ACT sets out plan to party faithful: "Keep the government and make it better"
Photo:
RNZ / Mohammad Alafeshat
ACT has unveiled its pitch to lure a new supermarket player into New Zealand through a new fast-track approval process.
It's part of the party's bid to focus on "problem solving" rather than "finger-pointing" as it looks toward the next election, to "keep the government" and make it "better".
Leader David Seymour made the announcement at the party's annual rally on Sunday, in Auckland, where it considered its half-time "report card" of its performance in government
.
Seymour outlined the party's wins through the past year and a half - including in efforts on law and order and reducing co-governance - while signalling to the campaign ahead and the voters he wanted to claim.
A key focus of Seymour's speech were the voters who he said had been treated as a "scapegoat" by the previous government. He suggested Labour chose landlords as a scapegoat for the issue of high rents.
He said Labour did this because of "politics."
"There are three million voters and only 120,000 are landlords so there's 23 other voters per landlord. They say the most important skill in politics is the ability to count."
Along with landlords, Seymour said firearm owners, farmers and employers were affected by policies Labour put in place, as well as groups of people he said Labour had left out in the cold.
"Blaming someone might feel good. We think that building something feels better," he said.
"Whether you rent or own, farm or teach, build or tend, your future depends on solving the same problems, not blaming different people."
His coalition partners weren't left unscathed tough, as he pointed to efforts to target big corporations as a way of making things easier for New Zealand, and targeting the cost of living.
"You can understand people wanting to go after the banks or the supermarkets or the power companies.
"It would be the easiest thing in the world for me to give a speech saying they're crooked and need to be punished somehow.
"They should be taxed somehow, have their businesses broken up, or be watched over by even toothier watchdogs. It's the curse of zero sum thinking."
His solution to the "biggest challenge we face" - the cost of living - was to loosen up what Seymour called "outdated planning and consenting rules", which were the biggest barriers to international supermarket players setting up shop in the country.
"With the cost of living, the solution is not regulation but competition. Business should fear competition, not their own government."
A new ACT party proposal - rather than government policy - would introduce a fast-track approval process that would streamline rezoning, consenting and investment approvals to build new supermarkets at scale.
Seymour said this would allow new entrants or smaller grocers to get approval within months, not years.
There was no mention in the speech of a specific player who had shown interest in setting up in New Zealand, but Seymour said he hoped it would bring a "serious extra chain to retail in New Zealand.'
"Even if it doesn't, just the possibility of a new competitor can help keep competitive pressure on the incumbents," he said.
"If it doesn't work, we'll know that either our market is more competitive than we thought, or we have some other problem."
Ultimately, he told the audience, "if you're looking for finger pointing, don't look here. We are interested in problem solving."
"If you want to find a scapegoat, you can, but it still won't work. We tried it with landlords, we tried it with oil and gas, we tried it with farmers, employers, and licensed firearm owners.
"Every time government goes after a group in society, the problem gets worse."
As part of his speech he also acknowledged the failure of the Treaty Principles Bill to pass into law.
"Our partners abandoned us defining the Treaty Principles, so we lost the vote.
"That's a shame, but there's something more important than winning the vote. We won the argument."
It's a key policy that differentiates ACT from its coalition partners, and the party has indicated it will continue to try and pass it in some form.
"It is now a matter of time before the Treaty Principles Bill or something like it passes," Seymour told the gathering.
At the half-way mark of this term in government, Seymour said the party's focus from here would be "campaigning to keep the government and keep making it better."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
Have we lost the art of the argument?
It's a whole-of-politics problem – but is more vexing for the left, because it is progressives who seek change most profoundly. Duncan Greive attempts to persuade you all. There's a clear and present danger in contemporary politics – which is conducted on global platforms and accessible from anywhere – to find yourself drawn to and deeply invested in races which occur thousands of miles away and can only obliquely impact your life. For many of us it's US politics, a subject so transfixing that a former National leader has a podcast devoted to it, and one in which the recent result of a single city's Democratic primary – not even the actual mayoral race – felt more gripping than our own political drama. Zohran Mamdani's victory in the New York Democratic primary felt important, a shifting of the bounds of acceptable policy. It has transfixed people all over the world, with its promise of a new style of leftist populism that is manifestly very popular, particularly when set against the tainted establishment approach of Andrew Cuomo. Simon Wilson at the NZ Herald wrote observantly about the lessons Mamdani's victory might contain for Labour here. But in the context of the US, New York is Wellington Central – the most liberal 3% of a much more ideologically diverse country. I found another US politician more persuasive, one with a powerful theory about change and how to achieve it. Sarah McBride is a first-term congressional representative from Delaware, and notable as the first openly trans person to serve in that institution. On a recent podcast appearance she tabled an argument she summarised as 'we've lost the art of persuasion' – we meaning the Democrats. It presents an explanation for why the progressive left has had trouble convincing people of its positions in recent years. Essentially, McBride's theory is that the left has stopped trying – whether they're aware of that or not. How to change a mind It boils down to the way complex issues are increasingly framed in absolutist versus nuanced terms, and the way that seems to be having the opposite effect of what you presume is intended. Instead of bringing moderates over to a side, the absolutist style chases them away; effectively saying that unless you buy the whole of an argument, you're unwelcome. I'm talking less about our political leaders than their partisans – who might target a slower-moving or more uncertain middle, versus the near-hopeless task of persuading the persuaded. This can be framed in terms of compulsion ('you must believe this') versus persuasion ('let me make my case'). As with so much of our current culture, it was trending a particular way, then supercharged during Covid. It exists in many issues which have high salience to a group along with relevance to wider society – climate change, education reform, crime and policing, trans rights. It often starts with an entrenched and emotive position – say, that trans women should be allowed to compete in elite sports – which polling suggests (we have too little done here, but can extrapolate from international results) gets less popular the more it is discussed. McBride spoke directly to this, noting that in the last few years, during which trans issues have been more present in the public conversation than ever before, 'by every objective metric, support for trans rights is worse now than it was six or seven years ago.' She took care to make clear that is partly the result of a deliberate campaign from opponents. But she also believes that the style of argument – passionate but frequently dismissive of even good faith questions – has not helped achieve its stated aims. That the making of the case (from trans people, but more often their allies) has often hurt more than helped. 'I think some of the cultural mores and norms that started to develop around inclusion of trans people were probably premature for a lot of people,' she said. 'We became absolutist – not just on trans rights but across the progressive movement – and we forgot that in a democracy we have to grapple with where the public authentically is and actually engage with it. 'We decided that we now have to say and fight for and push for every single perfect policy and cultural norm right now, regardless of whether the public is ready. And I think it misunderstands the role that politicians and, frankly, social movements have in maintaining proximity to public opinion, of walking people to a place,' she said. Compromising, in other words. She was talking about trans issues in America, but you could substitute the fight and the location for dozens of others the world over. The rights and wrongs of a particular issue have become less material than the crucial question: is the approach, that style of argument, working? That seems to be the most important element, but one which is not considered nearly so crucial as the moral integrity of the position. It's often about where you spend your energy; in progressive circles it can appear to be scrutinising your supposed allies for ideological purity, then issuing infractions or ostracising those found wanting. It leads to a more ideologically aligned tent, sure, but one smaller than it was before. And because these arguments play out in public, mostly on social platforms, they have the effect of making any quiet observer with private questions or doubts feel like they too are unwelcome. This is an all-of-politics problem, but it is strikingly more prevalent on the left. For example, the level of disagreement between Act and NZ First, our two minor parties of the right, is vast, whereas Te Pāti Māori and The Greens can feel like one movement, such is the level of agreement. NZ First and Act seem to almost enjoy disagreeing disagreeably, whereas even relatively minor differences between leftist parties and supporters can feel anguished to the point of being unresolvable. What might a different technique look like? Instead of policing your own side, the alternative is trying to persuade an open but cautious middle. To do the latter requires a very different approach and perhaps a more strategic theory of change. One which necessarily involves taking a position some distance from where you might seek to ultimately end up. We live in a democracy, and even if you, like Te Pāti Māori's Rawiri Waititi, believe it represents the 'tyranny of the majority', that is unlikely to change. As McBride says, movements which progress incrementally and in lockstep with public opinion – ahead of but not out of reach – are more likely to be durable, and far less likely to see a harsh over-correction in response. Civil rights in the 60s and gay rights more recently were games of inches, she says, with legislation and public support walked forward, with an eye on perfection but not a demand that we achieve it immediately. What's hard is that so many of these issues are highly charged, feel urgent, and really do impact people unequally. The planet is heating now. If you consider the police a racist institution, why would you reform it piecemeal and not wholesale? How many generations must wait for a true honouring of Te Tiriti? Trans rights really are backsliding in many places. To give up on that perfect solution can feel like a form of betrayal. But only if understood in those terms. If it's instead framed as a negotiation with a longer time horizon, one which might take years but will more likely endure, then it might be more palatable. To many passionate activists, such compromise might be unacceptable. Also, sometimes fury seems the only appropriate response to reality, and you're less concerned with the outcome than a gut howl. But the question needs to be asked: have the 10 years or so in which this has been the dominant style of argument felt like progress to you? The dangers of the coalition Adjacent to the style of argument is the notion of a coalition. As well as the coalition governments of MMP, all parties are coalitions to some extent – National is famously a mix of farmers and businesspeople. But on the progressive left there is also a kind of moral coalition. How that manifests is a sense that to be a true ally you must believe in a very specific view on a broad basket of issues. That can feel like it goes for everything from charter schools to climate change obligations to LGBTQ rights to tax reform. Each is of consuming interest to various people; yet if you hold a contrary (or even unsure) view on any topic – especially if you're crazy enough to air it – you're at risk of being tossed from the group. To be clear, there is a proportion of the online right which is gleefully encouraging this dynamic, beckoning with open arms to anyone who might feel unwelcome on the left despite agreeing with the majority of its stances. They're beyond activists' control, however – unlike the current progressive approach to persuasion. In his conversation with McBride, podcast host Ezra Klein argued that the absolutist approach to argument has come from 'the movement of politics to these very unusually designed platforms of speech, where what you do really is not talk to people you disagree with but talk about people you disagree with to people you do agree with.' Platforms like Facebook, X and Instagram incentivise the production of content which stakes out increasingly extreme positions, because a more moderate (and often popular to general audiences, according to polling) stance is unlikely to provoke the engagement that expands the reach of any given post. It leads to a paradox, whereby extremely online coalitional activists of both sides draw their parties to ever more fringe positions. The reason it seems to be more damaging to the left's intentions is that even quiet observers of these hard lines can be made to feel rejected. Those on the right are harangued and insulted, but there is less intimation from their peers that they are no longer welcome – just that they're an idiot. There might be good reasons for a high threshold to acceptance: solidarity among different causes is a fundamental tenet of many reforming organisations, from unions to NGOs. But it does have a troublesome interaction with democracy, in that demanding agreement with every joined up position inevitably means losing some small but meaningful support. It's hard to win an election that way, particularly on a national rather than citywide scale. It's a more vexing problem for the left, because it is progressives who seek change most profoundly. The conservative part of the right is about the status quo, seeking to defend an existing position, or return to an imagined vision of the past. The left seeks progress – to change the future. In this way, persuasion matters more, which is why it's strange that it is often practised less, and exists within a framework which allows for little dissent. Is there a better way? There is a deep disdain for moderates or incrementalism today across all sides – big centrist parties have either been hauled to the fringes or seen more radical parties make big gains, if not usurp them entirely. It's easier to describe another approach than perform it, and would require a major change in the philosophy and style of our current politics, and it's made far harder by social platforms which are so resistant to that approach. Yet it's worth at least considering. Activists of many stripes might believe that their goals are sufficiently important as to justify staking out positions well away from public opinion, and sometimes seem indifferent to the fact their actions seem to make their causes less popular. Think of Extinction Rebellion protestors gluing themselves to motorways or splashing paint on artworks, even as the politics of climate change regress, in near lockstep with the more disruptive demonstrations. It's deeply unfashionable (I look forward to the comments lol), but maybe the best way to achieve small yet lasting gains is step back from expectation of perfect policy – at least for now. Holding out for them feels crucial, but if the way you're going about it makes the position less popular, maybe it's worth arguing for something more achievable, to take that first step. In the hope it might actually change a mind, and get you incrementally closer to what you really want, rather than ever further away.
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Online casino bill: Greens vote with coalition govt to pass first reading
The bill introduces 15 licences for online casinos, which would require companies to provide a harm prevention strategy. File photo. Photo: 123RF The Greens have broken with their opposition party colleagues to vote in support of the coalition's online casino bill. The law change, which aims to protect online gamblers, has passed its first reading 83 to 39 in a conscience vote at Parliament, with the Green' support. The bill was introduced by Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden and would introduce 15 licences for online casinos, which would require companies to provide a harm prevention strategy and data showing past compliance. Online casinos would need an age verification system to ban under-18s, contribute 1.24 percent of profits to a levy, and abide by advertising restrictions. Companies breaking the rules would face fines of up to $5m. The minister has said New Zealand-based online casinos would get no preferential treatment in obtaining licences. Van Velden in a statement said the bill would seek to protect New Zealanders who gambled online, and the bill would impose regulations on the currently unregulated market. "The most important part of this bill is protecting New Zealanders who enjoy gambling online by introducing robust safety measures for licensed operators. The bill will now proceed to select committee, and I would encourage interested New Zealanders to have their say when public submissions open," van Velden said. In the first reading vote in Parliament on Tuesday, all MPs voted along party lines, with the coalition parties all in support. Labour and Te Pāti Māori voted against the bill, but all 14 Green MPs voted in support. The Greens' internal affairs spokesperson Benjamin Doyle told RNZ the party wanted to bring the issue to select committee with the aim of convincing the coalition parties to make significant changes. "We always want to support movements towards harm reduction. So with online gambling, it's totally unregulated at the moment, and we see this as a very small step in the right direction to enact harm reduction techniques," they said. "It's definitely not far enough, but we believe that going to select committee to hear from experts, community, people with lived experience of online gambling harm, and advocacy groups may be able to help us to inform changes and amendments and improvements to this legislation that will actually enact harm reduction." However, the Problem Gambling Foundation has raised concerns about the approach. Advocacy and public health director Andree Froude said she feared usage of online gambling would increase, rather than decrease. Froude called for changes including making requiring online gamblers to say how much money and time they would spend gambling before starting a session, and a ban on online gambling using credit cards which could leave them deep in debt. The funding from the levy would go into the problem gambling levy pot of funding. The independent Gambling Commission in a report this year highlighted the Ministry of Health had been unable to find evidence showing that $81m fund actually reduced harm. Doyle said the Greens wanted to ensure 100 percent of the funding recouped from the moves would go back to harm reduction. "There needs to be extremely high levels of transparency around where that funding is going, that revenue is going, and my ideal would be that 100 percent of the revenue goes towards community harm reduction... it shouldn't be going towards the back pockets." They also wanted a ban on advertising for online gambling, and possibly a reduction in the number of licences. The party had not yet approached the coalition parties to see what kind of support they could get for the changes, they said - and called for more consultation with Māori. "The value mai i te kākano 'from the very seed' is the best approach when engaging with Māori. We should be engaging right from the beginning of drafting this piece of legislation." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Labour and Te Pāti Māori miss deadline for financial statements
Labour and Te Pāti Māori's statements were due at the end of the financial year on 30 June. File photo. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER Labour and Te Pāti Māori have both been late in filing audited financial statements to the Electoral Commission. It is another strike for Te Pāti Māori, although the Electoral Commission says the party has assured them this year's and last year's statements will be filed together soon. Labour has filed its financial statements - but not an audit. Their statements were due at the end of the financial year on 30 June. All other parties with that due date - including ACT and National - have filed their financial statements. Electoral Commission manager of legal, regulation and policy Kristina Temel said the commission was continuing to follow up with both parties. "Labour has not filed an audit report for its financial statements. The party contacted us before 30 June to advise that its audit report is taking longer than expected and at this stage we are satisfied with the reasons they and their auditor have given," Temel said. Labour general secretary Rob Salmond said the party was "continuing to work with our audit partners as we transition to a new set of accounting practices" and was "in the late stages of this process". Temel said Te Pāti Māori had not yet filed an audit report, or financial statements "but has told the commission they are being prepared and will be filed soon". "They have also informed us that the outstanding audit report for last year's financial statements will be filed at the same time." As incorporated societies, Labour and Te Pāti Māori are the only parties required to have their financial statements audited under changes to the Electoral Act passed in 2022. Several other parties - including the Greens and NZ First - have a reporting date at the end of September. Police previously issued a formal warning to Te Pāti Māori over the failure to file a complete and audited 2023 financial statement on time. The commission said no decisions had yet been made on whether to refer any of Te Pāti Māori's leadership to police over this year's statements but noted that "under section 210J of the Electoral Act, it is an offence for a party secretary to file a financial statement late or fail to file a financial statement without reasonable excuse". Te Pāti Māori president John Tamihere declined to comment. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
