John Armstrong: Act tries to unplug life support

Act leader David Seymour. Photo / Steven McNicholl

Rarely has a political party conference been treated to a speech as brutally frank as one of the missives delivered at the annual gathering of the Act clan on Saturday.

In publicly acknowledging the infighting and disunity which had plagued the party for the past decade, the speech was half-apology and half-catharsis. It would not have been easy to make. But it was a speech that had to be made by someone at a senior level in the party. Only then could Act move forward without carrying the deadweight of the past.

That "someone" could not be David Seymour who became Act's leader shortly after last September's election and who therefore represents a break from the past.

The party does not want to taint him in any way by him having even a passing association with that past. So the task fell to John Thompson, Act's president.

He did not hold back. He said Act had given New Zealand voters every reason and every excuse not to vote for the party.

As a result, Act, which won less than 1 per cent of the vote in 2014, was on life support.

To become relevant again, Act had to stop misbehaving and be sensible. Act had to dispel the notion that it was a party of "tired old grumpies".

Rather than adopting politically convenient and inconsistent positions on issues, Act needed to be true to its core values. In short, it needed a "culture change" internally.

There was some evidence at the conference that is happening.

In his conference speech, Seymour challenged all other party leaders to agree to hold a referendum on the future of New Zealand superannuation and whether changes in entitlements were needed to keep the cost of pension payments affordable.

Seymour knows of course that most, if not all of the other leaders, will not accept his challenge, not least because they will not want to kowtow to Act.

Moreover, were National to agree to look at a possible referendum, it would be an admission that its expressed belief that current entitlements are sustainable is wrong.

Labour and other Opposition parties will likely dismiss the proposal as a backdoor means of enabling fiscally-dry Act to slash entitlements.

The public may take a less jaundiced view and instead award Seymour Brownie points for showing initiative and trying to find a solution to a seemingly intractable problem made worse by other parties' refusal to budge.

Thus is Act's credibility slowly rebuilt. Thus does Act move off life support. Or so Act is punting, its fingers tightly crossed.

Debate on this article is now closed.