Act leader David Seymour will prioritise his party’s policy agenda over the prospect of ministerial positions should New Zealanders opt for a National-Act government in next year’s general election.
Seymour has sent that message to his MPs, notifying them that portfolios could come at the expense of the party’s bottom lines, which include a “referendum on co-governance” with respect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi - something National’s leader Christopher Luxon has previously opposed.
“That’s the number one thing, in our view, that the government needs to resolve,” Seymour said.
If [National is] not prepared to do that, we’re not going to be prepared to do much other stuff they want to do.”
The shot across National’s bow followed a more forceful offensive directed at the ever-present New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, whose strong contempt for co-governance links the two leaders, despite their shared displeasure at the comparison.
In his end-of-year interview with the Herald, Seymour restated his opposition to working with Peters and claimed Luxon had indicated he felt similar in discussions between the pair on the subject.
“[Luxon] says that he doesn’t want to work with him, but the proof is in the pudding,” Seymour said.
Luxon has repeatedly refused to entertain coalition discussions this year, saying in November it was “way too early” to address that, leaving the possibility on the table should New Zealand First hold the balance of power next year.
Seymour ended the year as one of the more active politicians and earned a shout-out in the Herald’s Politician of the Year decision, a title he held last year but lost to Luxon in 2022.
His seemingly unfaltering determination to prosecute the Government has regularly been on display in the House, something he managed to turn into more than $100,000 for the Prostate Cancer Foundation when Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was heard calling Seymour an “arrogant prick” after a line of persistent questioning.
Seymour told the Herald he relished the development of his nine MPs after being the party’s sole representative in the House.
“The big difference now ... I think more of Act’s support is attributable to Brooke and Nicole [McKee] and the team,” he said.
“The fact that Act’s team has really come out to play in their second year and will get stronger in their third year, for me, that’s what I set out to do this term was to grow a team.”
Having been the face of Act for so long, Seymour recognised how he could take the limelight away from his MPs, but he felt that was becoming less common with time.
“What you’ve got to remember is it’s a moving target so as [MPs] get more capable and able, they can take more of the load and so I always have a dilemma of sort of like a player-coach, you’ve got to be an individual contributor and also manage the others.
“They all have areas of expertise where they can actually do better than I can on that specific issue and that’s the sign of a maturing team.”
Even though it’s early days, Act’s 10 MPs have indicated they still have the drive to represent the party for another three years.
They’ll have some competition, according to Seymour. About 90 people had signed up as potential party candidates and would go through training ahead of a list announcement expected in May.
“In previous years, Act has not quite had enough candidates for every electorate,” Seymour said.
“Now it looks like we’ll almost certainly be running a candidate in every general electorate.”
Recent polls put Act in a healthy position less than 12 months from next year’s general election.
The last 1 News-Kantar poll, Talbot Mills poll and Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll have Act on or above 10 per cent, with the former predicting National and Act could govern alone.
Despite this, Seymour wasn’t prepared to count his chickens early.
“A poll in December doesn’t define an election which could be as late as November,” he said.
“If we think for a moment that we’ve won from here, then we’re dreaming and we don’t deserve to win.”
Speaking to the hypothetical scenario of National and Act successfully forming a government, Seymour outlined his preference for wins on policy as opposed to ministerial roles for him and his team.
“Maybe it involves positions but you notice that changing the Government comes first, then the policy changes and then the positions because I’m not interested in any ministerial position if we don’t have a clear agreement that we’re going to deliver real change.
“We’re not here to mess around and make sure Labour’s policies survive with a different coloured paint on.”
Seymour’s suspicion of National retaining Labour policies could be a primary “source of tension” between the two parties.
“We don’t just want to beat Labour, we want to [remove] their ideas from the Beehive, so that is the fundamental tension,” he said.
“If you look at something like tax, [National is] pretty happy to keep Labour’s tax policy just if it’s inflation-adjusted. We think Labour’s tax policy is wrong and needs to be changed.”
However, neither tax nor Resource Management Act reform were Seymour’s “bottom lines” - something Act would not back down on during policy negotiations.
That designation was more appropriate when applied to the co-governance referendum, which Seymour described as a “main priority”.
“If we don’t sort out what the Treaty [of Waitangi] means in a modern, liberal democratic context then it’s going to be almost impossible to progress just about anything else, including the Resource Management Act for example.”
After crashing out of Government in 2020, New Zealand First’s fortunes ahead of 2023 will give supporters optimism Peters could make a return to Parliament.
The three aforementioned polls had NZ First on 4, 2.9 and 4.4 per cent respectively.
His possible comeback had been noted by pundits, but it’s one Seymour utterly rejected.
“Where I’m sitting, it’s not looking likely.”
Seymour, appearing less than enthusiastic to discuss Peters, was brief when asked whether he could work with NZ First.
“No, no one can,” he replied.
Seymour pushed on, criticising media reporting that suggested Peters would return given recent poll results hadn’t placed the party over the 5 per cent threshold.
Asked about Luxon’s position on NZ First, Seymour claimed the National leader had expressed reservations about working with Peters, but Luxon hadn’t discussed the matter publicly.
Traditionally, Peters didn’t rule out collaborating with Labour or National, but appeared to break precedent when he told the Herald in November: “We are not going to go with the Labour Party, this present Labour Party crowd, because they can’t be trusted”.
Seymour didn’t believe Peters and repeated his critique of media for putting stock in his statements.
He urged Luxon to rule Peters out in an effort to rebuild trust in government.
“I don’t think that entertaining someone who is frequently dishonest is going to help with that,” Seymour claimed.
“I don’t think that other people are helping and I don’t think that a press that believes in those things is helping, going out of its way to promote someone.”
A Chinese cameraman brought a unique camera to film Luxon in Beijing.