Just a day removed from the clamor and excitement of the election night, David Seymour, the rambunctious leader of Act, was still riding the waves of euphoria. Following an evening marked by the thrilling capture of the Tamaki seat by his deputy, Brooke van Velden, and a miraculous influx of new MPs into Act’s fold – a veritable political sleight of hand – Seymour had reasons to be elated.
As Act, along with Greens and Te Pāti Māori, ushered in a fresh troop of parliamentarians, I posed a query to Seymour, its implications resonating deeply. “What do these recent developments portend for the future of New Zealand?”
Seymour’s response was as refreshing as it was insightful,” If the fresh infusion of voices cultivates open, constructive discourse about our future, we’re headed towards brighter tomorrow,” he noted, “Alas, if we lurch towards greater polarization, that’s unwelcome news.”
Turning the conversation towards the perennially controversial Treaty of Waitangi, I asked Seymour about his fervently championed referendum. “While negotiations continue,” Seymour placidly deflected, “Our core mandate is fostering discussions about the Treaty’s interpretations in the contemporary context.”
Seymour elaborated, “There’s a misconception that disagreement with recent interpretations equates to disapproval of the treaty itself. We wholeheartedly value the Treaty. But we reject the divisive interpretations foisted upon it recently.”
The ensuing dialogue about the implications of Act’s contentious views was charged, with Seymour doggedly defending their standpoint and dispelling accusations of contributing to the polarizing discourse. “Promoting human rights and inclusion does not sow division,” he stated.
The conversation swerved to the issue of Indigenous rights, with Seymour questionably equating infrastructure improvement to self-determination. When asked about the recent rejection of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, Seymour’s response was startlingly indifferent. He declared, with jubilation, “Australia made a positive decision to excise racial discrimination from their constitution.”
The conversation turned back to Seymour’s referendum ultimatum, and he confidently declared, “Where Mr. Luxon rules out, we rule in.”
The rest of the discussion swirled around roads, charter schools, and indigenous rights, with Seymour seamlessly leaping from topics of the Universal Declaration of Indigenous Rights to practical issues like transportation and housing.
As for Seymour’s proudest accomplishment – Charter Schools – he confidently claimed, “Act has enhanced intergenerational knowledge transfer more than any other party.” Though many educators dissent from this notion, Seymour maintained an unwavering belief in their potential.
As our conversation concluded and Seymour bounded off, still relishing the fruit of victory, I was left mulling over his words to the tune of Paul McCartney’s ‘Long and Winding Road’ echoing inside my head.
