Full text: Catherine Judd's report to the Act Board

INTRODUCTION
Over the past month I have had informal discussions with a number of people about the future of the party. These include Rodney [Hide, leader] and Heather [Roy, MP], Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, Graham Scott, Brian Nicolle, Alan Gibbs and several past and present boards members, candidates, members and supporters.

My aim has been to gather a range of opinion and ideas about where we should go from here. The following is an attempt to summarise the main ideas and conclusions I have drawn from this. 

REVIEW OF THE CAMPAIGN

Why did we lose 106,000 votes last election?

Our vote and brand was taken by National. Our strategy relied on National's failing: we had no plan B other than Epsom. We were seriously under-resourced, both in terms of funds and people.

Size was a big problem: what we were saying didn't matter - no one was listening. We were squeezed out and seemed superfluous. We got no credit for having been the effective opposition. We did not inspire or mobilise our members. We did not promote a single attractive reason for voting Act. The Colmar Brunton false poll cost us two, maybe three MPs [despite Mr Hide winning Epsom, the Epsom-voter poll on the electorate vote a week before the election offered respondents party choices rather than candidate names then claimed that National candidate Richard Worth was ahead by 14 points]. We did not have confidence in our own polling. Our voters are rational, not sentimental or tribal and did not want to wast their party votes.

What went well?

We ran a very clever and successful campaign in Epsom. We got two great MPs in. Rodney built an image as a never-give-up battler and a winner* and has consolidated that since. Our list process stood the test. We had very good candidates. The Asian Chapter flourished. Our young guard are great. We have some very talented, thinking, hard-working, non-arrogant people (very different and differently motivated from the Nats). We have some loyal, supportive donors. Members are still cheerful and positive.

Questions

Is our fate over the next period inevitably tied up with National's, their direction and who's leading them? Could we have done anything differently? Could we have found a unique selling proposition? Should we have started the Epsom campaign sooner? Should we have started raising money earlier? How?

Lessons

We should have faith in our own polling. Rodney and Heather are doing extremely well but maintaining a profile for Act's ideas with only two MPs is a huge challenge.

Voters were happy to 'waste' electorate votes: does this augur well for targeting other constituency seats?

Our ideas are a framework for thinking, not a political manifesto, and they do not translate readily into practical, appealing, easily saleable policies.

Liberalism's chronic weakness (as described by David Henderson) is that it has so few adherents.

There is a serious limit to what a political party can do to advance liberalism, other than being a standard bearer and influencer with a long term view. Our members, supporters, donors, policy guardians - as well as intellectuals, business people and other like-minded people - are wildly unrealistic about what can be sold to voters by any political party.

National suffers from this problem too. Perhaps we should focus effort on one or two arguments that are realistically winnable.

The political centre of gravity has shifted to the right, with the far left wiped out and Labour becoming mainstream. 
 
STOCKTAKE

Act's purpose

Is there a purpose for a party with just two MPs? Most Act people feel that Act's mission is not over. There is no guarantee that National will promote our ideas and policies and no one trusts National not to revert to big Government. So Act is needed as much as ever.

There was general agreement that Act's purpose is:

- To influence the way people think about government.

- To defend, promote and advance individual freedom, personal responsibility, choice, private property rights, free markets, small Government, civil society.

- To push back statism.

- To develop and implement political strategies to achieve the above.

- To challenge, expose and defeat bad ideas and bad public policy.

- To provide a voice and a vehicle for our members and other people who espouse our ideas.

- To dispel misconceptions and prejudice and combat negative views about liberal ideas, demonstrate that civil society is compassionate.

Starting a party is very hard work and gaining parliamentary representation was the major hurdle. the party has very significant assets which should be preserved and built on: ideas, policies, MPs, members, ex MPs, candidates, donors, Asian Chapter, young guard, relationships, database, systems, structures, website, institutional knowledge.

Inter-party relations

Our strategy vis-a-vis the National Party didn't work: being nice to them and looking like National's little helper got us nowhere, neither did being nasty. We need to matter to them.

National is establishing a liberal wing, but history would suggest it will be short lived and soon squashed.

National tried during the election to destroy Act and is still working on it. But these days the venom comes mainly from Gerry Brownlee [National deputy] - most other National MPs are moderately friendly. And Don brash is keen to effect an accord of some sort. We should work on this: there is little point being at war.

Don Brash looks unlikely to last long and it is assumed that National will move to the left, creating a Bolger-type National Party, led by a Birch-like John Key. However National may still try to wipe out Act and may still work hard to take back Epsom.

Labour may one day again give rise to a radical, pro freedom movement, but we should not hold our breath waiting.

Peter Dunne is likely to get credit for bringing corporate tax down.

Relations with the Maori Party are positive and friendly. We should be alongside them but opposed to the Maori seats.

The challenge for Act is how to survive in a 'drought' - waiting for National to go back to the centre and functioning as a party that can work with any party to promote Act's ideas. So we should stop talking about centre-right relations and talk instead about an inter-party strategy.

This will help break the stereotype image of Act as a hard right party.

Act's role in Parliament

- Attack and destabilise the Government.

- Promote Act's ideas.

- Influence legislation.

- Preserve Act's brand, political capital and assets.

- Oppose bad policy.

- Look bigger.

Ideas for the MPs

- Rodney should establish himself as the Auckland MP. He could act like a local government politician - like the mayor.

- Rodney should get a book out - 'Winning Epsom, Winning New Zealand.'

- The party should fund trips for both MPs to visit the US think-tanks, political organisers, and observe campaigns.

Act's role outside Parliament

- Be ready for the next general election campaign.

- Work with other parties and fronts - think-tanks, business organisations, and individuals - be an effective part of the chorus of voices.

- Secure Epsom - a key priority.

- Identify other possible constituency seats to target - eg Rakaia and Ohariu Belmont.

- Encourage talented young members into deputy board positions.

- Campaign on issues - the two MPs need to decide what issues to make their own and the party needs to support them.

- Celebrate our heritage.

- Promote the concept of an ownership society.

- Look bigger.

- Have influence.

The think-tank option: the Douglas Institute

With the above objectives in mind, I have been canvassing views on the idea of starting up a new think-tank with the ability and resources to promote policy ideas and issues. This could be a revived Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, or a new brand and entity eg the Douglas Institute.

Act the political party could operate in tandem as its political wing and all current members could be invited to become members of the association. Alternatively it could be quite a separate organisation.

Such a think-tank could be modelled on Grover Norquist's 'Americans for Tax Reform' promoting a central theme, or the [Canadian] Fraser Institute, doing applied research such as tax freedom day, the freedom index, surveys on issues such as school choice, hospital waiting lists, etc.

The organisation could operate with an independent board and president and a fulltime executive director who would be the face of the organisation. This role would be critical.

Spokesman (perhaps some of our ex-MPs and candidates) could be appointed to key policy areas, or work could be contracted out on a project basis. It could be like a bare bones CIS [Australia's Centre for Independent Studies] or Maxim but would still need substantial resources.

Those I have canvassed this idea with are enthusiastic. it is generally felt that there is ample room and need for a radical, applied research focused think-tank that could choose issue that could be popularised - a role the business Roundtable is not positioned to do.

A new active, intellectually sound media-aware, centre-right think-tank promoting Act's agenda would be a force to promote Act's ideals. Act does not lack an agenda, just support for it.

As well as its primary purpose of popularising, promoting and lobbying for liberal ideas, such an organisation could meet members' needs by providing a forum for thinking about, discussing, developing and promoting policy ideas.

In addition to an annual conference, the institute could run seminars - maybe quarterly, maybe on a regional basis - around specific topics eg privatisation, tax, welfare. These could be like the foreshore and seabed symposium and Muriel's welfare one, or smaller forums.

This could help meet Act supporters' passion for policy and opportunities for think and talk fests. It should attract support from people who would not support a political party.

It would enable Act to get traction for its ideas, to look bigger and get bigger - an appealing proposition to sign people up to and raise funds for, and more logical and saleable than asking for support for a structure than asking for support for a structure that has only two MPs.

It would effectively enable us to have spokesmen outside caucus without the headache it would create for Rodney to have to run such a structure. it should enable us to have more influence.

I have discussed the idea with, among others, Richard Prebble, who I think would be the ideal person to run such an organisation.

Richard believes there is a real need for something like this, but he stresses the critical importance of funding.


* Due to an editing error in an earlier version of this page, the word "sinner" originally appeared where it should have read "winner".