Act’s plan to cut red tape and regulation was not a snappy soundbite policy, but while party faithfuls may need to re-read the fine print on what David Seymour announced today, they left the annual conference feeling confident ahead of this year’s election
A sold-out party conference this year for Act left attendees inspired and energised.
David Seymour roared onto the stage at SkyCity theatre in a blue and pink pinstriped Suzuki Swift, a fitting entrance for an audience that has learned to expect grand entrances from Act’s leader.
650 supporters heard from MPs including Nicole McKee on crime, Karen Chhour on how co-governance and obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi was dividing the country and Mark Cameron and Andrew Hoggard tag-teaming thoughts on farmers and the agriculture sector.
But the loudest cheers were reserved for the former one-man-band – and Seymour delivered.
Zingers about Simon Court mulching green waste – and no he “wasn’t talking about Chlöe Swarbrick’s word salad”, how even 12-year-old kids were worried about the cost of food and petrol, and how the streets were so unsafe people were taking Ubers 600m down the road to their car because they were too afraid to walk.
Reactions ranged from audible murmurings of agreement, to spontaneous applause – particularly any time the topic of race relations was raised.
The flagship policy – to introduce a new Ministry and Minister of Regulation to cut red tape was met with applause, however exactly how this would work and why it would not introduce more layers of bureaucracy were slightly lost on delivery.
While party faithfuls supported the idea in principle, afterwards some told Newsroom they did intend to read more about it once they got home.
The policy was three-fold: the new ministry, a Regulatory Standards Bill to hold new rules to a certain standard, and enforcement provisions to cut “bad law” out of the system.
The premise appealed to the group of New Zealanders, mostly from Auckland, who see government intervention as a hindrance to good old fashioned “number 8 wire” mentality.
Seymour made sure to distance his party from National.
His pitch was a change in government, but they could “dial up the brew”.
“You’re not taking away a vote from the centre right. You’re still voting for change. It’s all going into the same pot, but by giving your party vote to Act, you are dialling up a stronger brew.”
Afterwards attendees told Newsroom the speeches had left them energised.
“Inspired ... exciting and invigorated. And confident. I’m not going to hide away with a closet Act vote. It makes me more determined to tell people about this. It’s really refreshing,” one woman said.
Another commented on how much they had seen the caucus grow over the past two and a half years.
“Very polished and thorough ... their ideas are well thought out. It’s not pie in-the-sky stuff, there’s a lot of research behind it.
“They’ve got people that are subject matter experts ... they’ve got people who know what they’re talking about,” another said.
Attendees lapped up MPs' credentials, which were a prominent part of the speeches.
Deputy leader Brooke van Velden had her economics degree mentioned multiple times, new candidate and former Federated Farmers president Andrew Hoggard revealed he also had one. “A sorry state of affairs” he joked.
Simon Court was a civil engineer, Nicole McKee a firearms expert, Parmjeet Parmar was a scientist, Mark Cameron was a farmer (a “real” one), and so on.
The theme of sensible, realistic solutions in the face of Labour and National who were fighting an ideology battle struck a chord with those who had come to hear about “real change”.
And while Act’s own MPs were lighting their fire, supporters were less thrilled about the concession that getting their party into Parliament would mean National went with them.
“Uninspiring ... I don’t think [Christopher Luxon] knows what to do. He’s listening to the polls all the time and it’s shaping what he’s doing. He’s kind of all over the place,” one supporter said.
Others were resigned to the idea Luxon was merely playing a part – appealing to a centre base to gather votes, while Act was left free to say what “everyone really feels”, another added.
“But, he doesn’t talk about new ideas like how David does ... he’s so refreshing to talk to and it’s positive, he makes you feel positive.
And very quickly the conversation was back on Act.
