The Trouble With ACT

Being a member of minor party isn’t exactly fun, you have a much smaller budget than the major parties, far less media exposure and the majority of New Zealand probably thinks of you as a raving loon. However if there are any benefits to being a minor party, it’s the electoral advantages that can come from successful branding. Minor party’s platforms tend to resolve loosely around a single principle or issue, for example the Greens focus on environmental issues, ACT focuses on responsible Government Spending, New Zealand First focuses on Winston Peters, etc. However, factions within both ACT and The Greens are changing the focus of the parties, and the results are interesting.

Though I don’t always agree with ACT’s politics, and consider their 08 regional conference one of the most depressingly amateurish things I’ve seen in politics, the major advantage ACT has is in the huge levels of commitment that its base gives it. ACT on Campus is one of the most active and committed student groups on campus, with its members blogging, helping organise campaigns, lobbying the party leaders and generally being shining examples of democratic citizenry. ACT voters are the indie music fans of the political world, always trying to corner you and talk your ear off about why ACT is so much better than all the other parties, the last bastion of freedom in New Zealand, and the only way to protect your rights from the evils of Government. ACT’s strong following is in large part due to the clarity of its ideals, it stands for small government, responsible spending and property rights. There regional conference was almost entirely composed of rich white guys. They are a party of ideologues, but damn it they are proud of it.

However, ACT currently finds itself in a bit of a policy dilemma. As part of a general shift to embrace a more popular message, ACT has aligned itself with those on the far-far-right of the debate over the New Zealand justice system. Groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust now make up a significant portion of ACT’s financial and public backers, to the point where the coveted fifth spot on the ACT Party List, as well as a seat in Parliament, went to Sensible Sentencing Trust Member David Garret.

The problem for ACT is that the parties small Government, anti-authorities ideals clash heavily with the reactionary nature of groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

Cards on the table time, groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust repulse me, they use cheap and empty populist rhetoric to advance policies that evidence repeatedly shows not only don’t help keep crime rates down, but in fact make them worse. They are ideologues in the worst sense of the word, inflexible, unwilling to listen to reason and always quick to reach for the “soft on crime” label of anyone who disagrees. They dumb down the public discourse, cheapen debates over justice policy and the result is bad laws that can’t protect New Zealanders.

So what happens when a rabidly pro-freedom, pro rights party gets into bed with an authoritarian lobby group?

Embarrassingly Public Party Infighting. Sigh.

The most recent fissure amongst ACT’s base has been about the so-called “Gang-patch” bill; a hard right anti-gang law that seeks to outlaw the wearing of gang patches. From a legal perspective, the law is worrying, as it raises serious issues around guilt by association and has been attacked by civil liberties groups as a violation of the right to freedom of association. Many ACTivists (see what I did there?) have been up in arms over the “last bastion of freedom in New Zealand” supporting something they see as so ignorant of peoples rights. ACT Leader Rodney Hide himself once previously decried the bill as “rubbish”. ACT blogs sport headlines such as “ACTually authoritarian?”

ACT, like a lot of minor parties does a lot of good in that it brings attention to important issues that are often overlooked. During last year’s election for example when both National and Labour were coming up with increasingly unrealistic spending plans, it was ACT who was pushing for fiscal responsibility. However by aligning themselves with the far right on social issues, they risk loosing their credibility on issues of rights and freedom, something so central to the party’s success. How is it acceptable that an MP for a libertarian party to be saying things in public such as “Alter the Bill of Rights Act. We’ve got too hung up on people’s rights”?

If ACT can’t find a way to reconcile the two sides of the party, things could get very messy, and for a part facing stiff battles over getting things like its Three Strikes Law and Taxpayers Bill of Rights passed, unity and the support of the grassroots is something they cannot afford to loose.