Michael Swanson
One of the things that has baffled me during this campaign, is the sheer number of voters I’ve heard or seen stating that their party vote is a choice between ACT and NZ First. On the face of it, this choice makes a lot of sense – if you’re on the right, and for whatever reason believe National aren’t doing the job you want them to, then ACT and NZ First are the natural alternative choices (in terms of the current political parties we have before us). However, if you actually take some time to look at the philosophy of both parties, and how that translates into policy, these two parties have some vast differences
The confusion in my own mind of why you would choose between these two parties made me want to take some time to look at what ACT and NZ First represent, and spell out just how different they are.
Their beliefs are actually very different
Starting at a high level, there are some very clear differences when it comes to the philosophical perspectives of both parties. Both have shifted slightly over time, but less than you might imagine. I also need to be clear – I’m not arguing one is better than the other, nor am I arguing they whole-heartedly live their philosophy (quite often they pick and choose when to use these values), I am just trying to lay out the disparities between the two.
In terms of belief and philosophy, ACT have always been described as “classical liberal” or even “libertarian”. They have always emphasised individual liberty, a smaller state, letting the free market solve problems, and equal treatment before the law. Regulations and red tape have always been in the firing line for ACT who have always tried to argue that less restrictions on the freedom of individuals will in the end result in a more just society
NZ First conversely are probably best described as nationalist-populists. They themselves even call themselves nationalists as part of their campaign this year, and have made social conservatism one of their key pillars as well – this social conservatism has been clear in many of their social and immigration policies. They are also an economic interventionalist party, believing that there are times where the state needs to intervene to protect national interests and the interests of citizens
Given these positions, the difference become quite obvious. The biggest of these is around the role of the state – NZ First has always been far more interventionist, and much more willing for the state to become involved in issues it feels needs a heavier hand to correct issues. ACT on the other hand has always been a major advocate for smaller government and a much lighter touch when it comes to what the state should/shouldn’t be doing.
Connected to the role of the state is their differing views on certain “freedoms” within society. As mentioned earlier, ACT have always billed themselves as a “classical liberal” or even “libertarian” party (though not always in practice) – ACT lead the charge on assisted dying, and have always had a strong “freedom of choice” element to their philosophy. By contrast, NZ First (particularly in their 2026 iteration) are much more socially conservative, leaping on a range of culture wars issues (particularly the definition of a woman issue) in recent years, and now have a large number of social conservatives as part of their list of candidates for the 2026 election.
The final philosophical aspect worth highlighting is the international outlook. ACT have been supportive of free trade agreements, and are proponents of reduced barriers to trade and international connectivity, based largely on a philosophical position that freedom is the core to success, so being able to buy, sell and trade as freely and openly as possible is essential to a wealthy country. NZ First on the other hand have always had a strong anti-immigration element to their policy platform, but have ramped this up over time to include pushing back against membership of international bodies, international agreements, and overseas ownership in New Zealand.
Their policy platforms have major differences
There are a whole bunch of places where ACT and NZ First have quite stark policy differences, so I thought I’d just zoom in on three areas. The first, race-based policy, will look more at similar conclusions but for different reasons. The second will look at immigration as an example of the different approach to individuals versus communities. And the third, looking at the economy, will show the difference in free-market versus state intervention policy positions.
ACT and NZ First have almost identical policy around Te Tiriti ō Waitangi, and more specifically, the Waitangi Tribunal. Both want an end to the Treaty claims process, and both want to wind-up the Tribunal in the coming years. The difference comes in the reasoning for doing so. ACT, in their never ending sermon on individual freedoms, believes the root cause of division is race-based policies, and repeatedly talk about equal treatment before the law and base much of their philosophy in individual property rights. NZ First on the other hand talk much more about institutions and national cohesion – their focus is much less on the individual, and more focused on building a national community that is unified and cohesive, and they see Treaty claims and the impact of the Tribunal as detrimental to that. So, same outcome, but vastly different perspectives that got them to that point.
Immigration takes that community versus individual philosophy and really exposes some differences on the policy level. ACT again has released policy focused on individuals – their six point plan focuses on rules for individuals like surcharges on work visas, exclusions from benefits, or deportation for criminal behaviour – it is all focused on the role and behaviour of the individual. NZ First is more focused on who “belongs” – their slogans are around prioritising New Zealanders, moving to citizen-only voting, and requiring long term citizenship before you can access the benefits of being a “true” New Zealander. ACT adjusts based on terms of entry/exit, NZ First redraws the boundary of what it means to be a full member of our society.
The economy, and more importantly, the role of the state in our economy, is probably the most stark difference. ACT want to reduce the size of government, from the amount government (chooses) to spend right through to the size of Cabinet. Their philosophy results in policy that sees the state shrink, or withdraw from society a much as possible. NZ First have much greater intention to intervene, particularly in large industry structures, particularly banking (with a policy to re-Nationalise the BNZ), power (breaking up the “gentailers”) and supermarkets. ACT is much more focused on making the use of “public money” more conditional, and tightening up how that money is used, while NZ First is much more focused on reshaping markets that have a national interest element to them. Put simply, ACT wants a much smaller state, while NZ First wants one that intervenes on a regular basis.
There are other areas that you can also compare – the libertarian versus social conservative split impacts things like euthanasia, gay marriage, conversion therapy, abortion, and similar social issues. ACT have actually not gone “full libertarian” on a range of issues that they could have – a proper libertarian party would be much more interested in relaxing or removing laws against drug possession, but they haven’t made that step. NZ First have evolved over time, but this time have fully committed to social conservatism, raising questions about several of the issues I just mentioned, and taking a firm stance things like drug liberalisation.
Where the two overlap on issues such as Treaty-related policy and law and order, it is less about a philosophical agreement, and more about and agreement on solution or outcome. In a number of other cases, however, the philosophical differences mean the solutions are dramatically different, and are unlikely to be bridged in any way shape or form – NZ First’s pledge to buy back the BNZ is a good example of this major difference in both beliefs and solutions. At a policy level, there are actually sizeable differences that will need to either be bridged by meeting half way, or by shelving those ideas through the agree to disagree mechanism.
So why has this become the choice on the right?
Put simply, most voters don’t really think about political philosophy when they vote. What they think about is “how will my family and I be better off under different governments”. With that in mind, many on the right would argue the current government is doing the job they want, they just differ on what flavour that government should take next. And, because political philosophy isn’t front-and-centre to them, they’re very much open to which party puts forward the best argument for a future New Zealand that suits them the most.
The major reason, that I can see, is that National have been so underwhelming, that many voters heading to ACT or NZ First aren’t necessarily diehard’s committed to the cause of these parties, but just want a government from the right that actually follows through on a bunch of things. The most interesting part of all of this is the vote splitting idea – how that will play out is anyone’s guess, but could result in ACT and NZ First having a much greater role in the next coalition government (if they pull it off)
The alternatives from ACT and NZ First are very different, but many of these voters choosing between these options don’t seem to be that interested in one or the other, but more a conglomerate of parties on the right doing similar things at the core. Personally, I still don’t get the choice, but there are still plenty out there yet to make a decision on which way to go, and the outcome could have a very significant impact on the formation of the next government.
