David Seymour: ACT leader says unit for verifying the costs of pre-election political policy promises would add more bureaucracy.

Act's David Seymour says a unit for verifying the costs of pre-election political policy promises - would add more bureaucracy. 

Act and New Zealand First torpedoed a proposal by Finance Minister Nicola Willis to publicly fund such a service. 

National declined Labour’s offer of support. 

Seymour claims his Party managed to release a fully costed alternative Budget without it. 

He says he doesn't like the idea that people need bureaucracy to tell them what is good or accurate. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Labour has offered to help National create a policy costing unit.
It's piped up because neither ACT nor New Zealand First
want to help National, thereby killing the idea the unit
would cost and verify political parties election promises. David Seymour
was the leader of the ACT party and with us. Hello, David, Hey,
how would you feel if National goes behind you back
and does this with Labor?

Speaker 2 (00:21):
Well, I didn't know this was a psychology show. It's
not about my feelings. But one thing I can tell
you is that the government has a position, which is
that we oppose this policy and we expect each other
amongst the three parties to vote together. Sometimes there are
things that one of the three or two of the
three parties even are not particularly happy with, but we

(00:44):
will go to the House and vote together on the issue.
So I don't know about feelings, but that would be quite
a departure from the way the government operates.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
Okay, So you would expect that National will not take
Labour up on this offer.

Speaker 2 (00:56):
As a matter of collective responsibility. The National members are
part of a cabinet that forms the government, which is
agreed that we're not doing this. So you know, everything's
open to negotiation in life, but that would be your
starting point.

Speaker 1 (01:12):
What is your problem with the idea?

Speaker 2 (01:15):
Well, I think you've got to ask what problems it's solving.
You know, as a party, actors put out fully costed,
comprehensive alternative budgets every year that we've been in opposition.
Everyone has agreed that the accurate and fear may not
agree with the policies, that that's okay, that's politics. But
we seem to be able to do it, so we

(01:37):
don't see the need for it. As for the problem
with it, a couple of things. One is, I don't
like this idea that we New Zealanders are all kind
of a need of a bureaucracy to tell us what's
right and good or accurate. The truth is that the
bureaucracy frequently gets things wrong. They are a good bunch
of New Zealanders, but they're not more correct the rest

(02:00):
of us. Second of all, the bureaucracy or the government
the government departments are held in check by New Zealanders
going to the polls and voting and elections to change
the direction of policy and basically keep them under control. Now,
for the bureaucracy, to be involved in the very process

(02:21):
and effectively become a referee or a judicator of the
very process that is supposed to hold it in check
creates a difficult loop constitutionally. It also means that the
bureaucracy is going to be involved and assessing and making
judgment calls about the nature of policies that political parties

(02:41):
are putting forward, so it politicizes them. There's no good
reason to do it, no need for it, but there's
a lot of reasons why you might not want to
do it. Key amongst them is digging in this idea
that somehow, if you work for a government department, you're
a higher authority than any other New Zealander.

Speaker 1 (02:58):
David, thank you, appreciate your time. That day smore ex
Party leader For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive. Listen
live to news talks it'd be from four pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.