70% threshold of neighbours agreeing to a development. But what if those 70% were not the IMMEDIATE neighbours, the ones most dramatically impacted by a development?
Still he is fresh and stimulates debate which is what we need.
Last election I heard Seymour at a public meeting carefully explaining his views on RM reform - essentially if it doesn't affect them, people shouldn't be able to block someone developing their own property. In that line, I think 'neighbours' will be a small number.
For 10 grand, I'd agree to developers building medium density residential down the road a few doors, but next door it would be more like 80 grand, or a new SUV.
And then you would live to regret it. Sunlight and a decent view is pretty much priceless in my book and a new SUV wouldn't cover it. You can see what's coming if you currently have a 1960's house next to you on a full section, best to just sell and move before the development starts.
I moved from a place in Wellington where at least 30 houses (I lost count) looked down into my 'private, fully fenced' backyard to a large section in a flat town with single level homes on large sections around. So I value privacy. But...being able to help the housing crisis through densification while also enriching myself? When I could also move away?
Your neighbour has to bribe you to able to build on their own section. I can't see this ending well...
How could any developer ever buy a site without knowing whether the neighbours are bribeable? I guess it will get section prices down as each one will be a lottery.
It's as simple as asking them legally.
From either buying their property (before you go unconditional on yours) at an agreed price, which may include a premium or if they want to stay, pay them agreed for any loss of amenity.
And if you can't get an agreement then don't buy.
It's not hard and is exactly what happens in many similar cases now.
But the point is, if you can get local agreement, you can do it, and won't be subject to the rentier whim of council.
It sounds like an expensive legal exercise for a property you may never buy. Wouldn't you need full plans etc before anyone signs up?
The reality is that ACT's policies are maintaining the "whim of council" compared to Labour (and to less extent National) who want the council out of the picture altogether.
You need to understand what the first principle is.
And that is the vote is because you are affected. Not just because you 'feel' you are affected.
It is hard for the neighbours of rural land to be truly affected. It's just a matter of scale. Also, most of the complaints in the rural environment come from the newly relocated townies, not the farmers themselves.
Where rural owners do have real concerns is when the townies on the rural boundary suddenly make complaints against rural noise, smells, etc., and curtailing the rural activity that was always there. New subdivisions and their section owners should not be allowed to object, or conversely, the farmer's rights are protected. Any developers would take this and other farmer real effects into account when looking to purchase greenfield development land.
"most of the complaints in the rural environment come from the newly relocated townies, not the farmers themselves"
Right so now we're restricting the definition of residents and neighbours to only those who work in certain types of profession. This libertarian approach certainly has slot of rules to be able to get laissez faire working. Sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare whicg will result in council and central government staff numbers exploding.
The more expensive exercise is for any owner that buys a property and then the council comes along and overrides their social contract and allows a developer to build anything he wants next to you and does not compensate you for any amenity loss.
Yes concept plans would be needed, which developers already do in present similar cases to take to the council and neighbours anyway. That's how it works.
But the point is you are only dealing with affected neighbours, not council and those that have present right further afield but are not affected.
New developments like Body Corps and covenanted new subdivisions do that now.
If 70% of locals agree, either one way or the other, that is local community democracy, rather than a State democracy from the central Govt, or councils, which can force totalitarian changes on local communities, while hiding beside the non-affected democratic majority.
In which most of the democratic majority is not affected but their authority is being misapplied and misused used by Govt., nonetheless.
All the incentives for property owners basically encourage zero development as that will inflate the value of their own property. Great for the individual, but utterly corrosive for the rest of the country. We would locked into a stasis that would make economic growth impossible whilst they cram more and more people in, making traffic worse, people forced to live in cars because it would be impossible to actually build anything.
With a 70% threshold it would be easier to undo Brexit than build a house on a bit of land you owned. You’d be forced to bribe your way through which is a terrible way to run a country.
Here’s a thought, Don’t want something built on the property next to you? Buy it then. If not then I fail to see what right you have to dictate what others do with land they purchased. That’s the free market principles everyone is clambering for, government backed monopolies are the Highway to economic stagnation and making us less productive on the world stage.
Obviously, there are some caveats like sunlight protection and whatnot but beyond that, any objections are generally hollow.
Here’s an even better idea - don’t allow someone to ‘object’ to a development if it meets a certain number of limited criteria - avoiding significant shading and one or two other things such as exacerbating flooding.
Plenty of medium density crap is being built, sure. It does detract aesthetically from a neighbourhood, and I wish the quality was better. But if it doesn’t directly impede on the enjoyment of your property - too bad!
"owner that buys a property and then the council comes along and overrides their social contract"
Sorry, where is this social contract that guarantees that nothing will change in a city ever? I think you'll find that is a social contract that only the rich and affluent want.
The column is sensibly weighted and accurate as to how ACT has got to where it is. The comment about poor and ill-considered candidate selection is telling. ACT of course are not alone here, but it sure beats me how these minority parties can be so careless with criteria and scrutiny. Every mp they get should be a vital component towards enhancing both image and progress, not embarrassing misfits. The two main parties are guilty too of course, but have a far greater cushion to obscure their mistakes.
I think that is part of the problem, they probably didnt expect to poll at 18% and get so many MPs into Parliament, thus necessitating going back and looking more closely at those who now might get voted in. I see it as a symptom of success. I doubt they would have bothered if they had been polling at 7% and just the same 10 would be going back to Parliament.
Let's be real, ACT probably has ~10% (maybe a bit higher) 'rusted on' support now, at least with Seymour at the helm.
I suspect the majority of ACT 2.0 voters (that whole 9.5% extra support, basically) couldn't care less if ACT has betrayed its libertarian roots on issues like housing. If anything, they'll think "sweet I don't have to worry about having some crappy townhouse development next door".
As long as Seymour is out there 'calling it like it is', being combative with the media - as opposed to crumbling like Luxon - and hitting the hot button issues of free speech, bloated government and crime, the party will keep doing well considering past performance.
My biggest bugbear with Seymour is that he has clearly allowed the newfound fame to go to his head, getting sidetracked with silly stuff like claiming past historical figures from Francis of Assisi to Mother Theresa would have voted ACT. He is also clearly rattled by the fact that the Crypt Dweller himself is poaching some of the anti co-governance vote (particularly those who might not so much like ACT's economic position)
Losing some of the weirdo, minnow candidates is also not a great look. But then again if I talk to my friends who are newly-minted (since last election) ACT supporters - or look at comments online - their general consensus is that the leftie-funded media is unfairly targeting ACT with a level of scrutiny that simply wouldn't be applied to Labour/Green candidates. I mean James Shaw can tell porkies about his degree and it's crickets from the media ... imagine if Seymour did the same.
Paradoxically, I'd suggest that if the media did want to derail the ACT train, the best way to do so would be to ignore the party and Seymour completely. In an environment where so many people distrust the media (for fairly obvious reasons) being singled out for 'special attention' is potentially a vote winner. The enemy of my enemy (the media) is the candidate I'll vote for, and all that.
Why does the media need to be anything other than lazy when their two sources of revenue are churning out clickbait titillation (Stuff actually had a 'breaking news' headline yesterday about finding the best dessert in NZ) or making the government look good in exchange for cash?
If Seymour can exploit that laziness to his political advantage, why not I guess?
I mean, the Greens literally put benefit fraudsters into Parliament. You cant sink lower than that. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/silence-over-metiria-tureis-alleged-benef…
Every MP gets the same accommodation and office allowance for Wellington. They can choose to pay it to themselves if they own a house or office in Wellington or they can choose to pay it to a third party to rent a house or office in Wellington. Its not gaming the system at all. Its simply spending their allowances. To not provide an allowance would discriminate against those MPs not from Wellington who have to maintain two homes and two offices. It looks like you have fallen for the leftist media fake news that this is fraud or something. Its not.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2910957/Bill-English-buckles-…
Caving in to pressure, Bill English has paid back $32,000 and vowed to stop claiming a housing allowance.
Mr English revealed yesterday that he had not received any allowances since July 28, three days before The Dominion Post revealed that he had claimed more than $900 a week – twice what he was eligible for as an ordinary MP.
He had earlier acknowledged that claiming the extra cash was a "bad look" and paid back $12,000.
But yesterday he said he had now paid back all the housing allowance received since the November 2008 election – about $32,000 – and would claim no more.
Letting people do what they want on their own land isn’t anarchy. It’s basic property rights. Giving all the power to a small group of people who can then impose their will on others isn’t liberalism at all.
Imagine putting that kind of restriction on businesses Dale, having to get approval from 70% of your competitors before you could start up, that would cripple the economy just like these policies would cripple housing construction. This isn’t even mentioning the negative externalities of endless sprawl and building upon farmland. The only reasonable solution to the housing crisis is building more accommodation where the jobs actually are which requires some level of intensification.
Human nature says in most cases it depends what side of the equation you are on...in my experience,folk who want to build something on their property say "It's my property,I should be able to do what I want without the neigbours and council being obstructive"...until the next door neighbour wants to do something,then it becomes "how dare he think he can build that in his backyard,I want a say in what goes next door..."
This may come as a surprise to you when even by libertarian standards, you cannot just do what you want on your property. If you and your neighbours are using the land for residential purposes, then you can't play your bagpipes at 2am, or have a commercial pig farm etc. Unless you have all agreed to allow that.
You don't live in a vacuum, and when people first started living in neigbourhoods, there were, and are, agreed minimum standards. These were handed over to the council to administer on the neighbourhoods behalf. Councils are there to present individuals in certain pre-agreed collective groups.
You are conflating the use when you make the comparison to business. But in effect you to have to get permission from your competitors when you are in business, in that if you do not get the customers from them to support your business, and visa versa, then one of you will go out of business. and many commercial zonings, malls, etc do have limits on who and how many can go there.
Yeah no shit you can’t do whatever you want we don’t live in libertarian fantasy dream world. But what you have to realize is that cities need to be allowed to grow and develop. No city in the world got to where it is now without that. Artificially stifling that and getting in the way with overly burdensome regulation such as what ACT is proposing genuinely ruins productivity and economic growth for everyone. Yes some stipulations are needed such as light allowances but beyond that the regulations are far to onerous.
If we are going to have a “free market” for property, where private industry is responsible for the vast majority of housing supply it needs to be allowed to act as a free market. The proposal by ACT would simply destroy the ability of the market to respond to housing demand and put a huge amount of pressure on infrastructure that is currently very underfunded.
We do live in a society Dale, as such sometimes actions have to be taken that benefit the majority rather than holding everything up for the benefit of a tiny minority. That’s democracy.
If you had been following my comments on Interest over the last decade you would notice I am one of the biggest proponents for less restrictive land use policies, both up and out, and affordable housing
But a free market does not mean 'no rules,' but the right rules. Having been involved in development both in NZ and in jurisdictions overseas that have more true free markets, less restrictive land use policies and far more affordable housing, then Acts policy is more democratic if they also allow more 'out' as well and will result in more affordable housing. But without the 'out,' then it cannot work, just like it doesn;t work at present because of these restrictions.
Also, you are contradicting your whole argument against this policy, when you say it benefits a tiny minority, in that a minimum 70% have to agree, ie they are the majority.
After an individual is a majority of 1, the next default is the neighbourhood majority, not the city or country majority. Unless it goes in this order, there are no individual civil rights.
Seriously Dale. I know you start from a pro-sprawl position but trying to claim ACT have not betrayed their libertarian roots beggars belief. Seymour was suggesting people in New apartments built in Epsom should be excluded from being eligible to go to the local state schools. It's one rule for the rich and one for everyone else. Absolute disgrace.
“Deep left”? Whatever that is. I haven’t seen any nationalising of the means of production, or pro-union activity, or any changes to taxation.
I’m guessing you’re simply a landlord, or a dairy farmer, or an urban warrior who wants to buy a Ute. I guess having a government that has actually tried to govern on these issues gives you the smell of communism or a fear of reds under the bed or something.
Let’s bring on 3 more years of do-nothing govt from Luxon so the property speculators and oldies can feel better about their lives for a bit longer.
Whats really interesting this election is how the "moderates" are losing ground to the parties that operate on the extremes or have more radical ideas. If you total ACT, TPM, Greens & NZ First. These parties are pulling 35-40% of the vote this election. In recent history (1994-2020) the "radical group" would normally pull about 20% at most
This is symptomatic of underlying economic (cost of living crisis) & social issues that are really starting to effect Kiwi's en masse. It is well documented that when a democratic society starts to experience economic hardship people in this society will look for answers to these problems on the more radical sides of the political spectrum.
Disagree. The middle ground always shifts anyway as society evolves. Once upon a time slavery was the middle ground, then it shifted to industrial servitude and it's continuing to shift.
National and Labour represent the middle ground and together are the majority. They largely represent what the middle ground is currently in NZ. The reason why some people are moving to the extremes is because they think these two parties are too alike.
I think younger generations are finding it hard being shoe horned into the left / right buckets. If you are economically conservative you have to vote for a party that couldn't give a crap about the environment, gay rights, housing costs, etc, or for a party that wants to give all your money away and achieve nothing.
The flip side is that the big parties have to try and appease more types of voters. National pretend to be environmentally friendly and CL has to learn Maori etc to get the young vote, but then they lose other votes, but only to their buddies in ACT so it doesn't matter.
I'd say its more the demise in the NZ social contract is affecting young Kiwi's. Traditionally if you left school, got a job and worked hard you will able to own your own home and raise a family. The new normal is if you leave school, get a job and work hard, you should feel happy that your land lords property price increased 10% in the last year. You should also be happy that he pays no tax on this 10% as otherwise he will increase your rent....
People are stupid but they are not that stupid. They are voting for a change in the system. The moderate parties are anti-change so they vote for the less moderate parties that are pro change.
Threads like the below sort of capture the sentiment.
https://www.reddit.com/r/auckland/comments/w9mt6i/struggling_financiall…
I'm not sure what you're expecting from this then: Real Change to the immigration system - ACT New Zealand
“To ease the cost of living crisis, the Government should dump the labour market test, industry specific wage requirements, and transfer restrictions. Foreign workers should be able to work for accredited employers so long as they are employed consistent with New Zealand law."
“In short, the whole system is a mess. It inflicts costs on struggling businesses which are then passed on to consumers as well. Our productivity levels are tanking as orchards can’t get fruit pickers. Building sites can’t get builders. Hospitals can’t get nurses. Farms can’t get milkers. There are shortages of essential workers that are creating a wage-price spiral"
For one thing, they're not considering the cost of living when it comes to rents making yet further spirals upward as a result of all this. But this seems to be a policy that will open the doors far wider than they are already. I don't want this.
Not sure why you think this policy is not already in place?
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2023/09/fears-immigration-nz…
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/immigration/132853434/shambles-of-our-…
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/497585/government-support-announced…
ALL parties except NZ First are pro-immigration. The only difference between them is what type of immigrant are we letting in. Labour doesnt seem to care and is pumping the country full of uneducated and unskilled immigrants from the third world who can afford to pay a dodgy immigration agent on the basis that diversity is a good thing. National would open the door to wealthy immigrants from anywhere on the basis of trickle down economics. ACT would simply open the door and let the market decide who comes. In the end, nothing would change. Railing against immigration is now a lost cause globally - countries like Australia and Canada prove that Left or Right doesnt matter, the door is open.
Or vote for Winston.
Some real gems in it like this one:
ACT's immigration spokesperson James McDowall said the employer levy would likely be set at $1350 for every migrant worker employed, which is about the same amount as employers currently pay in fees when sponsoring a migrant worker.
$1350 to "pay for infrastructure". Would be lucky to get a bike rack for that, let alone pay for transport, healthcare, services, etc.
It's basically an open door policy to flood the country with migrants to crush wages. Zero consideration for the externalised costs of unrestricted immigration. Combine that with their incredibly restrictive housing construction policy they announced yesterday and we could be in for a real shitshow.
An absolutely brilliant speech by NZFirst Deputy leader Shane Jones. 13mins but we’ll worth listening to. *The need to protect our property rights *The racial divide sought by the woke *Reduce and control bureaucracy and public servants who are stooped over because the size of their greenstone around their necks *Unelected Hapū infested by the Greens controlling NZ’s destiny *Woke guilt culture invoking “colonialism” as an excuse for crime in Maoridom rather than real causes like missing fathers. *Judicial largesse & pathetic sentencing. *Export nation that needs to bolster exports rather than acquiesce to climate activists *The looming threat of Globalists *The lack of a true Statesman in NZ to navigate the powers of China & the US to prevent us being squashed like a bug *Putting NZFirst, Kapai Shane ! Kiwis need NZFirst back and back big. Link
So you think closing down 25% of NZ farms and eliminating the food they produce from both the local and export markets, in order to cut emissions in a country that contributes an absolutely negligible amount of global emissions and which will make absolutely zero difference to global warming, is a good thing?
ACT is really the only viable option. I and many people I know are long-time National supporters. But, National has been found to be too weak and will need to be pushed to roll back all this mess that Labour has put in place, i.e. 3 waters, Maori Health Authority, co-governance, bloated and in-efficient public service, escalating crime and violence, education failures, massive debt. All these things need fixing.
Winston cannot be trusted, however, he seems to want to destroy Labour. He may get in, but it would be unlikely. People that would normally vote labour that I know. are voting ACT, because they won't vote National, and they have deserted Labour. TPM and the Greens are crazy, but they are picking up some of the votes on Labours left, as they have nowhere else to go (this is going mostly to the Greens. and TPM seems to be dropping support whenever they make some outrageous announcement).
I don't think the election is in doubt now. Labour has lost, the question is by how much. A strong ACT is needed to unwind the mess.
I have seen nothing from ACT or National that would suggest they can address these issues you mention.
"Healthy waters, Maori Health Authority, co-governance, bloated and in-efficient public service, escalating crime and violence, education failures, massive debt. All these things need fixing"
Enlighten me Yvil. Tell me what the issue is with the following topics and how National and Act will fix them
Healthy waters,
Maori Health Authority,
co-governance,
bloated and in-efficient public service,
escalating crime and violence,
education failures,
massive debt.
Its hard to take the ACT brand of libertarianism seriously. Be the "best you can be"? Does the best mean grabbing as much as you can and bugger "others"? This precious definition of freedom is physically challenged by the concept of limits. The exponentially grow the economy as fast as possible is about as anti libertarian as its possible to be. Believing there's as much space and resource on this round planet for everyone to have the ability consume their fill is appallingly naive, and its promotion dishonest. Maybe its not about everyone, just the few and the suckers that believe the jingoism? The definition of being "the best" needs to change. Libertarianism needs to embrace the concept of degrowth, so there's space for being "best", in a functional biosphere.
Bob Jones' NZ Party also showed, with its 12% support in 1984, that there was a constituency for more liberal economic policies. Jones wound up the party after that, claiming that the Labour Party was putting in place the very policies that the NZ Party had been advocating.
Voted act last election and really liked them for the freedom push they had, yet the lockdowns and David's stance on vaccination obliterated the freedom push by ACT. Freedom shouldn't have strings or conditions.
Been watching him closely leading up to this election and lost all interest.
One mans freedom is another's gasp as they fight to take another breath. I thought freedom stopped at imposing your personal agenda on your neighbour? Maybe there's a bigger picture? Perhaps I should burn my pile of old tyres when the wind blows in your direction? When it dies down, I'll chuck a few more on. After all it's my property, I can do what I want and your health is just an externality I don't give a sh!t about.
Agreed, substantially by ensuring our media (who buy most of their content from blue US channels) are being purposefully blind to real issues.
It is not helpful, and actually will make our society less cohesive no matter the outcome.
In this particular election things are slightly more heightened as a thinking person could only vote Labour on the basis of unrewarded beliefs, knowing that while they are a complete cluster, making all measures of government worse, they stand for the right things...
"Given the deeply conservative character of much of Act’s newfound support – much of it subscribing to the dangerous conspiracy theories growing out of the Covid-19 crisis"
What a total load of rubbish, this is literally another smear like that which you accused Sue Bradford of doing. I know a lot of people voting ACT this election, none of them are Covid conspiracy theorists. Nor would I describe them as "conservative" in the terms of US politics meaning "religious, pro-life, gun toting, rural voters".
And as for describing ACT voters as "troglodytes" and "white supremacists" I think the author needs to take a long hard look at his bias and ignorance. And issue an apology. I for one am highly offended by this statement.
Why are people voting ACT? Because ACT is the only party standing up and saying that dividing NZ by race and discriminating against white and asian people in education, healthcare, and basic democracy is simply not tolerable. Winnie is starting to pick up voters now for the same reason. And we're sick of the nanny state and stupid things like being forced to drive everywhere at 30 kmph as part of an impossible to achieve, ideological Govt policy of "Road to Zero". And the more intelligent amongst us understand that doubling Govt expenditure (and the amount of taxes and borrowing to fund it) while not just improving anything but actually making things worse, is the most pressing priority we have right now. And National simply arent on board with cutting Govt spending because they need to provide election bribes to the less intelligent amongst us.
I hope that David Seymour sticks around for decades, like Winston has. Rather than being a self interested, self promoter like Jacinda who disappeared as soon as she started getting negative feedback which might affect her chances of getting a sainthood to go with her Damehood.
Wrong you don't just move on with an "All is forgiven" attitude and the party is somehow different now just because she gave up and left. This Labour government needs to be held to account on their appalling performance over 6 years and judgement day is coming. They are going to be kicked into touch so hard they will leave the park.
of course ACT are not Libertarian, they want to dictate how people spend welfare they receive, they want to tell judges how to sentence certain people , they want an MP to over rule the medical council of NZ , they want to put ankle bracelets on youth
does any of that sound like a libertarian or authoritarian regime
Nice idea, but completely false.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-ho…
The reality is NZ is tired of having poor leadership and the passing of many policies that would not get the support o 50% of New Zealanders. NZ is also tired of having poor and predominantly left leaning news media.
What the polls don’t show is that those who want change will turnout to vote and those that see a sinking ship are less likely to turn out and vote.
The likely result is that ACT will get more votes than polls suggest, even 20% is now a possibility. A National/ACT and possibly NZ First government is the most likely outcome.
The media will fight tooth and nail to keep their funding so expect more articles supporting parties on the left.
Many media bosses & journalists are now more likely to lose their jobs and become irrelevant in a media shake-up. I am including you Jack Tame in an outrageously biased treatment of Chris Luxon. You wouldn’t treat Jacinda Adern like that.
I am also calling out the NZ Herald Editor for the predominance of left-leaning political reporters.
Journalism needs to have an even mix of left and right views. We talk about racial equality. What about media equality?
Thats not saying much. That means that all of them are left leaning. Which is true, and its why I mostly read The Australian if I want any real journalism. The difference in quality between The Australian and The NZ Herald is quite stark. Stuff is down around the Guardian level of click bait. If I want local news I look to people like Chris Lynch.
NZH is owned by NZME who's chairperson is the ex president of the national party, also they roll out an ex national party member every week for an article, steven joyce, paula bennett, simon bridges, as well as fanboy hosking daily. i have never seen them roll out an ex green or labour MP for an article, i would hardly call them left leaning. maybe not ultra right enough for you
is that the same chairperson who sits on the board of fletchers and the bnz
the same person who owns twenty five percent of the nz initiative by any chance?
what a con job being run on the people of New Zealand
forget the election..the real power is behind closed doors, not for public viewing
"i have never seen them roll out an ex green or labour MP for an article,"
Probably well covered by Shaneel Lal's weekly column: not a journalist, usually labelled "Opinion".
Latest from Shaneel Lal - NZ Herald
CT once again stirs the posters to their keyboards. That's the thing about the intellectual left, they can write a damn good article. But making things happen? They're useless at it, as we've all come to see over the past 6 years.
People want to be able to do stuff, like make a good living, build up their family & communities, enjoy their down time with their friends & just be able to live a great life.
Labour just wants us to do what we're told & this is how we will mandate you to do it.
Enough already! Good bye Labour. Hello NACT. Hello anything but Labour. And I'm picking Winnie & Shane will be back for the next term as well, which could make for an interesting parliament.
I think you might be Right John. Luxon sounds like someone who is going to under-perform when the big TV debates arrive. He doesn't have a good grip on policy. What's all this about changing the law on live animal exports by sea? Nice little issue for NZF to hoover up votes from undecided, normally National voters. Dumb politics from the National Party.
I agree Yvil. We need more articles on the smaller parties. This is a really well written article which summarises some of the contradictions in the current ACT party. More articles on what parties actually stand for would be good to try to cut through the partisan positions.
This article is a good foundation for people to find out more about the party and it's candidates.
"Given the deeply conservative character of much of Act’s newfound support – much of it subscribing to the dangerous conspiracy theories growing out of the Covid-19 crisis"
Chris, you can do better than this.
Slapping a 'conspiracy theory' label on a topic which warrants serious debate is lazy and a sign of ones inability to form a counter argument. It is one step away from name calling your opponent during a debate. Disappointing to see you stoop to this level.
Pffftt! They were nothing - the reasons some ACT aspirants had to resign. What rubbish.
I will vote ACT as having the only considered policies among those who have a chance of election ( other parties have good philosophies , but no realistically prepared policy)
History is useful - no question - but we must vote as we find on the day. I have voted -in chronological order- Labour, Values, Green, Alliance, Labour . We must NOT vote according to history. I voted Green when Rod and Janette called the shots (Bradford was never Green -just a user) James and Marama? Phffft.
I hated Roger Douglas, but David Seymour is not him. Bassett and Brash are honourable men. For goodness sake people -think!!!
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.