ACT Leader David Seymour Dismisses Immigration Critics as Playing 'Soap Opera' Politics

ACT Party leader David Seymour is refusing to back down amid fierce criticism of his immigration policy, accusing opponents of reducing a serious national issue to mere "soap opera" politics. Speaking to RNZ, Seymour framed his approach as a response to real challenges, including 20,000 overstayers, a flood of low-skilled fast food workers entering under skilled visas, and infrastructure strains caused by population growth.

His policy package includes stepped-up deportations, stricter enforcement on overstayers, a $6-a-day infrastructure fee on temporary work visas, and a five-year ban on welfare for residence-class visa holders. Seymour insists these measures are necessary to protect New Zealand’s interests and address what he calls a growing crisis.

But the backlash has been swift and pointed. Immigration Minister Erica Stanford warned that Seymour’s $6 daily fee would deter skilled migrants and ultimately hurt employers who rely on migrant labor, especially in rural sectors. She called the proposal a "knee jerk" reaction that ignores ongoing efforts to fairly collect levies from migrants for public services.

Coalition partner New Zealand First leader Winston Peters acknowledged Seymour’s effort but dismissed it as insufficient, promising a "real and comprehensive" immigration policy from his party soon. Opposition figures were even harsher. Labour’s Phil Twyford accused ACT and NZ First of engaging in a "bidding war" to exploit immigration fears for votes, while Green Party spokesperson Ricardo Menendez March labeled Seymour’s plan a "Trump-inspired" dog whistle aimed at scapegoating migrant communities.

Sociologist Paul Spoonley and immigration lawyer Alistair McClymont also weighed in, questioning the practicality and values underpinning Seymour’s proposals. Spoonley expressed concern about vague demands on migrants to "sign up" to unspecified values, while McClymont saw the policy as a cynical attempt to mimic New Zealand First’s xenophobic tactics without offering substantive improvements.

This bitter dispute exposes deep divisions within New Zealand’s governing coalition and opposition over how to manage immigration. Seymour’s insistence on tough enforcement and fees clashes with calls for balanced, evidence-based policy that supports both migrants and the economy. As the election approaches, immigration is shaping up as a flashpoint where political posturing risks overshadowing the complex realities New Zealand faces.