Talk:ACT New Zealand

term "liberal"
"Because the term "liberal" can have such a great variety of meanings, however, some New Zealanders would not consider ACT's use of it to be accurate."

- Isn't this statement contradictory? If a word has a variety of meanings, either each is in a way accurate, or none is. I'm sure that any use of the word "liberal" can be disputed.


 * I see what you mean. What I was trying to say with that sentence, however, was that not everyone accepts every definition of "liberal" as valid - there are people who consider ACT's use of "liberal" to be incorrect, rather than merely a different way of looking at the word. My goal in including that sentence was basically to convey that some people do not consider ACT a liberal party under any valid definition, despite its self-description as such. -- Vardion 23:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do find this amusing, just do a search for act party and you see the first result is: "ACT - The Liberal Party" for their website. And look at their drug policy they've had in the past for instance, very liberal. You'd find it nigh on impossible to not argue that is liberal! I'd even say it more liberal than any other party on Parliament. Mathmo Talk 10:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Selected ACT Slogans
I don't think we need this section either - Drstuey 00:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it doesn't really seem relevant. I've removed it. -- FP 01:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Association of Consumers and Taxpayers
I noticed that an article exists on the Association. It is not notable enough to justify its own article guys. Considering that Catherine Judd sought to establish a new "Douglas Institute" to promote neo-liberal thought, it is fair to say that the Association does not really exist except in the minds of a few. Thus it isn't significant enough to really exist. I was bold and did this move. If you disagree, lets discuss it before re-establishing it. Unfortunately Varidon is out of the country for about a year, as s/he created the article. --Midnighttonight 07:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

anyone here not from the act party?
in the NZ context "centre right?"??? how about far right

noticable important opposition party?????? yeah with rodney on dancing with the stars and that other person with 0 NZ name recogntion doing some army thing

honestly one of the worst parts of wikipedia is these small groups with complete control over articles describing themselves. How about half of you go over and vandalise the labour party article and ask on the talk page for some of them to come over and help you out with your propaganda piece.

your article should reflect the NZ public as as whole's perception of the act party. Most NZers would think of ACT as 'far right business round table stooges'-(labour supporters) or a tolerated, small appendage of the national party- (National supporters)

oooooh how about Stephen Franks criticisms of the 2002 law and order debate in the context of his parties market theology, yeah if you sell TVNZ it would totally adopt the public service ethos it doesnt realise as a privatised crown owned company

In my opinion ACT standing for 'individual freedom' and 'personal responsibility' is a bit POV, the language accepts the ACT party policy unchallenged.

Please respond on the talk page

From the Neoliberalism article

The term "neoliberalism" is used to describe a variety of movements away from state control or protection of the economy, particularly beginning in the 1970s. The term neoliberalism is not the only one for this movement, many supporters argue that it is simply "liberalism," while critics (along with some supporters) often label it Thatcherism (United Kingdom), Reaganomics (United States of America), Economic Rationalism (Australia), Rogernomics (New Zealand) or Manmohanomics (India). Because of close association between this philosophy and neoclassical economics, and confusion with the ambiguous term "liberal," some advocate the term "neoclassical philosophy."

Rogernomics (New Zealand)

how about ACT party classified as neoliberal and connect to that article rather than the other liberalism article

I think

Supporters claim that ACT is one of the more noticeable opposition parties, known for its frequent and vociferous criticism of the government. Critics of the party sometimes claim that ACT is more interested in scoring political points and gaining media exposure than in participating in constructive dialogue. Many of its rank-and-file members are also perceived to have more in common with neo-conservatism than classical liberalism. Peron, "The New Anti-PC Problem" Supporters, however, say that ACT "keeps the government honest", and ensures accountability.

Is pretty damn POV

so supporters claim but critics sometimes claim

wow mayby you could improve it with critics are sometimes thought of as considering the possibility of claiming......
 * I agree that the article lacks balance, but please cite whereever possible. If you look at the changes I've just made, you'll see that I've used a very easy method of making footnotes, by surrounding the footnote text with .-gadfium 20:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"in the NZ context "centre right?"??? how about far right"

and "standing for 'individual freedom' and 'personal responsibility' is a bit POV, the language accepts the ACT party policy unchallenged.'

Can you tell me a party in NZ that SAYS it is against individual freedom? It is not really relevant perhaps maybe something more aloing the lines "ACT stands for less interference from government". Also centre-right? National is center-right in NZ politics, Rodney himself said on election night he wishes to bring national further to the right. National describes itself and is a centre-right party! So then if ACT describes itself as more to the right doesn't that just make them a right party? Oh btw its not only labour supporters that call ACt right wing I personally know many national supporters who say the same thing about ACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.35.82 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with this, especially with saying that it's not a centre-right party. Their politics are extremely right wing. I won't change it myself, but count this as a vote for either 'far right' or 'right wing'. Certainly not centre right. Jeez. --MotleyPhule (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a "Neutrality of article disputed" box on this untill we get ACTs policies eg. Personal freedom and 'centre-right' sorted out to an appropriate edit as there seems to be some disagreement from several people on this page regarding this.-Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.53.114 (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Many parties are described as something like “center-right to right-wing,” might this be appropriate? “Far right” seems usually to be a perjorative applied opponents, and worth avoiding. Leo Chapin III (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Name
Hello, came here at random, no idea about NZ politics, simple question: how do you pronounce the party's name: "a-see-tee" or "act"? jnestorius(talk) 16:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As one word, "act", not spelled out.- gadfium 20:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Spelled out, it has unpleasant Australian connotations. Kind of like an Irish political party calling itself the Red Underwear Cooperative and having the acronym spelled out. (note for the non-antipodeans: tongue firmly in cheek) Orpheus (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Avtually no said as the word ACT, Rodney Hide the ACT party leader himself uses the word act when stating the name of his party. Thanks for noticing our proud little country(and unfortuanetly some of its political parties)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.35.82 (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Centre Right
There are issues with ACT being labeled a "Centre Right" party as it is in the introduction. There are a number of ACT members contributing to this article and I accept that changing it to "Right" will probably not fly so I would suggest "Centre Right" be dropped altogether. Any objetions? Bactoid (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what those issues are? I find the term "centre right" a little wishy-washy, as virtually all modern parties try to claim that they are centrist to some degree, but ACT is not entirely a traditional right-wing party. To categorise it as "centre right" is better than no categorisation at all, unless you believe this term is entirely inaccurate.- gadfium 09:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Gadfium. My main issue with labeling ACT as centre-right is with their recent policy namely three-strikes, something that would be too unpalatable for a centre-right party such as National to take up as party policy. While National did help it past its first reading (to fulfill their agreement with ACT) they're now being accused of sabotaging it so it won't pass into law. For that reason and others I do not think that "centre-right" accurately describes the ACT party of today. I would also have issues with the Green Party being described as centre-left for similar reasons around their own policy. What do you think? Bactoid (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You make good points. The question then is whether we change the description to "a right-wing party", or drop it entirely. I see the earlier discussion on this page is also arguing against the term "centre-right", and if we drop that term or change it to "right-wing" then I believe we can remove the neutrality tag that resulted from that discussion.


 * Who here thinks that changing the introduction to read "The New Zealand right-wing political party ACT New Zealand..." would not be accurate?- gadfium 20:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is really a quite strange objection, and, no, that would most certainly not be accurate! A traditional right-wing party would not (for example) advocate liberalising and opening immigration, as ACT do.  John Key doesn't hold a monopoly on what's centre-right, even in New Zealand, and three-strikes laws for repeat violent offenders are a relatively commonly-discussed centre-right policy in a lot of countries.  It is one of very few issues that separate the party from the usual classical liberal tract, and may mark them as conservative liberals: certainly NOT straight 'right-wing'.  Thus, I would advocate maintaining 'centre-right' with either the clarification currently given (classical liberal) or 'conservative liberal'. Bastin 23:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think anything including the term "centre-right" is appropriate, unless we attribute this to someone such as a mainstream political commentator or an ACT MP. The "conservative liberals" tag seems to come close, but I see our article on this includes anti-immigration sentiments as part of the package. And we should really be citing someone else's description of the party, not coming up with our own. -- Avenue (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the straight out removal of centre-right would be prudent for now. Bactoid (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the term, as that appears to be the consensus in this discussion, but there is no consensus for a replacement term. As Avenue says, we need to attribute any such term used to a mainstream commentator or ACT MP. I've also removed the POV tag placed as a result of the earlier discussion, since that discussion also focussed largely on the same issue.- gadfium 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good call, thanks gadfium. Bactoid (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of an aside, but I just noticed that is currently a subcategory of. Does anyone object to that being removed? -- Avenue (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead.- gadfium 05:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, obviously. It has often been considered libertarian, although decreasingly so. Bastin 16:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there also needs to be more added to the origins section, prehaps more information about rogernmoics and the Labour split. Also there should be more about the Awatere Huata sacndal in the 2005 electoral campaign as it had a major impact on ACT's reputation against 'wasteful spending' and was probably a big reason behind it's electoral defeat in 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.43.168 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Useful reference
– may help with the party's origins/principles et cetera? Adabow ( talk )  09:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

leadership
What's the point in changing the party leader name to "Don Brash" right now?

The correct procedural thing to do is leave it until ACT caucus votes on the issue. Right now I believe Don Brash isn't even a member —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.132.98 (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don Brash has now put his membership in as of this morning. Mathmo Talk 10:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on ACT New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.act.org.nz/files/plan/policy18.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on ACT New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111014041050/http://www.act.org.nz:80/candidates to http://www.act.org.nz/candidates

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"Conservativism"
Is the label 'conservative' still relevant to ACT? Currently, their own leader and only MP claims to be a social liberal, like he did the other day at this debate (9:00 to end), like he did in his Reddit AMA, and like he did in a Q+A interview at the end of last year. I'm not sure that it's fair to call the current incarnation of ACT conservative. - Imnofox (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Providing reliable sources can be found for past ACT figures who were more conservative, I think it is valid to discuss it within the article. However, for the infobox, I am not so sure. Seymour is clearly liberal and the current platform of the party reflects that. The party's stance is even more evident now English is National leader and is espousing more conservative policies. The current ACT is also certainly notably less conservative in terms of both policy and rhetoric than otherwise similar parties like the Australian Liberal Democrats or the Czech Free Citizens Party.--Jay942942 (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ACT New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208054410/http://electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_1996/pdf/3.3%20Party%20Lists%20of%20Successful%20Registered%20Parties.pdf to http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_1996/pdf/3.3%20Party%20Lists%20of%20Successful%20Registered%20Parties.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ACT New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222055801/http://www.act.org.nz/taxation-policy to http://www.act.org.nz/taxation-policy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Right-libertarianism and libertarianism
I have removed the claim of right-libertarianism as it broke the WP:SYNTHESIS rule due to none of the sources provided explicitly calling the party right-libertarian.

On a separate note, does anyone know of any written criticism of whether the party is even libertarian? As far as I can find the party did not support a yes vote in the 2020 New Zealand cannabis referendum, which seems very much counter to what a libertarian party should be supporting. The party does seem to fit the standard mantra of a libertarian party in an economic sense though, although I question it when it comes to being socially libertarian. The party has also been described as a party perceived as "tough on crime" (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=N-ql-Xs9hhkC&pg=PA92&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) which is not normally a libertarian trait. It seems to me to be an economically liberal and libertarian party but socially quite conservative. In summary I question to what degree the party is truly libertarian as a whole and think there are probably more ideologies we could add to clarify where the party stands overall. Helper201 (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

https://www.act.org.nz/act_welcomes_cannabis https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/07/cannabis-referendum-what-is-it-when-is-it-where-each-party-and-the-public-stands.html ACT Party leader David Seymour said in 2017 that he too would legalise cannabis if it were up to him, but doubted New Zealand would go for it. Meanwhile Winston Peters' New Zealand First party have historically called for "attitudes which encourage, rather than attack the abuse of drugs". 125.238.255.22 (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Conservative
It is misleading to describe ACT as a conservative party – it is a classical-liberal party, describing itself as a liberal party, and also described as such by political journals and academic books. The handful of news articles chosen to cite the "conservative" label are non-NZ sources, applying a simplistic conservative-liberal binary that is not apt to the NZ political environment. The one non-news source is one that I don't have access to, but I'd wager that it is much like the other sources in that it contains a passing mention of ACT and uses a lazy descriptor in lieu of any real explanation of the party's philosophy. For the time being I have rearranged the list in the infobox to lessen the implication that the party's primary ideology is conservatism. At least I strongly suggest that we describe the party as predominantly classical-liberal or libertarian (this is disputed; see above). Hazhk (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Not apt" for what reason? This is an international project, and use of international sources -- and standard political science concepts -- are wholly appropriate.  Many parties self-describe idiosyncratically, and sometimes entire countries use terminology that's at odds with that generally in use.  (Looking at the Israeli politics pages one will discover an amazing number of different species of "liberal" parties that one might have, to the naked eye, rashly thought were right-wing nationalist.)  The five sources used for "conservative" seem good ones, and others appear to be available.  ("Conservatives compared: New Zealand First, ACT and the Conservatives" -- an Australian (not without their own curious use of the word "liberal") academic source.)  Of the three "classical liberal" sources, the first fails verification (instead it uses the description "right-wing party [that emphasizes] libertarian principles"), the second is iffy ("has for for some time been modifying its image into that of a classical liberal party"), and the third is a self-pub primary, which is inherently problematic as noted above (and as put in terms by WP:PRIMARY).  I'd suggest looking for stronger sources, or reconsidering looking to word that as their unqualified descriptor in the text.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * i agree, we have a "Policies and ideology" were descriptions like conservatism and right-wing populism can be listed Braganza (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent alignment in "Electoral results" table
The "Electoral results" table has inconsistent alignment in the last column, where some content is left-aligned and the rest is centred. I don't know how to fix it. Nurg (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed using Center.- gadfium 03:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

ACT party primary colour
Kia ora, I think it's reasonably to say that magenta is the main colour of the party now or at least the main colour they've used this election. Was wondering if people thought we should update to recognise this. Also asked about this on Talk:2023 New Zealand general election - Wikipedia. Cheers Jakoats02 (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)