But as Prime Minister Hipkins pointed out last week ACT is likely to be a substantial player in any future National-led government. Hipkins’ comment was highly partisan and primarily aimed at raising fears in voters’ minds at that prospect, but is relevant, nonetheless. ACT’s co-founder Sir Roger Douglas also weighed in this week saying that he no longer supports the party because it now represents only the wealthy and is not committed anymore to the radical tax reform and personal responsibility-based welfare reform that he had campaigned for.
Against that backdrop, Hipkins’ politically charged comment is nonetheless a fair one. What does ACT stand for, and what role will seek to play in a future government? And, as Hipkins questions and hopes, should voters be worried?
Against that backdrop, Hipkins’ politically charged comment is nonetheless a fair one. What does ACT stand for, and what role will seek to play in a future government? And, as Hipkins questions and hopes, should voters be worried?
Douglas also has a point. Since its early principled days ACT has vacillated between a watered-down version of its original self, and right-wing populism, without the mad Trumpian tinge now the preserve of New Zealand First. ACT’s approach to tax reform is now purely about cutting taxes, rather than the integrated approach to tax and welfare reform that Douglas had sought from the time he was Minister of Finance in the fourth Labour government. On law and order, ACT’s approach is sheer middle American populism, from the reintroduction of the failed “Three Strikes” policy, through to dealing with teenage offenders in adult Courts. Then there is the call for a referendum on the role and place of the Treaty of Waitangi, as naked an appeal to the redneck vote, as ever there was one.
Yet for all that, ACT has never rated higher in public support than it does today. As ACT leader David Seymour observes, it is obviously doing something right. There was speculation after Luxon became National’s leader, that he would eat into ACT’s new support base, but this has not happened. If anything, ACT’s support has grown since then.
The upshot is that National’s only route to office at the coming election will be via ACT. That will not be without its challenges. On current polling, ACT MPs in the next Parliament could comprise up to a third of the governing bloc. ACT has stated its strong preference for a clean coalition with National, with an agreed government programme to pursue during the three-year term. However, if it cannot get agreement on that, ACT has said it will not hesitate to sit outside government on the crossbenches and force National into the cumbersome process of having to negotiate support for every issue, on a case-by-case basis. That would make governing extremely difficult and would almost certainly precipitate an early election.
For that reason, the comprehensive government coalition agreement ACT is seeking is unlikely to be as extreme as Hipkins and others suggest. ACT’s major focus is likely to be on regulatory reform, improving the overall processes of government decision-making, stronger accountability for public servants for policy delivery, and a removal of petty rules and restrictions across the board. With that focus established and recognised as ACT’s distinct bastion, the rest of a National/ACT government programme will probably have a more traditional National flavour to it, although getting ACT to compromise sufficiently will still be fraught with difficulty.
There would be likely up to 6 ACT Ministers sitting around the Cabinet table in a National/ACT Cabinet – just under a third of the total. That would be the biggest group of Ministers ever from a single support party in Cabinet and will create its own tensions. In that eventuality Luxon cannot afford to get into the game-playing that previous National and Labour Cabinets did when faced with a sizeable bloc of New Zealand First Ministers of trying to work around, rather than with, them on critical issues. ACT Ministers faced with such behaviour would be far more likely to walk away altogether to sit on the crossbenches. Luxon’s business executive skills will be helpful in managing this process, but they are unlikely to make up completely for his lack of political experience.
The question then arises as to which ACT MPs could become Ministers. Seymour’s easy response that all his MPs are capable is as predictable as it is banal. Aside from Seymour and his capable deputy Brooke van Velden, two other ACT MPs do stand out as likely Cabinet contenders, based on their performance over the last three years – Nicole McKee and Karen Chhour. But while ACT has worked in a very disciplined way in Opposition over the last three years, it could be a different story if they are in government where all their key leaders are likely to be distracted from day-to-day Caucus management because they are too busy as Ministers.
There is no doubting ACT’s Tigger-like commitment and enthusiasm. Seymour has been impressive over the last term of Parliament, shaping his team into an effective Parliamentary unit. As it stands on the verge of potentially its greatest political triumph to date, ACT will need all these attributes, and even more discipline and focus, if it is to succeed as a government partner.
More importantly, if it is to succeed in government, National needs to ensure the partnership with ACT works effectively. Otherwise, it could be looking for new friends in three years’ time.
Peter Dunne, a retired Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who represented Labour and United Future for over 30 years, blogs here: honpfd.blogspot.com
Yet for all that, ACT has never rated higher in public support than it does today. As ACT leader David Seymour observes, it is obviously doing something right. There was speculation after Luxon became National’s leader, that he would eat into ACT’s new support base, but this has not happened. If anything, ACT’s support has grown since then.
The upshot is that National’s only route to office at the coming election will be via ACT. That will not be without its challenges. On current polling, ACT MPs in the next Parliament could comprise up to a third of the governing bloc. ACT has stated its strong preference for a clean coalition with National, with an agreed government programme to pursue during the three-year term. However, if it cannot get agreement on that, ACT has said it will not hesitate to sit outside government on the crossbenches and force National into the cumbersome process of having to negotiate support for every issue, on a case-by-case basis. That would make governing extremely difficult and would almost certainly precipitate an early election.
For that reason, the comprehensive government coalition agreement ACT is seeking is unlikely to be as extreme as Hipkins and others suggest. ACT’s major focus is likely to be on regulatory reform, improving the overall processes of government decision-making, stronger accountability for public servants for policy delivery, and a removal of petty rules and restrictions across the board. With that focus established and recognised as ACT’s distinct bastion, the rest of a National/ACT government programme will probably have a more traditional National flavour to it, although getting ACT to compromise sufficiently will still be fraught with difficulty.
There would be likely up to 6 ACT Ministers sitting around the Cabinet table in a National/ACT Cabinet – just under a third of the total. That would be the biggest group of Ministers ever from a single support party in Cabinet and will create its own tensions. In that eventuality Luxon cannot afford to get into the game-playing that previous National and Labour Cabinets did when faced with a sizeable bloc of New Zealand First Ministers of trying to work around, rather than with, them on critical issues. ACT Ministers faced with such behaviour would be far more likely to walk away altogether to sit on the crossbenches. Luxon’s business executive skills will be helpful in managing this process, but they are unlikely to make up completely for his lack of political experience.
The question then arises as to which ACT MPs could become Ministers. Seymour’s easy response that all his MPs are capable is as predictable as it is banal. Aside from Seymour and his capable deputy Brooke van Velden, two other ACT MPs do stand out as likely Cabinet contenders, based on their performance over the last three years – Nicole McKee and Karen Chhour. But while ACT has worked in a very disciplined way in Opposition over the last three years, it could be a different story if they are in government where all their key leaders are likely to be distracted from day-to-day Caucus management because they are too busy as Ministers.
There is no doubting ACT’s Tigger-like commitment and enthusiasm. Seymour has been impressive over the last term of Parliament, shaping his team into an effective Parliamentary unit. As it stands on the verge of potentially its greatest political triumph to date, ACT will need all these attributes, and even more discipline and focus, if it is to succeed as a government partner.
More importantly, if it is to succeed in government, National needs to ensure the partnership with ACT works effectively. Otherwise, it could be looking for new friends in three years’ time.
Peter Dunne, a retired Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, who represented Labour and United Future for over 30 years, blogs here: honpfd.blogspot.com
11 comments:
So what’s your alternative Peter?
Labour, Greens and Maori
Seems like a recipe for screwing the country.
Oh wait, there doing that now hence the reason they are going to be kicked to touch
Sour grapes from the failed United Future Leader.
You mean the corrupt MSM reported Roger Douglas to have said he did not support ACT - speaking for himself later on honest radio, he said he did not say that. We are surrounded by falsity under this iniquitous administration. I will vote ACT!
In my view, ACT have been the only party to clearly set out their policies, in detail, on every major issue in the last 3 years. Peter seems to have trouble recognising that, which gives you a clue as to why his own party disintegrated.
Peter, there is no choice between those who want a fair and free NZ and those who want the New World Order of suffocating socialist decline. Not sure which camp you're in and you don't seem certain either.
Hipkins is not a leader. He's an extreme Left apparatchik who enacts crazy ideology which munching on his steak and cheese pie.
He doesn't care what MOST NZders think or want. And the Greens/Maori Party are both on Planet Marxist on steroids.
I'm afraid it's a no-brainer, Peter. So engage yours and write a column that makes economic and political sense, instead of fence-sitting - your only career-long sure political position.
"Then there is the call for a referendum on the role and place of the Treaty of Waitangi, as naked an appeal to the redneck vote, as ever there was one"
You haven't read the room there very well. Or perhaps you don't have a child going through the school system who was taught in science, as a matter of fact, that Maori gods fighting cause the wind. When questioned it was stated it's our schools commitment to the treaty process. He was also taught that pakehea held maori as slaves in social studies.
There's a lot of mainstream parents out there that are shocked about how fast we've changed from an inclusive society to an ethno-state.
I even know of one ex-labour economist biting his tounge and voting ACT party vote, Nat electorate purely based on the education outcomes from Chris hipkins and his mother being in charge.
ACT seem to be the only major party promising to take strong action on limiting to Treaty to its original intention, not some modern artful reinterprations totally inappropriate for the very changed structure of society and the degree of mixing, and for any semblnce of democracy. To brand as red knecks persons fearful of the apartheid situation to which we are currently racing is an insult.
Peter, I find your cavalier description of the people who are concerned and demand the need for the clarification of how the Treaty of Waitangi shapes our democracy as rednecks particularly offensive.
New Zealand democracy is under huge threat from political decisions arising from the divisive interpretation of this simple unifying document, must be questioned. The future of New Zealands success as a first world democracy hangs in the balance.
The Act party have every right to place this issue high on their priority list, its certainly high on mine.
Peter. I am astounded you refer to 3 strikes as failed. It was made to fail by judges using the escape clause of "unreasonable or unjust". It was never used or applied properly but there was evidence that 2 strikers were starting to take some account of their futures. But judicial activism and trendy politics stopped it. How can a policy fail if it's never been used? I would go further and say it was actively undermined.
I normally find what Peter Dunne writes to be quite readable and reasonable, but this one is total rubbish.
ACT seems to at least give a hope of living in first-world country. education, safety, less irrelevant regulation, less irrelevant bureaucracy, equal opportunities - these are the hallmarks of a first-world that attract & retain good talent despite taxation. i don't know if they are capable of delivering this promise, but at least they are willing to make that promise...
I, too, am disgusted at being called a redneck simply because I want to have a say on the "Te Tiriti wonderfulness" that has been forced upon us over the last 6 years. If a referendum gives a tick of approval then, fair enough, I am prepared to accept the result and it's outcomes. However, it is more likely that the left wing ruling elites which clearly count Dunne as a card carrying member, are terrified of the result of any opinion expressed on the efficacy of the shambles that has gone on for far too long.
A solid result for ACT can only result in National being held to account and our only hope for finding a way out of this mess.
Post a Comment