On The Nation: Lisa Owen interviews David Seymour
Lisa Owen: ACT leader David Seymour has made it his mission to revive the fortunes of the party, and he is aiming high. This week he said his goal is to get five MPs into Parliament in the election. Can he do it? Well, he joins me now in the studio. So, that is your ambition — five MPs at this election. That would mean you’d need, what, about 4% of the vote?
David Seymour: Yeah, 3.5%, 4%, so it would be a repeat of ACT’s 2008 performance.
How realistic is that?
Well, we’ve done it before, so it shows it’s perfectly possible. But, actually, I think it’s bigger than that. I think the media has got this election wrong. The narrative is that New Zealand First will be the kingmaker no matter what. I think the real story of this election is going to be a resurgent ACT, it’s going to be a story of how ACT stops New Zealand First, keeps Labour and the Greens out of power and actually makes the National Party accountable to the taxpayer and tackles some of those long-term intergenerational issues that younger people are fed up with.
So are you telling me right here, right now that ACT Party is going to be the kingmaker after the election?
Absolutely. That’s what we’re in this for, because I can’t step back and watch so many long-term issues, such as housing, such as superannuation, such as tax, such as education, and some of the issues you’ve just been speaking about with Grainne, be neglected by a conservative government that is inherently there to maintain power but not make New Zealand a better place. That’s why we need a resurgent ACT.
Those are your ambitions, but in the last poll… Do you know what you polled in our last poll?
Oh, yeah, and I’ll tell you what. I think—
I’ll tell you. Or do you know?
I think it was probably 0.4, but you know what that means? That means—
Exactly right. 0.4%.
That means our potential market is 99.6%. The ACT Party’s got a bigger market of potential voters than any other party, and I’m looking forward to getting into it.
But that is— In order to reach the target that you need to get those other MPs, get some buddies in Parliament, do you know what percentage increase that is? 900%. In six months, Mr Seymour.
Maths class is down the hall. I mean, the fact of the matter is that everybody goes into a cardboard box with an orange marker and makes their choice. And the proposition from the ACT Party is that if you’re fed up with stagnation… Okay, you think that the National Party are more competent than the other side and you want to keep them in power and keep the other guys out, but you still want to address some of these issues — housing, really, nothing’s been done; and Auckland and Wellington congestion, nothing’s been done; we’ve got educational inequality which is terrible by world standards. Those are all issues that ACT actually has answers to. And don’t forget the intergenerational issues, in particular what we’ve seen recently with superannuation.
We’ll come to that in a minute, but who are the big guns you are going to be bringing in with you? Have you got new names? Who are the new names?
I think that’s the wrong question. What ACT’s done in the past is tried to parachute in big guns and big names, and the temptation is why don’t you try and get Richie McCaw and Gemma Flynn? I don’t think the right answer is to bring in people that you have to beg to join the party. What you will see from ACT is—
Did they turn you down, David?
Well, maybe we should’ve asked, but what you will see from ACT is a coherent team, and I think that’s what people want now — is a competent team of people, one team, one dream working together for our goal. And funnily enough, that is something we can learn from the All Blacks.
Well, you’re talking about keeping National on its toes, but the thing is — how confident are you that you’re going to get the same deal in Epsom? Because you are in Parliament at the grace of the National Party, aren’t you? So are you going to get that same deal this time round?
See, you get this so wrong. That’s not how democracy works. I’m in Parliament at the grace of the people in the Epsom electorate, for whom I work hard every day.
Who have been asked by the National Party to give the vote to you.
They’ve voted for ACT candidates four times in a row with and without National endorsement. And the reason for that is simply that if you’re in the Epsom electorate and you think that I’m a reliable, responsive, effective local representative and you want a centre-right government—
Can you win it without their endorsement?
It’s a moot point, because they would be—
Can you win it without the endorsement?
It’s a moot point, because they would be mad not to endorse me.
So have you been told that you’re getting the endorsement already? You’re going to get the same deal as last time?
Put it this way — on April 26, I’m doing a fundraiser in Parnell, and the guest of honour is Bill English, and if you’re interested in tickets, please call the ACT office.
Doesn’t that reliance on them mean that you can’t be as disobedient as you might like? You can’t rock the boat and do exactly as you’d want to.
Well, the alliance is actually two-way, though, because this is the thing — no party can govern alone. Every party needs to think about its coalitions, and that’s true for ACT, but it’s also true for the National Party. And the only way, for instance, that the National Party is really going to be able to cut taxes is if ACT is in power and if National and ACT have a majority together. And the reason why I know that is because the only time in the 21st century that the National Party has cut taxes is when it had the numbers with ACT.
What about one of the other support partners, another government prop — Peter Dunne? Do you think he’s going to win in Ohariu, and is it better for you if he doesn’t?
I don’t know a lot about the politics in Ohariu. I know Peter Dunne, and I know that he’s a hard-working guy and he’s very experienced. But, look, he’s up against it there with the Greens pulling their candidate, etc.
And is that better for you if he doesn’t win? They need you more, don’t they?
I think the thing about MMP, and this is not something I voted for — I was in standard three at the time — but the fact of the matter is MMP gives you a scenario where no honest politician can sit there and say, ‘We know exactly what’s going to happen after the election.’ And so, look, I wish Peter all the best, but ultimately, just like in Epsom, the choice is not with any particular party; the choice is with the people of Ohariu.
Okay, super — you’ve mentioned that in this conversation, and you have said the younger generation has been absolutely shafted by a government that cynically thinks because they won’t come out and vote, they can get away with ripping off millennials to the tune of 58 billion over the next 20 years. But when we polled people on this issue, more than 50% of people support Bill English on this. So you are on the wrong side of public opinion, aren’t you?
Oh, look, I could do with the other 48% support quite nicely. The fact of the matter is that there are a sizeable majority of people who are saying, ‘We’re quite happy that we have finally got some acceptance that superannuation has to be changed. We know it is not sustainable as it is going forward.’ What is really mystifying about the National Party’s position is — why wait? Why wait until every single baby boomer has retired and then lump all of the costs of the transition on millennials, who will pay tax as if it’s available at 65 and 66, 58 billion bucks of extra tax over the next 20 years, and then receive it themselves at 67. That is unjust.
So you’re making your market young voters? You’re making that one of your target groups?
Absolutely. It is critical to the future of New Zealand that younger people get out and vote at this election.
We’re running out of time, but I want to ask you this. Do you stand by ACT’s three strikes policy?
Yes, I do, and the early evidence is that it’s been effective.
Sorry to interrupt you, but how does that work? Because recently you came out suggesting that prisoners get a discount if they get an education and qualifications. Seems contradictory. Three strikes is what’s cramming up… part of the reason our prisons are crammed up.
It’s not at all, Lisa, and the fact is—
It is. If you read the government research, it is.
Nobody has actually been convicted on a third-strike offence yet, so there’s no way—
They serve longer sentences at stage two. They serve longer sentences.
No, and in the cases where that’s happened, the judges in all four cases have said that the sentence would be manifestly unjust if it was longer. So what you’re saying is actually logically impossible. But in any case—
No, that’s at the third strike, Mr Seymour. At the second strike, they serve longer portions of their sentence.
No, because it’s been ruled manifestly unjust. We can have this argument as long as you like.
Okay, so you don’t think those two policies clash?
They’re not, because what we’re saying is that we need to rehabilitate people and look after people and put them back on the straight and narrow, but after a certain point if you’ve committed three violent or sexual offences, yep, you’re going away a long time, and I stand by that.
Okay. Thanks for joining us this morning. Appreciate your time.

Transcript provided by Able. www.able.co.nz

© Scoop Media