0:00
/

ACT wants tougher immigration rules. So why did they back the India FTA?

Most of my readers will know I’ve been a pretty big fan of the ACT Party in the past. They got my party vote at the last election, while National got my electorate vote. I liked ACT’s focus on personal responsibility, free speech, cutting bureaucracy and saying things most politicians were too scared to say out loud.

Share

Which is why I’m conflicted watching David Seymour suddenly come out talking tough on immigration.

This week ACT announced a tougher immigration platform heading into the election. The party wants a dedicated overstayer enforcement unit, tougher deportation rules, higher English language requirements, welfare stand-down periods for new residents and an infrastructure levy on temporary visa holders.

On paper, some of it makes sense. Most New Zealanders understand infrastructure is stretched. Housing is stretched. Roads are stretched. Public services are stretched. We’ve imported population growth at a pace the country simply hasn’t kept up with.

Here’s the part I can’t square away…

Why is ACT suddenly acting concerned about immigration levels after being one of the strongest supporters of the free trade agreement with India?

Last week I wrote about returning to Auckland after three years away and feeling like I had landed in an entirely different city. People got angry about that post, but many others quietly messaged me saying exactly the same thing.

And honestly, you don’t even need to “look” for it anymore. It’s obvious.

Gas stations. Dairies. Domino’s stores. Courier runs. Supermarkets. Lotto shops. Even my local Irish pub has now been taken over.

Again, I need to make this crystal clear before people deliberately twist the point. I’ve got nothing against Indians personally. I love Indian food. I respect the work ethic. Some of the hardest-working business owners in this country are Indian. I’ve dated Indian women before. This is not about hating people.

But there’s also a point where people are allowed to acknowledge reality.

When the character of your city changes this dramatically in such a short amount of time, people notice it. They talk about it privately. They joke about it with friends. They complain about it online anonymously because they know saying it publicly gets you instantly branded a racist.

Politicians still act confused about why there’s growing discomfort around immigration.

You cannot simultaneously support mass migration through international agreements and then campaign on “getting tough” once the consequences become politically unpopular.

That’s the contradiction ACT now has to explain.

David Seymour says migrants should contribute, respect New Zealand values and help build the country. Fair enough. Most Kiwis would agree with that. But the bigger question is scale.

How many people is too many?

How much population growth can Auckland realistically absorb before it stops feeling like Auckland?

How much pressure can infrastructure take before quality of life starts sliding backwards?

These are legitimate questions, and pretending they’re taboo is exactly why parties like NZ First continue gaining traction.

And speaking of NZ First, I’ll be honest about where my head is at politically right now.

I always decide my vote close to election day. I don’t pledge loyalty to parties because politicians change quickly once they get comfortable. But I can already tell you who won’t be getting my vote: Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori or any of the tiny activist micro-parties orbiting around them.

For me, it’s becoming a choice between ACT and NZ First.

Considering I’ve already grabbed tickets to the NZ First AGM in July, I think I know which way I’m leaning.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Discussion about this video

User's avatar

Ready for more?