Appealing to the masses
ACT’s president has set the political party a goal of doubling its size in Parliament. Luke Malpass examines how leader David Seymour plans to do it.
At ACT’s party conference in late May, president Tim Jago set what sounded like an outlandish goal: ACT wanted to double its number of MPs in the next Parliament from 10 to 20.
This seemed like the ramblings of a party confused about its place on the fringes of the political firmament. Ever since the party imploded between 2008-2011, riven by infighting during its first term with ministers in government, it has had only one MP in Parliament: John Banks and then David Seymour.
And as a party that grew out of the reforms of the 1980s – ACT after all originally stood for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers and was started by Sir Roger Douglas – there was a general feeling that perhaps ACT’s historical moment had passed.
The party was sustained by National, which had effectively run dead in the electorate of Epsom since 2008, making sure ACT could remain in Parliament and slightly boost the overall vote of the centre-right.
By the start of 2020 it looked as though ACT would increase its parliamentary presence: Seymour had been travelling up and down the country talking about two issues in particular: free speech, and the Government’s new gun laws.
But then came Covid. In addition to the massive political boost the issue delivered for Labour, Seymour’s party grasped the ideas vacuum at the top of the National Party and began to talk about how the country should be dealing with the pandemic.
One of the interesting thing that came up in covering the politics of Covid in New Zealand and being out on the campaign trail was the number of people who would say something along the lines of, ‘‘I don’t know if I would vote for them but David Seymour’s making a lot of sense’’. The party scored 10 MPs on almost 8 per cent of the vote.
Speaking to Seymour in ACT’s parliamentary offices, he’s enthused about the party’s success, keenly data driven, and focused on how to make Jago’s and the board’s aspiration a reality. He’s talking about party research and how ACT is broadening its appeal.
‘‘If you look at the positioning in the marketplace, politically, there were 59 per cent of people saying they’d never consider ACT. Now that’s down to 27 per cent.
‘‘There was almost no-one who said ACT was the only party they’d consider; now that’s up to
3 per cent – for men and women.’’ Seymour talks about ‘‘ACT’s voting universe’’, which, according to the party’s research, seen by Stuff, is the proportion of the voting population that would potentially vote for ACT in the right circumstances.
He explains that a few months before the party scored almost
8 per cent in last October’s general election, that universe was 16 per cent of the population. Today, it is 33 per cent. ‘‘So that’s why we think we can double.’’
To do that, ACT would have to hit about 15 per cent of the vote, a tall order for any minor party. Seymour says that ACT’s key focus in this regard is to appeal to aspirational Kiwi voters whom National claims to represent, but hasn’t delivered for.
‘‘The thing that all the people we represent have in common is basically an idea of meritocracy: that your efforts make a difference. You know, that you build your farm, that you build your business, that you employ people, that you save up money and become a landlord. You hold your opinions, you can speak freely.
‘‘Nobody to date has been representing people that have that mindset. And yet that mindset is what makes a settler society successful. I mean, the whole point is people have come here for a better life.
‘‘So you know, we can talk about any issue in terms of who is representing that group of people, and I think that it’s at least 10 per cent, probably 15, maybe 20.’’
The areas that ACT will target are also becoming clear: the economy, law and order, housing and the Resource Management Act, education.
‘‘If you want to measure how bad New Zealand’s infrastructure is, it’s the quality and price of housing that New Zealanders face.’’
He also neatly sums up what he sees as the problems with the RMA – which the Government is in the process of overhauling.
‘‘Fundamentally, the RMA allows too many people to object on to too many things on too many grounds. And we’ve got to stop that process.’’
A big part of ACT’s maturity as a political party has been Seymour’s focus on what he calls ‘‘practical solutions’’ to New Zealand’s problems. ACT is currently touring the country conducting ‘‘honest conversations’’.
Whereas in the past its branding was very much about freedom, it is changing subtly towards improvement. It is still definitely informed by ACT’s small government and personal freedom principles, but tempered by an aspiration to become a larger party.
‘‘Our role in life is to make sure that those people are articulately represented with good practical solutions, because, you know, the Nats haven’t represented them. They’ve paid lip service to them.
‘‘And our view is that if we can assemble that, let’s say it is 15 per cent, half of the universe that actually votes for us, then you can imagine, you know, one or two terms out of every three, you’re going to be in a pivotal position, and you’re going to push the direction of New Zealand.’’
One of the bugbears of ACT is that National seems to keep pinching its ideas. ACT first raised the controversial He Puapua report in Parliament, first raised issues around the history curriculum.
And there have been more than a few murmurs within National itself about Judith Collins’ strategy that seems to be to win more votes off ACT to shore up her support in the short term, at the expense of winning votes off Labour to return National to government in the long run.
Seymour clearly thinks that National’s strategy is a loser.
‘‘I don’t really know what’s going on for them.
‘‘What I do know is that to change the government, we need to assemble a coalition of voters who want two things: one is a change of government. And two is a change of direction. In order to change the government, ACT and National between them need to win a majority of voters.
‘Now, I would have thought that it would be smarter for them to try and win votes off Labour, than win votes of ACT; that seems zero sum to me. But at the end of the day, we don’t worry about them too much.’’
Seymour goes on to say that ACT’s research shows that of all potential ACT voters, about a third are former Labour voters .
Certainly ACT events on the campaign trail skewed to younger people and to those who appear more traditionally working class than the ACT of yesteryear.
Seymour also thinks that his party is best positioned to grow into one that attracts and retains the votes of many immigrants, because, in his words, many are ‘‘natural entrepreneurs’’.
‘‘We are actually stronger among Indian and Chinese at the moment than we are among European New Zealanders.
‘‘I think a couple of things: one is, it’s a source of votes, but two, it shows a modern New Zealand – that this whole ‘20th century biculturalism, Ma¯ ori versus Pa¯ keha¯ ’ is old hat. We’re now representing a modern, outward-looking cosmopolitan New Zealand.’’
Yet Seymour faces a number of challenges ahead. The first is
an expectation of failure from outside the party.
‘‘Conventional wisdom’’ in politics is a hard thing to shake. So, just as very few predicted a majority Labour Government because it hadn’t been done before under MMP, in the same way, ACT is expected to blow up at some point as it has in the past.
Yet by and large ACT’s candidates appear sensible, considered and quick learners.
Status quo is also a powerful force in politics, and both National and Labour insiders mostly think that while ACT may do a little better, it is highly unlikely to grow into the clear third party.
Nevertheless, Seymour is determined to build a team and a culture capable of doing it. ACT’s offices are in the old Parliamentary Library, a beautiful Gothic Revival building.
As he shows me around the airy, open plan offices – which could be in any decent new office building – he explains the importance of building culture and the problem with traditional offices in Parliament.
He reckons that because each MP has their own office with separate staff that it’s a physical environment rife for intrigue, and not conducive to good teamwork.
Despite being the party’s sole MP for six years, he wants to build a team and a culture, so that ACT is more than just David Seymour.
‘‘I really relish it, to be honest, it’s a great challenge. And if we get it right, then ACT will be a place that people want to work, want to come to, and are really proud of the people we’ve attracted so far. I think we’ve got a really great team.’’
And despite the fact that one way to get political power as a minor party in an MMP system is to be able to credibly form government with either Labour or National, Seymour says that at this stage it’s hard to see ACT going with Labour.
‘‘Forty years ago, Labour was the form party, but they’ve had a real decline in form lately. So, it’s impossible to imagine.
‘‘I just think the things that they’re doing to those various groups of people that we seek to represent. And I think outside a couple of key people, their competence, you know, I just look at our Covid response – the idea that we have done something significantly more sophisticated than Melbourne or Taiwan and therefore deserve to be where we are, you know, it’s pure luck.
‘‘So, look I can’t imagine it just on philosophy and competence.’’
Whether Seymour and his party can grow into the standalone third party of New Zealand politics, time will tell.
But with National in disarray, Labour reigning supreme and a world living through a pandemic, anything is possible.
‘‘The thing that all the people we represent have in common is basically an idea of meritocracy. ’’David Seymour