ACT leader, Deputy Prime Minister and Associate Health Minister David Seymour is sharpening his Election 2026 pitch around a simple proposition — government should be smaller, taxpayers should keep more of their money, businesses should face less red tape and politicians should find solutions without automatically reaching for another tax.
(This article includes a summary of announcements)
Fresh from defending ACT’s proposals to abolish the Climate Change Commission and reconsider New Zealand’s approach to its Paris Agreement commitments, Seymour is widening the argument into a broader assault on the size and cost of government.
At the same time, ACT is pushing employment law changes designed to make it easier for employers and workers to negotiate an agreed exit when an employment relationship breaks down, while Seymour has rejected Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown’s push for a visitor levy or bed tax.
Taken together, the policies provide an increasingly clear picture of the platform ACT intends to take to voters: fewer government agencies, tighter spending, greater flexibility for business and no new taxes.
Seymour takes aim at Labour’s public service plans
Seymour has attacked Labour’s approach to the public service, arguing protecting government jobs should not become an end in itself.
ACT says the fundamental question should instead be whether taxpayers are receiving sufficient value from each position and government agency.
Seymour argues New Zealand has accumulated too many ministers, departments and layers of administration and wants savings to begin at the top.
ACT is proposing a government consisting of 18 ministers and 19 departments, compared with what Seymour says is the current structure of 28 ministers and 39 departments.
The party argues comparable countries operate with leaner government structures and believes New Zealand can do the same without sacrificing essential public services.
The political argument will inevitably turn on where efficiencies end and service reductions begin.
For Māori, that distinction is particularly important.
Whānau frequently interact with government through health, housing, education, Whānau Ora, disability support, social development and regional services. Reducing administrative duplication may have appeal, but reductions that remove frontline capability could have considerably different consequences.
ACT claims $10.4 billion hole in Labour plans
Seymour is also targeting Labour’s economic credibility, claiming the opposition has a $10.4 billion annual gap in its spending plans.
That figure is ACT’s political calculation and will be contested through the election campaign, but Seymour is using it to argue Labour will eventually face three options — higher taxes, additional borrowing or spending reductions.
ACT’s position is that government expenditure should be constrained rather than taxpayers being asked to contribute more.
It is part of an increasingly important Election 2026 argument over the size and role of the state.
Labour is likely to argue strong public services require adequate investment.
ACT is making the opposite case: more spending does not automatically produce better outcomes, and government should be forced to demonstrate value for every dollar collected.
Small businesses targeted with employment law reform
ACT is also turning its attention to employment law.
Small Business spokesperson Laura McClure is promoting a Member’s Bill introducing what ACT calls protected negotiations between employers and employees.
The proposal is intended for situations where an employment relationship is no longer working and both sides may prefer to negotiate an agreed departure rather than allow the dispute to escalate.
Under ACT’s proposal, an employer and employee could discuss ending the employment relationship by mutual agreement, including an agreed compensation payment, without the employer automatically exposing themselves to a personal grievance simply by initiating that discussion.
McClure argues the current system can discourage early conversations because employers fear that raising the possibility of separation could itself become evidence in subsequent employment proceedings.
ACT says grievance disputes hit small employers hardest
ACT is pitching the reform particularly strongly towards small businesses.
For a large corporation, an employment dispute may be handled by dedicated human resources and legal teams.
A small Māori business, trades operation, retailer, café or whānau-owned company may have no such infrastructure.
A prolonged personal grievance can involve legal expenses, management time and months of uncertainty.
ACT argues its model could allow both parties to reach an agreement before that happens.
Importantly, the proposal would not mean an employee had to accept an offer to leave.
ACT says workers would retain the ability to refuse an agreement, while the protected-negotiation framework would provide a safer environment in which both parties could discuss whether separation was the best outcome.
The party points to similar provisions operating in the United Kingdom as evidence such a framework can work.
National has indicated support for the Bill, while ACT says New Zealand First has moved away from supporting it.
Worker protections will be the other side of the argument
The proposal will nevertheless face scrutiny from unions and employment advocates.
The central question will be whether the power relationship between employer and employee allows negotiations to genuinely remain voluntary.
A worker sitting opposite the person who controls their employment and income may not necessarily experience a proposed exit discussion in the same way an employer does.
That becomes especially significant for low-paid workers and people with limited alternative employment opportunities.
For Māori workers, the debate matters because Māori remain heavily represented in industries dominated by small and medium-sized employers.
The challenge for Parliament will therefore be determining whether protected negotiations can reduce unnecessary legal disputes without weakening protections against unjustified dismissal or creating pressure on employees to accept compensation and leave.
Seymour tells Wayne Brown: forget the bed tax
Seymour is simultaneously fighting another battle in Auckland.
He has rejected Mayor Wayne Brown’s calls for a visitor levy, maintaining ACT’s position against introducing new taxes.
Seymour argues a so-called bed tax would not simply fall on wealthy international tourists.
Domestic travellers account for a substantial share of accommodation nights, meaning New Zealand families travelling around their own country could also end up paying.
ACT’s broader concern is that once a new taxing mechanism exists, future governments and councils can increase it.
That is why Seymour is promoting a different approach.
ACT proposes $1 for every visitor night
Instead of allowing Auckland or other councils to impose another levy, ACT is proposing a Local Tourism Dividend.
Under the policy, central government would transfer $1 to a council for every commercial accommodation night recorded within its territory.
Seymour says Auckland would receive around $7 million under the model, which ACT argues corresponds with the amount previously identified by the city as necessary to meet tourism-related pressures.
Rather than collecting another tax from travellers, the money would effectively redistribute some existing central government revenue back towards the councils dealing with tourism infrastructure.
ACT points to GST and the International Visitor Levy as examples of revenue generated from tourism that primarily flows to central government even though many of the costs associated with visitors fall on local authorities.
The party says tourism operators estimate the sector generates around $5 billion in GST.
Seymour has also left open the possibility of debating whether the proposed $1-per-night payment should be higher.
The line he is unwilling to cross is creating another tax.
What does it mean for Māori tourism?
The issue has particular significance for Māori tourism businesses and destinations.
Some of Aotearoa’s most heavily visited areas are also places where iwi and hapū carry substantial responsibilities for protecting whenua, waterways and culturally significant sites.
Rotorua, Taupō, Northland, Queenstown and other tourism centres all face infrastructure pressures as visitor numbers grow.
For Māori tourism operators, the question is whether ACT’s model would genuinely put enough money back into host communities to maintain roads, waste systems, public facilities and environmental infrastructure.
There is also a broader question around whether iwi and mana whenua organisations carrying kaitiakitanga responsibilities would see any direct benefit from the additional funding.
Climate policy fits the same philosophy
ACT’s attack on government bureaucracy extends directly into climate policy.
The party wants to abolish the Climate Change Commission, transferring necessary monitoring and reporting functions elsewhere rather than retaining a standalone Crown entity.
It is also questioning New Zealand’s approach to meeting its international climate commitments under the Paris Agreement.
Seymour’s argument is not that New Zealand should ignore environmental challenges, but that climate policy should be measured against affordability, economic impact and whether taxpayers are receiving value.
Critics will inevitably ask whether removing an independent commission risks weakening scrutiny of government climate performance.
For Māori, the stakes run in both directions.
Iwi and Māori businesses have major interests in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism and energy that can face significant costs from emissions policies.
But Māori communities are also exposed to coastal erosion, flooding, drought, freshwater degradation and climate impacts on marae, whenua and infrastructure.
Any reconsideration of climate commitments will therefore need to answer not only what it saves today, but what environmental and economic costs could be transferred into the future.
Election choice becoming clearer
Taken together, ACT’s latest policies reveal a much broader political philosophy rather than a collection of isolated announcements.
Fewer departments.
Fewer ministers.
Less regulation.
Greater flexibility for businesses.
No new bed tax.
A smaller climate bureaucracy.
And tighter scrutiny of government spending.
For Seymour, these policies are different expressions of the same argument: New Zealand cannot tax, regulate and bureaucratise its way to prosperity.
His opponents will argue that government agencies, worker protections, climate institutions and adequately funded public services exist for reasons that cannot simply be measured as lines on an expenditure spreadsheet.
That is the debate ACT appears increasingly eager to have.
And as Election 2026 approaches, the question for voters will not simply be whether government costs too much.
It will be how much government New Zealand actually needs — and what happens to communities, workers and whānau when the state becomes smaller.
#DavidSeymour #ACTParty #ACTNZ #Election2026 #NZPolitics #PublicService #PublicSector #GovernmentSpending #TaxpayerMoney #NoNewTaxes #TaxPolicy #SmallBusiness #SmallBusinessNZ #EmploymentLaw #PersonalGrievance #WorkersRights #LauraMcClure #WayneBrown #Auckland #VisitorLevy #BedTax #TourismNZ #MaoriTourism #MaoriBusiness #PakihiMaori #MaoriEconomy #ClimateChange #ClimateChangeCommission #ParisAgreement #ClimatePolicy #CostOfLiving #GovernmentReform #Regulation #RegionalEconomy #Whanau #MaoriPolitics #MaoriVote #TeTaiao #Kaitiakitanga #Aotearoa #TeAoMaori #MaoriNews #WaateaNews #RadioWaatea
