Seymour’s message, delivered against the backdrop of a 1% economic contraction in 2024 and rising public debt, targeted what he called “the Majority for Mediocrity.” He criticised policies he believes stifle growth and innovation, framing his solutions as a necessary shift to secure New Zealand’s first-world status. While ACT’s proposals have found favour with its core supporters, critics warn that Seymour’s approach could deepen inequality and undermine vital public services.
A Return to Privatisation Sparks Debate
A centrepiece of Seymour’s address was his push to reignite asset sales, a policy that has long been contentious in New Zealand. “If something isn’t getting a return, the government should sell it so we can afford to buy something that does,” Seymour declared, referring to the government’s $570 billion in assets, including state-owned homes, hospitals, and companies like Quotable Value.
Seymour argued that the government has proven itself “hopeless” at managing these assets, citing failures such as the KiwiBuild program and Kainga Ora housing initiatives. He said privatisation would allow funds to be redirected to infrastructure projects like roads, sewerage systems, and housing.
However, privatisation remains a political fault line in New Zealand. Analysis from The Conversation shows that public scepticism about asset sales runs deep. According to the New Zealand Election Study, nearly 50% of New Zealanders believe privatisation has already gone too far, compared to just 9% who support more asset sales. Critics argue that past privatisations in the 1980s and 1990s enriched private investors—often offshore—while reducing access to vital services and widening income inequality.
The Public Service Association (PSA) also pushed back on Seymour’s proposals. Acting PSA National Secretary Fleur Fitzsimons said privatisation risks “syphoning money off from providing services for all to pay profits to private corporations,” leaving only those who can afford private services with access to essentials like healthcare and housing.
Healthcare Reform: Opting Out or Selling Out?
Seymour’s healthcare proposal is equally contentious. He suggested allowing New Zealanders to opt out of the public system, taking their $6,000 per-person share of healthcare funding to purchase private insurance instead. Framing it as a way to increase competition and improve outcomes, Seymour asked, “How many people here would give up their right to the public healthcare system if they got $6,000 for their own private insurance?”
While Seymour argues the current system is unsustainable—pointing to healthcare costs ballooning from $20 billion to $30 billion in five years—critics warn this plan could exacerbate inequality. The PSA’s Fitzsimons argued that privatisation of healthcare would lead to reduced services for those unable to afford private insurance.
Public trust in government-provided healthcare also remains high. Research cited by The Conversation indicates that more than 80% of New Zealanders trust public services based on their own experiences, further complicating efforts to shift the healthcare debate.
Seymour’s approach has drawn comparisons to privatised healthcare models in countries like the United States, where market-driven systems have resulted in high costs and uneven access. These global examples are likely to fuel debate about whether New Zealand can sustain an equitable system under such a framework.
Education Spending and Efficiency
Education reform was another major focus of Seymour’s address, with the ACT leader questioning the efficiency of current spending. He noted that New Zealand invests $333,000 in education per citizen over a lifetime but questioned whether taxpayers were seeing sufficient returns on this investment.
While specific reforms were not outlined, Seymour hinted at alternatives like greater school choice and private sector involvement. “We need to ask ourselves if New Zealanders get a return on this spending that justifies taking the money off taxpayers in the first place,” he said.
However, public reaction to such critiques is likely to be mixed. Teachers’ unions and education advocates have historically resisted efforts to privatise education, arguing it risks leaving vulnerable students behind. Still, Seymour’s remarks may resonate with parents and taxpayers frustrated by declining educational outcomes despite significant government spending.
The Treaty Principles Bill and Social Division
Seymour’s address also reignited debate over ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill, which seeks to define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi democratically. Describing those opposed to the bill as part of a “Majority for Mediocrity,” Seymour argued the current approach to the Treaty fuels division by prioritising ancestry over equal rights.
“The tribe of change-makers has a voice,” Seymour said. “People who want equal rights for all New Zealanders to be treated with respect and dignity because they’re citizens have a position that others need to refute. Good luck to them arguing against equal rights.”
The bill has drawn sharp criticism from Māori leaders and opposition parties, who argue it undermines the Treaty’s role as a cornerstone of New Zealand’s founding document. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, while cautiously supportive of ACT’s broader policy agenda, has distanced himself from the bill, noting the challenges it could pose for coalition unity.
Regulatory Reform and the Path Forward
Seymour also emphasised the need for regulatory reform, championing the Regulatory Standards Bill. This legislation would require laws to demonstrate their purpose, justify costs and benefits, and identify who bears those costs. He argued that “bad regulation” is strangling New Zealand’s productivity, citing delays in construction and business operations as prime examples.
“We need to think carefully about three areas of government activity: spending, owning, and regulating,” Seymour said, urging the government to prioritise efficiency. He warned that failure to address these issues could see New Zealand continue on a “century of decline.”
A Divided Reaction
Seymour’s speech has sparked polarised reactions across the political spectrum. While ACT’s core supporters praise his vision as bold and necessary, critics from unions, advocacy groups, and opposition parties have characterised his proposals as risky and regressive.
Prime Minister Luxon, whose National Party governs in coalition with ACT, signalled openness to conversations about asset sales but stopped short of endorsing them outright. “It’s not something on our agenda right now,” Luxon said, though he hinted National might campaign on the issue in the next election. Meanwhile, coalition partner NZ First remains staunchly opposed to asset sales, with leader Winston Peters emphasising the importance of retaining local ownership of key resources.
As Seymour himself noted, ACT’s role in government is to act as a “squeaky wheel,” pushing for tougher reforms and ensuring the coalition doesn’t settle for incremental improvements. “The Government cannot measure itself by just being better than Labour,” he said.