ACT leader David Seymour says the Government should consider sharing GST revenue with local councils rather than directly matching Christchurch City Council’s proposed $15 million contribution to projects like the Canterbury Museum and the cathedral.

Asked whether ACT supports central government contributing more to fund Christchurch’s major projects, Seymour said the party backed the idea but through a different mechanism.

“The ACT party has long argued that if central government is going to collect a whole lot of tax, especially GST on every building project, then some of that money should be returned to the council so that they can pay for the infrastructure that connects those projects together,” he said.

He said the current system leaves councils carrying the cost of growth while central government collects most of the revenue.

“If you build a new house, the central government gets most of the taxes on building a house and most of the taxes from the people who eventually live there, but the infrastructure is all the cost going on the council, and the council doesn’t actually get really much more money except for property rates, which are actually small compared with taxes.”

Seymour said rates “may not seem like it when you have to write out the cheque, compared with PAYE or GST. Those taxes are hidden, but they’re actually much bigger, and they all go to central government.”

Pressed on whether the upcoming Budget might include a revenue sharing announcement, Seymour hinted at movement.

“It’s part of a coalition commitment, and we’ve argued for it in previous budgets. Maybe we will this time.”

He stressed any move would not be a direct contribution to the cathedral and museum but rather a broader GST sharing arrangement with councils.

“This is why we oppose new taxes,” he said. “There’s people who say, ‘Oh, we want a bed tax, we want this tax, that tax.’ We don’t need new taxes. The government and councils in New Zealand between them take up 42% of GDP. They’ve got over $2 in every five going to some form of government in this country. We’ve got too much government, too much tax, too much rates already.”

He said there was room “to redistribute some of that tax take from central government, which has a lot of revenue, and local government, which actually doesn’t have that much revenue but does face some serious costs putting concrete and pipes in the ground.”

Te Pāti Māori “had a golden opportunity”

Turning to Te Pāti Māori’s internal turmoil, including a former MP launching a rival party, resignations from electorate committees and ongoing leadership questions, Seymour said the party had squandered an opportunity.

“Te Pāti Māori had a big opportunity. They had six MPs. That’s a pretty decent base. There’s a lot of need in Māori communities. Education, health, housing, just about everything. Māori not doing that great on average.”

He said the party had failed to articulate any clear policy agenda.

“If I asked you what’s the Māori Party’s approach to education or health, or really just about anything, I don’t think anyone would know. I don’t know if they know. They spend more time, you know, I almost like some of those guys more than they like each other.”

Seymour argued ACT was doing more for Māori through its policy programme.

“They had a golden opportunity to do practical stuff to help Māori. They haven’t. Meanwhile the ACT party’s doing things like charter schools. We’re doing more for Māori than they are. So who knows, maybe more Māori will vote this time.”

Council reform driven by councils themselves

On proposed local government reforms, criticised by a former Environment Canterbury chair and the Selwyn mayor who has questioned what problem the Government is trying to solve, Seymour said the push was being driven by councils themselves.

“The government didn’t wake up one day and think, ‘Oh, it’d be good if we had less councils.’ A lot of places around the country, actually it’s the mayors and the councillors themselves who are saying that they want to merge. Wairarapa is a good example. A lot of councils in a relatively small area, they want to merge.”

He said rural communities were also frustrated.

“If I’m in the Canterbury plains around Christchurch, or if I’m in the Manawatū plains around Palmerston North, there’s lots of examples, but basically you’ve got a whole lot of big urban areas where the voters may not fully understand the practical realities of running a farm and making a buck. They are voting for the direction of the council, and the council’s been highly destructive to people just trying to get on with their lives.”

His approach, he said, was to “somehow allow rural folk to get on with what they want to do, which is important to everyone including them, and urban folk to get on with living their values, without creating the kind of conflicts that you currently have.”

Asked what evidence justified the reforms, he said: “Our evidence is that the councils wanted it.”

RNZ, TVNZ and Mikey Sherman

Seymour also defended his recent commentary on RNZ and TVNZ, saying new board members would push the public broadcasters toward bigger audiences and broader trust.

“The role of government is to appoint the board members to the boards of RNZ and TVNZ, and of course when we appoint those people, we want them to have a strong goal of building audiences and building trust.”

He said the reaction to his comments had proved his point.

“I’ve had two weeks of the media outlets that I talked about, particularly RNZ, running headlines and stories about me, kind of proving my point that they’re more interested in stories about themselves than they are about actually doing their job.”

“Look, it’s been a bit of fun, but at the end of the day, new board members are coming, and I expect that they will be improving the direction of those entities so they have bigger audiences, more trust and a wider appeal.”

On TVNZ political reporter Mikey Sherman, whose recent exit from the broadcaster has prompted debate, Seymour said the coverage of her departure reflected a double standard.

“The simple fact is that Mikey Sherman would have chased anyone else down the hallway if the story was about anyone else. The only reason she wasn’t chasing anyone down the hallway is that the story was about her.”

Asked whether she deserved to go, he said: “I think it would have been difficult for her to keep fronting up when people know that she does things that she would absolutely go nuts (about) … I think it would have given them a credibility problem, and I can only imagine that’s why the management have moved her on.”

Budget: no lolly scramble, no new taxes

Seymour confirmed the Government would not deliver a “lolly scramble” in the upcoming Budget, framing fiscal discipline as essential to protect New Zealand’s credit rating.

“What we’re doing for you is making careful use of taxpayer funds. We’ve got to be realistic in New Zealand. If we get our credit rating as a government downgraded, then the next thing that will happen is that the interest rates for government borrowing will go up, and that will make it even harder to balance a budget.”

He warned of a debt spiral seen elsewhere.

“Once it’s harder to balance a budget, our credit rating will be at risk again, and if it gets downgraded again then we’ll pay higher interest rates, and you can see how this spiral begins. We’ve seen South American countries get into this problem. I’m sorry to say, there’s no law that says that New Zealand is not subject to the same basic laws of finance and economics.”

He said the Government’s strategy was to balance the books without raising taxes.

“What we are doing is absolutely crucial to the future of this country. Saving money wherever possible, getting the books balanced as soon as possible, so that New Zealand remains a competitive and credible place to do business. And critically, we’re doing this without introducing new taxes, because if we go and introduce a whole lot of new taxes, then people thinking about investing or working or saving and locating in New Zealand are going to say, ‘Hang on a minute, I’ve got to move further, I’ve got to participate in a smaller market, and the government takes more of my money. I don’t think so.'”

“So we’re on a tightrope here. No new taxes, balance the budget. That requires saving. If people believe that government handing out money is the pathway to wealth and salvation, I’m sorry, but those days are over. There is no more money.”