ACT New Zealand is a free marketliberal party in the New Zealand Parliament. It supports individual freedom, cutting government funding for social services, less redistribution of wealth, and smaller government. The party describes itself as classical liberal (referring to the European, rather than American, usage of the word). Some members have described the party as "libertarian", although this is disputed by the smaller Libertarianz party.
Supporters claim that ACT is one of the more noticeable opposition parties, known for its frequent and vociferous criticism of the government. Critics of the party point out that ACT is more interested in scoring political points and gaining media exposure than in participating in constructive dialogue, and criticise its two members of parliament with spending too much time with Army responsibilites and appearing on Dancing with the Stars. Many of its rank-and-file members are also perceived to have more in common with neo-conservatism than classical liberalism. [Peron], "The New Anti-PC Problem" Supporters, however, say that ACT "keeps the government honest", and ensures accountability.
ACT's philosophy is based on individual freedom and personal responsibility. Perhaps properly described as "classical liberal", ACT's philosophy has also been described as "laissez faire", "neo-liberal", "libertarian", or "conservative". ACT states its principles and policy objectives as:
Principles
*That individuals are the rightful owners of their own lives and therefore have inherent freedoms and responsibilities
*That the proper purpose of government is to protect such freedoms and not to assume such responsibilities.
Policy Objectives
*A prosperous, well-educated, healthy, and open society in which individuals are free to achieve their full potential
*A growing, dynamic, and open economy, in which individual choice is paramount
*Social policy that promotes and rewards hard work, enterprise, thrift, and personal responsibility
*A standard of living, and quality of life, that is the envy of the world.
The ACT party has proven willing to highlight populist 'Zero Tolerance for Crime' and 'One Law for All' over it's less electorally appealing economic philosophies.
Criticising ACT's Neoliberalism John Morrow argues that
"At the very least, neoliberals take no account of the conditions that preceded the welfare state, or the arguments advanced in it's support"'Neoliberalism', John Morrow, in 'New Zealand Government and Politics' 3rd edition, ed. Raymond Millar, Oxford University press, Victoria, 2004
Current issues
ACT New Zealand currently focuses on two main policy areas - taxation and crime. On the subject of taxes, ACT says that tax rates should be lower, and also supports something approaching a flat tax, in which tax rates would not be graduated based on wealth or income, so every taxpayer would pay the same proportion of their income in tax. The flat tax rate that ACT wants to target would be approximately 15%. Aligned to the lower tax proposal, ACT also wants to reduce or remove some Government programmes which they see as unneccesary and wasteful and increase self-reliance by encouraging individuals to take responsibility to pay for services traditionally paid for by Government. Critics point out that those with greater wealth would tend to cope with such self-reliance, whereas those with lower income with have fewer choices.
On the subject of crime, ACT advocates harsher penalties as the crime rate in New Zealand is higher than other comparable countries - in particular violent crime such as murder and violent assault. Some critics claim that New Zealand's high crime rate is due to the economic structural reforms known as Rogernomics instituted by Labour and National during the 1980s and early 1990s, although supporters point out that the crime rate has been growing since the 1970s and peaked at the end of the reforms.
Other policies ACT advocates include Welfare Reform similar to those instituted by the United States in the mid 1990s, based primarily on the reforms first undertaken in Wisconsin and a greater spend on Defense with closer strategic alliances with the United States, Australia and Great Britain.
History
Origins
ACT grew out of the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, although the two are separate organizations. The association was founded in 1993 by Roger Douglas and Derek Quigley, both former cabinet ministers. The organization was intended to be a lobby group, promoting the economic policies that Douglas and Quigley stood for (sometimes known as "Rogernomics").
The following year, with the new MMP electoral system making it easier for smaller parties to gain seats, ACT New Zealand was established as a separate political party based on the association's views. Douglas selected longtime Labour Party activist Brian Nicolle to help him establish the party.
The Association of Consumers and Taxpayers still exists on paper although there is little substance to it. The Association is technically a lobby group promoting free market economics. It holds its annual general meetings during the annual general meetings of ACT New Zealand and the members of the Board of Trustees also serve as board members of the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers.
Initially, the party was led by Douglas, but in March of 1996, he stepped down and was replaced by Richard Prebble.
1996-1999
In the 1996 election, ACT gained eight seats in Parliament--one electorate seat and seven list seats. Prebble was elected in Wellington Central; some believe that he won after Prime MinisterJim Bolger appeared to endorse Prebble over his own National Party's candidate. ACT had by this time adopted the role of a natural coalition partner with National (a significant departure from Douglas and Prebble's origins in Labour), and would have been assured representation in Parliament if Prebble won. However, some observers pointed out that Prebble had a substantial lead well before the election and would have won even without Bolger's endorsement. It ended up being a moot point, as ACT won 6.1 percent of the vote, well over the MMP threshold. It remained outside the National-New Zealand First coalition government, although sometimes gave it support.
1999-2002
In the election of 1999, ACT increased its strength in parliament by one seat, giving it a total of nine, although Prebble lost his Wellington Central electorate seat.
2002-2005
In the 2002 election, ACT's strength in parliament remained unchanged, prompting speculation about Prebble's leadership. However there were no obvious challenges, and Prebble remained in control until he decided to resign in 2004.
In 2003, the party was embarrassed by allegations against Donna Awatere Huata, one of its MPs. It was claimed that Awatere Huata had diverted funds from a children's educational program for her own personal use, and an official investigation was launched. This investigation eventually led to Awatere Huata's arrest for fraud. As ACT had a reputation for vociferously attacking any perceived dishonesty by members of other parties, the charges against Awatere Huata were quite embarrassing. Awatere Huata refused to resign from Parliament, but was expelled from the ACT caucus. That November, she was removed from the party itself, becoming an independent. ACT tried to remove her from Parliament by invoking the Electoral Integrity Act, as her departure from the party left ACT with fewer seats than the public had chosen to give it at the last election. In November 2004, Awatere Huata was finally removed from Parliament after her last court challenge failed, and the next person on the ACT list, Kenneth Wang, was appointed in her place.
Towards the end of 2003, there was discussion about a possible pact between ACT and the larger National Party. Although ACT had long portrayed itself as a natural coalition partner for National, there has never been a formal agreement between the two. Some right-wing politicians believe that an agreement is essential to the establishment of a new right-wing government, and point to the pre-election agreement between Labour and the Alliance in 1999. As yet, however, there has been no deal.
On 27 April2004, Richard Prebble announced his retirement from politics. After an "indicative" ballot of the party's members, Rodney Hide was chosen as Prebble's successor. The other candidates were Ken Shirley (the party's deputy leader), Stephen Franks, and Muriel Newman. The leadership race saw considerable tension between two factions of the party - Rodney Hide, one of the two main contenders, was regarded as representing a "populist", high-profile approach, while his main rival, Stephen Franks, was seen as more ideologically grounded. ACT's founder, Roger Douglas, saw Hide's alleged "grandstanding" as detracting from the group's core message, and had spoken out in favour of Franks and Shirley. In the end, however, Hide was successful, and was announced as the party's new leader on 13 June2004.
2005 election
In the lead-up to the election in 2005, opinion polls showed ACT support well below the 5% threshold. ACT's best prospect of winning an electorate was in the relatively wealthy National-held Epsom seat where Hide was standing. The party was ruled out as "dead" by much of the media, possibly assisting the downward spiral (see: Wasted vote), especially as polls conducted in the Epsom seat had incorrectly showed Hide's support being far below National's candidate. It was repeatedly put to the National Party that they could ensure the survival of ACT in Parliament as a potential coalition partner by supporting Hide in Epsom. While not emphatically ruling out the possibility, National leader Don Brash stuck to the line that National "had no plans to do a deal". The Labour Party, however, saw the possibility of National supporters voting for Hide and encouraged their own supporters to vote for the National candidate in order to shut ACT out of parliament.
Hide won the seat by a moderate margin--only the second time that ACT had won an electorate seat. Nationwide, ACT was severely mauled to a greater extent than any of the other small parties. It won only 1.5% of vote, winning only one additional list seat, that of Heather Roy. Roy will likely become the party's new deputy leader, as the party's support had dropped enough to keep former deputy Muriel Newman from returning to Parliament.
Post election
Since the election ACT has set about the mammoth task of restoring the party, in terms of membership and finances. This has had limited success and the party is a long way off the levels of support it enjoyed in the mid nineties. The ACT Annual Conference was held in Wellington over the weekend of March 24-26 2006. An almost entirely new Board was elected, reflecting the need for a change of direction within the party, and the emergence of a strong youth presence. Hamilton business-owner Garry Mallett was elected President, defeating Hawkes Bay farmer and former ACT Vice-President John Ormond. Christchurch's Trevor Loudon replaced Ormond as Vice-President, defeating Auckland's Barry Parkin. The Conference was most notable for the attendance of Maori Party Co-leader Tariana Turia. While the Maori Party and ACT do oppose each other in several areas, policies on welfare, tax and education are very similar. Turia received a standing ovation on completion of her speech by the predominantly Pakeha and Asian crowd. Her presence is seen by many as a move by the ACT Party's Rodney Hide to broker a coalition of opposition parties to contest the 2008 election against the Labour minority Government.
Questions have been raised on whether ACT New Zealand will survive within Parliament. This will depend on whether the National Party regards it as a viable future coalition partner. If so, then it may not stand an electorate candidate in Epsom in the next general election. If National decides that it does not require ACT as a satellite party, then it may stand either previous National MP Richard Worth or another constituency candidate for this seat. If successful, ACT would face electoral oblivion unless it can regain sufficient party list support to survive the loss of their current constituency seat.
(It is also possible that ACT's previous supporters might have gravitated to the offices of the New Zealand Centre for Independent Studies, dependent on whether or not the New Zealand branch of that centre-right public policy and research organisation is able to survive itself until 2008, through adapting itself to the New Zealand domestic political context. In this scenario, the Centre for Independent Studies would evolve into a public policy think-tank that seeks to influence the National Party from that direction and provide it with research and publication advice and assistance on matters of relevant social and economic policy.)
Even if Rodney Hide does retain the seat for ACT, there is still the matter of the party list vote, Rodney Hide would become a centre-right equivalent to Jim Anderton's current status on the other side of the house, as sole remnant of a former plausible coalition partner for a major political party. If Hide is able to only retain his seat, there will be a further reduction in parliamentary services funding for ACT, as there was after the debacle of the New Zealand general election 2005.
(It is possible that National might be able to form a multiparty coalition with Hide, Peter Dunne (and Judy Turner and Gordon Copeland, if UFNZ retains enough support.)
Much also depends on ACT's organisational structure, and whether Mallet and Loudon can maintain it amidst aforementioned tensions between classical liberal and neoconservative elements within the organisation. However, it is also worth noting that these elements of tension are no longer present within the parliamentary party, as Hide and Roy are both 'classical liberals.' Of course, it is possible that they may re-emerge between the party organisation and parliamentary party.
Alternatively, ACT might be able to regenerate its support, find that its policies are now able to merit public support, and produce a new caucus from the remnants of its older incarnation. After the demise of the United Party proper, this happened with United Future in 2002. However, the fate of the Alliance Party(1995-2002) provides an alternative model, with Jim Anderton now the only survivor of that caucus.
