Latest news with #TreatyPrinciples
Scoop
14-07-2025
- Business
- Scoop
ACT's Campaign Calculus To ‘Keep The Government' And Keep Its Edge
Article – RNZ The party's challenge this term has been – and remains – how to stand apart from its coalition partners without pulling apart the government. , Deputy Political Editor Analysis: For the ACT Party, the challenge this term has been – and remains – how to stand apart from its coalition partners without pulling apart the government. That tension has ebbed and flowed – most clearly on display during the Treaty Principles debate and now reemerging around the Regulatory Standards Bill. But ACT's annual rally on Sunday gave a clear indication of how the party intends to navigate the tightrope for the remaining 15 or so months. For one, David Seymour centred his keynote speech on the cost-of-living, a recognition that that remains the biggest risk to the coalition's reelection. Of course, he did it in distinct ACT-style, making a comparison with his Cabinet colleagues' recent criticisms of the big banks, supermarkets or power companies. 'It would be the easiest thing in the world… to write and give a speech saying they're crooked and they need to be punished somehow,' Seymour told supporters. 'But that would be the curse of zero sum thinking.' Though Seymour denied it later, it was hard not to see the comment as a veiled criticism of National and NZ First ministers, given their recent attention on such industries. They might scapegoat those industries, Seymour implied, but ACT won't. Seymour's speech gave a nod to the voters ACT would be targeting next year – landlords, farmers, firearms users, small business owners – all hotly contested constituencies within the coalition. And he was not shy about reminding the 450-strong audience of other differences too. 'Our partners… abandoned us in defining the Treaty Principles,' he told supporters. But beyond the differences came a curious confirmation: that ACT would be campaigning next year to 'keep this government'. The seemingly benign commitment is an open admission that a centre-right election victory will almost certainly require a repeat of the three-way coalition. Asked later by RNZ about the declaration, Seymour made it more explicit: 'We need to keep these parties in power.' These parties. NZ First included. That's perhaps not that surprising given current polling, but it is quite a difference from ACT's approach in 2023 – which saw Seymour viciously attack NZ First and its leader Winston Peters. It's also different from Peters' message several weeks ago as he handed over the deputy prime ministership to Seymour. Then, Peters said he intended to 'remove any doubt' next election. Of course, behind the scenes, ACT and NZ First would much prefer to eliminate the other and become the sole coalition partner. National, for its part, would like to get back over 40 percent to regain choice. But none can afford to bring the whole caboodle down in the process. And there, again, is the tightrope. One foot in Cabinet, the other in campaign mode ACT is currently polling roughly 9 percent – a fraction above its 2023 election result and consistent with its average across last year. Historically, a stint in government has proved electoral quicksand for support parties, but ACT and NZ First seem to be defying the trend. In large part, that's due to the political landscape with the major parties languishing in the low 30s, leaving more room for the minor parties. But ACT has also made a deliberate effort not to vanish into Cabinet. The party has kept one foot in government and the other in campaign mode – trumpeting its policy wins, while also criticising its coalition partners when convenient. It has certainly not shied away from provocation, as evidenced even by its choice of guest speaker on Sunday: anti-woke crusader Dr James Lindsay. Look to the 'gutsy' pay equity cuts, the Treaty Principles Bill, and now the Regulatory Standards Bill. On each occasion, the backlash was immense, but so too was the airtime. And each time Seymour declared unapologetically: we're not here to be liked, we're here to be right. He said as much again in his Sunday speech: 'People will pile on and say I'm defending big business, or whatever, but political risks are part of leadership.' The strategy carries risks indeed. Former National leader Simon Bridges, in his 2021 memoir, reflected on the personal toll of such tactics: yes, the party vote stayed up, but not so his personal ratings. David Seymour is experiencing something similar. His own favourability ratings are routinely poor. In the most recent Post/Freshwater Strategy poll, just 25 percent had a favourable view of ACT, while 47 percent were unfavourable – the second worst result of any party, after only Te Pāti Māori. But for a minor party, that trade-off seems worth it, with visibility counting for more than likability. The cost of instability ACT's strategy has also, at times, fed the perception of coalition instability, or of National being dragged around by its smaller partners. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has repeatedly dismissed that, instead framing the dynamic as simply the 'maturation of MMP'. But voters are still adjusting to that reality. The latest example of friction would appear to be Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, bubbling away in the background. NZ First has made clear it wants changes to the legislation, but Seymour says he's yet to even hear what they are. Furthermore, he firmly believes he's under no obligation to make changes and that the coalition agreement already requires National and NZ First's support. The apparent impasse remains unresolved. For all that, though, the governing parties are aware the public does not look kindly on instability. Seymour learned that the hard way in the weeks before the 2023 election when he floated the idea of ACT signing a 'confidence-only' deal if National refused to cooperate during negotiations. Almost immediately, the party's support dropped several points in the polls. That lesson still looms over the coalition today, especially given the narrow margins and economic headwinds. All three coalition parties would do well to remember the common enemy. They may be competing for votes inside the tent, but the real fight lies outside it: with the opposition.
Scoop
14-07-2025
- Business
- Scoop
ACT's Campaign Calculus To 'Keep The Government' And Keep Its Edge
Analysis: For the ACT Party, the challenge this term has been - and remains - how to stand apart from its coalition partners without pulling apart the government. That tension has ebbed and flowed - most clearly on display during the Treaty Principles debate and now reemerging around the Regulatory Standards Bill. But ACT's annual rally on Sunday gave a clear indication of how the party intends to navigate the tightrope for the remaining 15 or so months. For one, David Seymour centred his keynote speech on the cost-of-living, a recognition that that remains the biggest risk to the coalition's reelection. Of course, he did it in distinct ACT-style, making a comparison with his Cabinet colleagues' recent criticisms of the big banks, supermarkets or power companies. "It would be the easiest thing in the world... to write and give a speech saying they're crooked and they need to be punished somehow," Seymour told supporters. "But that would be the curse of zero sum thinking." Though Seymour denied it later, it was hard not to see the comment as a veiled criticism of National and NZ First ministers, given their recent attention on such industries. They might scapegoat those industries, Seymour implied, but ACT won't. Seymour's speech gave a nod to the voters ACT would be targeting next year - landlords, farmers, firearms users, small business owners - all hotly contested constituencies within the coalition. And he was not shy about reminding the 450-strong audience of other differences too. "Our partners... abandoned us in defining the Treaty Principles," he told supporters. But beyond the differences came a curious confirmation: that ACT would be campaigning next year to "keep this government". The seemingly benign commitment is an open admission that a centre-right election victory will almost certainly require a repeat of the three-way coalition. Asked later by RNZ about the declaration, Seymour made it more explicit: "We need to keep these parties in power." These parties. NZ First included. That's perhaps not that surprising given current polling, but it is quite a difference from ACT's approach in 2023 - which saw Seymour viciously attack NZ First and its leader Winston Peters. It's also different from Peters' message several weeks ago as he handed over the deputy prime ministership to Seymour. Then, Peters said he intended to "remove any doubt" next election. Of course, behind the scenes, ACT and NZ First would much prefer to eliminate the other and become the sole coalition partner. National, for its part, would like to get back over 40 percent to regain choice. But none can afford to bring the whole caboodle down in the process. And there, again, is the tightrope. One foot in Cabinet, the other in campaign mode ACT is currently polling roughly 9 percent - a fraction above its 2023 election result and consistent with its average across last year. Historically, a stint in government has proved electoral quicksand for support parties, but ACT and NZ First seem to be defying the trend. In large part, that's due to the political landscape with the major parties languishing in the low 30s, leaving more room for the minor parties. But ACT has also made a deliberate effort not to vanish into Cabinet. The party has kept one foot in government and the other in campaign mode - trumpeting its policy wins, while also criticising its coalition partners when convenient. It has certainly not shied away from provocation, as evidenced even by its choice of guest speaker on Sunday: anti-woke crusader Dr James Lindsay. Look to the "gutsy" pay equity cuts, the Treaty Principles Bill, and now the Regulatory Standards Bill. On each occasion, the backlash was immense, but so too was the airtime. And each time Seymour declared unapologetically: we're not here to be liked, we're here to be right. He said as much again in his Sunday speech: "People will pile on and say I'm defending big business, or whatever, but political risks are part of leadership." The strategy carries risks indeed. Former National leader Simon Bridges, in his 2021 memoir, reflected on the personal toll of such tactics: yes, the party vote stayed up, but not so his personal ratings. David Seymour is experiencing something similar. His own favourability ratings are routinely poor. In the most recent Post/Freshwater Strategy poll, just 25 percent had a favourable view of ACT, while 47 percent were unfavourable - the second worst result of any party, after only Te Pāti Māori. But for a minor party, that trade-off seems worth it, with visibility counting for more than likability. The cost of instability ACT's strategy has also, at times, fed the perception of coalition instability, or of National being dragged around by its smaller partners. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has repeatedly dismissed that, instead framing the dynamic as simply the "maturation of MMP". But voters are still adjusting to that reality. The latest example of friction would appear to be Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, bubbling away in the background. NZ First has made clear it wants changes to the legislation, but Seymour says he's yet to even hear what they are. Furthermore, he firmly believes he's under no obligation to make changes and that the coalition agreement already requires National and NZ First's support. The apparent impasse remains unresolved. For all that, though, the governing parties are aware the public does not look kindly on instability. Seymour learned that the hard way in the weeks before the 2023 election when he floated the idea of ACT signing a "confidence-only" deal if National refused to cooperate during negotiations. Almost immediately, the party's support dropped several points in the polls. That lesson still looms over the coalition today, especially given the narrow margins and economic headwinds. All three coalition parties would do well to remember the common enemy. They may be competing for votes inside the tent, but the real fight lies outside it: with the opposition.
Otago Daily Times
13-07-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
ACT's campaign calculus to 'keep the govt' and its edge
By Craig McCulloch of RNZ Analysis: For the ACT Party, the challenge this term has been - and remains - how to stand apart from its coalition partners without pulling apart the government. That tension has ebbed and flowed - most clearly on display during the Treaty Principles debate and now re-emerging around the Regulatory Standards Bill. But ACT's annual rally on Sunday gave a clear indication of how the party intends to navigate the tightrope for the remaining 15 or so months. For one, leader David Seymour centred his keynote speech on the cost-of-living, a recognition that that remains the biggest risk to the coalition's re-election. Of course, he did it in distinct ACT-style, making a comparison with his Cabinet colleagues' recent criticisms of the big banks, supermarkets or power companies. "It would be the easiest thing in the world... to write and give a speech saying they're crooked and they need to be punished somehow," Seymour told supporters. "But that would be the curse of zero sum thinking." Though Seymour denied it later, it was hard not to see the comment as a veiled criticism of National and NZ First ministers, given their recent attention on such industries. They might scapegoat those industries, Seymour implied, but ACT won't. Seymour's speech gave a nod to the voters ACT would be targeting next year - landlords, farmers, firearms users, small business owners - all hotly contested constituencies within the coalition. And he was not shy about reminding the 450-strong audience of other differences too. "Our partners... abandoned us in defining the Treaty Principles," he told supporters. But beyond the differences came a curious confirmation: that ACT would be campaigning next year to "keep this government". The seemingly benign commitment is an open admission that a centre-right election victory will almost certainly require a repeat of the three-way coalition. Asked later by RNZ about the declaration, Seymour made it more explicit: "We need to keep these parties in power." These parties. NZ First included. That's perhaps not that surprising given current polling, but it is quite a difference from ACT's approach in 2023 - which saw Seymour viciously attack NZ First and its leader Winston Peters. It's also different from Peters' message several weeks ago as he handed over the deputy prime ministership to Seymour. Then, Peters said he intended to "remove any doubt" next election. Of course, behind the scenes, ACT and NZ First would much prefer to eliminate the other and become the sole coalition partner. National, for its part, would like to get back over 40% to regain choice. But none can afford to bring the whole caboodle down in the process. And there, again, is the tightrope. One foot in Cabinet, the other in campaign mode ACT is currently polling roughly 9% - a fraction above its 2023 election result and consistent with its average across last year. Historically, a stint in government has proved electoral quicksand for support parties, but ACT and NZ First seem to be defying the trend. In large part, that's due to the political landscape with the major parties languishing in the low 30s, leaving more room for the minor parties. But ACT has also made a deliberate effort not to vanish into Cabinet. The party has kept one foot in government and the other in campaign mode - trumpeting its policy wins, while also criticising its coalition partners when convenient. It has certainly not shied away from provocation, as evidenced even by its choice of guest speaker on Sunday: anti-woke crusader Dr James Lindsay. Look to the "gutsy" pay equity cuts, the Treaty Principles Bill, and now the Regulatory Standards Bill. On each occasion, the backlash was immense, but so too was the airtime. And each time Seymour declared unapologetically: we're not here to be liked, we're here to be right. He said as much again in his Sunday speech: "People will pile on and say I'm defending big business, or whatever, but political risks are part of leadership." The strategy carries risks indeed. Former National leader Simon Bridges, in his 2021 memoir, reflected on the personal toll of such tactics: yes, the party vote stayed up, but not so his personal ratings. David Seymour is experiencing something similar. His own favourability ratings are routinely poor. In the most recent Post/Freshwater Strategy poll, just 25% had a favourable view of ACT, while 47% were unfavourable - the second worst result of any party, after only Te Pāti Māori. But for a minor party, that trade-off seems worth it, with visibility counting for more than likability. The cost of instability ACT's strategy has also, at times, fed the perception of coalition instability, or of National being dragged around by its smaller partners. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has repeatedly dismissed that, instead framing the dynamic as simply the "maturation of MMP". But voters are still adjusting to that reality. The latest example of friction would appear to be Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, bubbling away in the background. NZ First has made clear it wants changes to the legislation, but Seymour says he's yet to even hear what they are. Furthermore, he firmly believes he's under no obligation to make changes and that the coalition agreement already requires National and NZ First's support. The apparent impasse remains unresolved. For all that, though, the governing parties are aware the public does not look kindly on instability. Seymour learned that the hard way in the weeks before the 2023 election when he floated the idea of ACT signing a "confidence-only" deal if National refused to cooperate during negotiations. Almost immediately, the party's support dropped several points in the polls. That lesson still looms over the coalition today, especially given the narrow margins and economic headwinds. All three coalition parties would do well to remember the common enemy. They may be competing for votes inside the tent, but the real fight lies outside it: with the opposition.
RNZ News
19-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
More than half of voters back proposed penalty, or harsher, for Te Pāti Māori MPs, poll suggests
Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipa-Clarke at Parliament, after the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill in November. Photo: RNZ/ Samuel Rillstone More than half of voters consider the proposed penalty for three Te Pāti Māori MPs over the Treaty Principles haka to be either appropriate or too lenient, polling shows, ahead of the debate on the matter resuming on Thursday afternoon. That debate - which had potential to become a filibuster - was cut short when Leader of the House Chris Bishop unexpectedly postponed it last month. The Privileges Committee - which recommends punishments for breaking Parliament's rules - proposed a 21-day suspension for the co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and seven days for MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke. It means no pay, no ability to vote on legislation, and no presence in Parliament for the duration. The latest RNZ-Reid Research poll asked for voters' views on whether the punishment fit the crime. Overall, more people - 37.0 percent said it was "about right"; while 36.2 percent said it was "too harsh"; 17.2 percent said "too lenient", and 9.6 percent said they did not know: a 54.2 percent majority then backing the punishment or thought it should be stronger, in line with the coalition parties' view. The result puts opposition parties - which all labelled the three-week ban disproportionate - in a difficult position. Broken down by voting preferences, more than half of Labour's supporters (51.2 percent) backed leader Chris Hipkins' view the suspensions were too harsh, but a sizeable number thought the punishment fair (29.8 percent) or too lax (8 percent). Greens supporters were more convinced with three quarters (75.3 percent) calling the punishment too harsh, but still 12.4 percent said it was about right and 3.8 percent too lenient. Surprisingly, 9 percent of Te Pāti Māori's supporters also labelled it too lenient, although a clear 80.8 percent called it too harsh, with just 6.2 percent saying it was about right. The results for the coaltion voters were more predictable, far more National, ACT and NZ First supporters saying it was too lenient, compared to those calling it too harsh. But Speaker Gerry Brownlee, of the National Party, appears to be in the latter camp - he called the punishments "very severe" and "unprecedented" when setting down the original debate on Parliament's calendar. He pointed out no MP found guilty of contempt had previously been suspended for more than three days. The Privileges Committee recommendation was also only backed by coalition parties, despite convention dictating the MPs on the committee should aim for consensus. Those responding to RNZ's questions may have known these facts from media reporting - or they may not. Bishop's postponement of the debate took the teeth out of opposition criticisms the government wanted to keep the punished MPs from commenting on the Budget - as it turned out, the co-leaders did not speak in the Budget debate anyway. Budget delivered, MPs return to the debating chamber to discuss the punishment after Question Time today. The length of the debate rests ultimately in Brownlee's hands, and he has signalled a willingness to let it continue until all views were thoroughly aired. Whether parties actually want to filibuster - given the poll, and the risk of voters' patience for politicians talking about themselves wearing thin - is far from certain. Hipkins says a few of his MPs will speak, but they will not be running down the clock with endless speeches. The Greens' co-leaders have said they think the MPs should not be suspended, and they plan to scrutinise the decision "to the highest degree". But Te Pāti Māori is eager to put the matter to bed. "Just got to hurry up and get it over and done with and let's sort it out, otherwise we'll be hanging around here waiting and waiting and waiting. Just, they've made their verdict - let's just get it done," co-leader Rawiri Waititi said. This poll of 1008 people was conducted by Reid Research, using quota sampling and weighting to ensure a representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between 23-30 May 2025 and has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. The report is available here .
Scoop
15-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
TOP Will Convene Citizens' Assemblies To End Political Gridlock
Sunday 15 June 2025. To break the cycle of political indecision and costly policy reversals, The Opportunities Party is launching The Citizens' Voice. The party's first 2026 Election policy calls for the use of Citizens' Assemblies on pressing issues successive Governments are failing on. "Politics as usual isn't working. We're stuck in a wasteful cycle of pendulum politics where every left-right lurch after an election costs us," says TOP spokesperson David Webb. 'Every time Government changes, we endure economic uncertainty on par with 9/11. We just can't afford that anymore'. Recent examples of political waste include $229 million on the abandoned Auckland light rail project, $300 million (and counting) for cancelled inter-island ferries and $297 million lost in (another) overhaul of New Zealand's polytechnics. 'The consistent decline in right track / wrong track polling shows us that people are losing trust in our political system. The Citizens' Voice is about turning that trend around by doing democracy differently – with everyday people leading on the hard issues, and politicians following' says Webb. The Citizens' Voice policy has two components: Citizens' Assemblies. Like jury duty but for policy, Assemblies bring together a random, representative, paid group of New Zealanders to learn about a complex issue, deliberate on solutions and make recommendations that Government must respond to. The process is designed to progress politically gridlocked, long-term issues like superannuation, housing, healthcare and infrastructure. Parliamentary Commissioner for Citizens' Voice. An independent, non-partisan office gives the policy institutional backbone. The Commissioner will convene Assemblies, ensure they are fair and robust, use new digital democracy tools to amplify Citizens' voices and ensure Government engages seriously with Citizens' recommendations. 'Citizens' Assemblies are about trusting that everyday New Zealanders, when given information and time, can find common ground and set sensible, long-term policy directions on the issues politicians have failed on' says Webb. Citizens' Assemblies have helped navigate tense, complicated issues internationally and in New Zealand. In Ireland, Assemblies broke decades of deadlock on marriage equality and abortion. In Auckland, an Assembly's recommendations on water infrastructure were adopted by the Watercare Board. Two issues that could benefit from a Citizens' Assembly approach are New Zealand's Constitutional system and Superannuation. 'The Treaty Principles controversy highlighted the partisan, performative nature of Parliament. The Bill itself was short-sighted and divisive, but there is a real need for a national conversation on our Constitutional framework and the role of Te Tiriti. How we make that decision is as important as the decision itself - maybe more so' says Webb. 'Superannuation is on track to send New Zealand over the fiscal cliff – but it's a politically untouchable issue because it's a vote loser for politicians. A Citizens' Assembly would give Parliament the social license to finally act on Superannuation.' 'The problem with kicking the can down the road, is that eventually, you run out of road' says Webb. 'With challenges like AI and climate change coming at us, New Zealanders deserve a political system built around courage, co-operation and long-term thinking. We're launching the Citizens' Voice policy to do just that.' A full overview of The Citizens' Voice policy - including FAQs, briefing papers and international examples - is available at
