Freedom fighters or freedom frauds? The Act Party’s local government hypocrisy

Act Leader David Seymour and his former deputy, Beth Houlbrooke.

In New Zealand politics, few parties champion the principles of individual freedom, lower taxes, and reduced regulation as vocally as the Act Party. With their recent announcement of plans to run candidates in this year’s local body elections, Act once again presents itself as the guardian of these libertarian values. The media coverage has been largely positive, yet conspicuously absent is any critical examination of Act-aligned politicians’ actual track records in local government.

When examining the history of Act representatives in local government, particularly in Auckland’s Rodney ward, a troubling pattern emerges: the very politicians who campaign on platforms of freedom and limited government often implement policies that directly contradict these principles once in office.¹ ²

The Super City contradiction

The most striking example comes from Rodney Hide, Act’s former leader and Minister of Local Government from 2008 to 2011. Hide, who had long positioned himself as Parliament’s leading proponent of “accountability and transparency in government,”³ was the primary architect of Auckland’s “super city” amalgamation. Yet under his leadership, this massive restructuring of local government resulted in less democratic accountability, not more.

Critics at the time highlighted that Hide’s implementation created a system where “local boards” had “little power,” with “no funding or staff of their own,” and were “forbidden from undertaking numerous government roles.”⁴ When confronted with these concerns about the powerlessness of local boards, Hide simply dismissed them, claiming the boards would “engage like never before.”⁵

This centralization of power directly contradicted Act’s stated principles of devolving decision-making to the lowest possible level. Even more concerning were allegations that the Act party, and especially Hide, were “preparing Auckland’s assets for a sell-off, and setting up the structure to allow it even before Aucklanders got to vote on the matter – all under the guise of a ‘manufactured crisis.’“⁶

The Auckland Council Controlled Organizations (CCOs) established under Hide’s watch created another layer of bureaucracy that removed key decisions from elected representatives. The New Zealand Herald described this as introducing “undemocratic elements” that “could not stand,” leading to a system that would create a “frustrated and disappointed citizenry.”⁷

The family business of hypocrisy

While Rodney Hide’s role in establishing Auckland’s “super city” represents a significant betrayal of Act’s principles, the real damage to the party’s brand has come from the actions of David Seymour’s former deputy, Beth Houlbrooke. As a longtime Act party member who rose from candidate in 2014 to vice president, party manager, and eventually deputy leader,⁸ Houlbrooke has been a central figure in Act’s internal workings while simultaneously serving on the Rodney Local Board since 2013.

Houlbrooke’s public persona champions Act’s core values - she has stated she is with Act because she believes in “individual freedom, choice and personal responsibility” and that Act stands for “smaller, smarter Government, the law applied equally to all citizens, lower taxes, fewer regulations and free markets.”⁹ Yet her actions in local government directly contradict these principles.

As chair of the Rodney Local Board, Houlbrooke pushed through the controversial targeted rate despite majority opposition from residents.¹⁰ She defended spending decisions that prioritised less urgent projects over pressing community needs like road repairs, and maintained tight control over the board through the “Rodney First” faction, which effectively silenced dissenting voices.¹¹

The hypocrisy extends to family connections. Beth’s son, Louis Houlbrooke, began his career in Act’s youth wing before becoming David Seymour’s press secretary following the 2014 election.¹² He later transferred to the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union, rising to the position of campaign manager.¹³ Despite the Taxpayers’ Union’s stated mission of identifying and criticising wasteful government spending, Louis never publicly criticised the wasteful expenditures of the Rodney Local Board chaired by his mother, or his mother’s colleagues Phelan Pirrie and Brent Bailey - all Act candidates.¹⁴

Political rivalries turn personal

The contradictions in Houlbrooke’s political actions took on an additional dimension when her personal relationship with Rodney Ward Auckland Councillor Greg Sayers soured. What began as a professional collaboration eventually developed into a personal affair, but when the relationship deteriorated, their political differences intensified.

The animosity reached its peak during the 2022 local elections when Houlbrooke, backed by the “Rodney First” faction, challenged Sayers for his council seat.¹⁵ Their political disagreements became increasingly public and personal. In one notable incident, Houlbrooke was accused of attempting to “gag” Sayers from speaking at a Rodney Local Board meeting regarding the controversial targeted rate.¹⁶ While Houlbrooke dismissed the allegations as “trouble making,” the episode highlighted the growing tensions between the two.

Houlbrooke’s electoral challenge ultimately failed, with Sayers winning by a substantial margin of nearly 6,000 votes.¹⁷ Shortly thereafter, in what many saw as a questionable transition from elected official to regulatory insider, Houlbrooke secured a position with Auckland Transport as an “Elected Member Relationship Partner.”¹⁸ This appointment raised serious questions about conflicts of interest, given her prior role in implementing and defending transport policies that had been criticised as wasteful and ineffective by many Rodney residents.

The revolving door: Act and the Taxpayers’ Union

This pattern of hypocrisy is further reinforced by the revolving door between Act and the Taxpayers’ Union. When David Seymour announced Act’s intention to enter local body politics, Louis Houlbrooke was serving as his senior press secretary.¹⁹ Even more telling, Callum Purves, another former Taxpayers’ Union campaign manager, was recently appointed as the Act Party Secretary and General Manager in July 2024.²⁰

Purves previously served as Chief Operating Officer and Head of Campaigns at the Taxpayers’ Union, where he led the organisation’s “day-to-day operations, including campaigns, communications, research, and grassroots engagement.”²¹ Before joining the Taxpayers’ Union, Purves worked for the UK Conservative Party in Scotland, managing various election campaigns.²²

This interchangeability of personnel between Act and the Taxpayers’ Union raises serious questions about the independence of both organisations. The Taxpayers’ Union presents itself as a non-partisan watchdog focused on government waste, yet it has consistently failed to criticise wasteful spending by Act-aligned local politicians. This selective blindness undermines its credibility and suggests that its primary function may be to provide political cover for Act’s agenda rather than genuinely advocating for taxpayers’ interests.

Democratic processes and political control

The “Rodney First” ticket, which has included several Act-aligned members, has maintained majority control of the Rodney Local Board since 2016.²³ This political dominance has raised concerns about transparency and democratic representation. Independent board members have criticised the Rodney First faction for operating as a voting bloc, with one independent member describing the situation as “very frustrating” because “there are some long outstanding issues in this district and those will never be addressed under this board because you can’t break this voting bloc.”²⁴

This approach to local governance contradicts Act’s stated commitment to democratic principles and transparent government. The Rodney First members, including Houlbrooke and Bailey, have been accused of strategizing together outside of board meetings to advance their agenda, creating a situation where minority voices struggle to be heard.²⁵ Such behaviour directly conflicts with Act’s rhetoric about protecting individual freedoms and ensuring fair democratic processes.

Perhaps most damning of all, when Hide was campaigning in 2008, he actively sought examples of council abuses to highlight. Yet after becoming Local Government Minister, when presented with formal complaints about underperforming councils, his office selectively acted on some while ignoring others. According to Hide’s advisors, this was because they “didn’t want to rock the boat” with National, as one of the problematic councillors was a policy chair in the National Party.²⁶

Regulation and red tape

On the matter of regulation and red tape, Act candidates consistently promise to eliminate bureaucratic hurdles. Yet once in office, many have overseen the implementation of new compliance requirements and restrictions that burden local businesses and residents. The party that champions personal responsibility has, in practice, expanded the regulatory state at the local level.²⁷

This contradiction is particularly evident in the actions of Beth Houlbrooke and Phelan Pirrie. While Louis Houlbrooke campaigned against compulsory membership of student unions during his time as president of Act’s youth wing, his mother Beth and her colleague Phelan “have both pushed for ‘Business Improvement Districts’ throughout Rodney” - essentially forcing businesses to fund activities they may not support.²⁸ This double standard exemplifies the disconnect between Act’s libertarian rhetoric and the authoritarian reality of its governance.

The rhetoric continues

Today’s Act Party continues to present itself as the champion of freedom, with candidates proudly proclaiming their commitment to “free speech and fair play” and stating that “freedom of speech and private property rights build the fundamental bedrock for a free and prosperous society.”²⁹ Beth Houlbrooke herself has stated that she is with Act because she believes in “individual freedom, choice and personal responsibility” and that Act stands for “smaller, smarter Government, the law applied equally to all citizens, lower taxes, fewer regulations and free markets.”³⁰

Yet these same advocates for “freedom of speech” have demonstrated a remarkable intolerance for dissenting voices. Louis Houlbrooke helped Beth Houlbrooke and Phelan Pirrie set up Facebook “community pages” where they “censored and blocked criticism and debate” - all while Act ran a “Freedom to Speak” campaign against proposals to restrict hate speech.³¹ When this hypocrisy was brought to David Seymour’s attention, he dismissed concerns by claiming the community pages were “private property” - a convenient excuse for silencing criticism while publicly championing free expression.³²

A call for consistency

As voters consider Act candidates in the upcoming local elections, they should look beyond the rhetoric and examine the actual record. The evidence suggests a concerning pattern of saying one thing during campaigns and doing another once elected. True defenders of freedom would apply those principles consistently at all levels of government.

The Rodney experience offers important lessons. When Act’s Beth Houlbrooke ran for Parliament in 2020, she criticised high rates and promised to introduce policies that would return GST on construction to councils to fund infrastructure.³³ Yet as chair of the Rodney Local Board, she supported implementing a targeted rate that many residents opposed and defended spending decisions that privileged projects like park-and-rides over pressing community priorities like road repairs.³⁴

The revolving door between Act and the Taxpayers’ Union, which should be holding politicians accountable regardless of party affiliation, further undermines the credibility of both organisations. The failure of the Taxpayers’ Union to criticise wasteful spending by Act-aligned local politicians, especially when family connections like those between Beth and Louis Houlbrooke are involved, suggests a concerning level of political cronyism rather than principled advocacy.

Beth Houlbrooke’s transition from failed political candidate to Auckland Transport “Elected Member Relationship Partner” following her electoral defeat to Greg Sayers further underscores the hypocrisy. The very organisation that she had previously pushed to fund with her controversial targeted rate now employs her, raising serious questions about conflicts of interest and the revolving door between elected officials and the bureaucracies they once oversaw.

What's particularly telling is that before Act announced it would be running local body candidates under its brand this year, several local body politicians who were previously Act candidates at general elections announced their retirement, including Brent Bailey from the Rodney Local Board. This strategic timing could be perceived as giving the party a 'clean slate' in local government, allowing them to distance themselves from the problematic track records of their previous representatives. This coordinated retreat has gone largely unremarked upon by mainstream media.

If Act wishes to be taken seriously as the party of freedom and limited government, it must address this hypocrisy. Its candidates must commit to upholding the party's stated principles not just in campaign speeches but in actual governance. Until then, voters should approach Act's local government candidates with healthy scepticism.

Freedom is indeed worth fighting for – but true freedom fighters apply their principles consistently, not just when politically expedient.

References

¹ “Act New Zealand,” Wikipedia, accessed 26 April 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_New_Zealand

² “Our Candidates,” Act New Zealand, accessed 26 April 2025, https://www.act.org.nz/candidates

³ “Rodney Hide,” Wikipedia, 26 February 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Hide

⁴ “Auckland Council,” Wikipedia, accessed 26 April 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_Council

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ “Houlbrooke suffers as Act gains more momentum,” Local Matters, 27 April 2023, https://www.localmatters.co.nz/mahurangi-news/houlbrooke-suffers-as-act-gains-more-momentum/

⁹ “Beth Houlbrooke - Act,” Local Matters, 27 July 2021, https://www.localmatters.co.nz/news/beth-houlbrooke-act/

¹⁰ “Wellsford scorns targeted rate for transport,” Local Matters, 27 July 2021, https://www.localmatters.co.nz/mahurangi-news/wellsford-scorns-targeted-rate-for-transport/

¹¹ “Local Board machinations,” Local Matters, 27 July 2021, https://www.localmatters.co.nz/news/local-board-machinations/

¹² “A web of connections between the Act Party, Taxpayers’ Union and National Party,” Your NZ, 1 October 2020, https://yournz.org/2020/10/02/act-party-taxpayers-union-and-national/

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ “Astroturfs: Act Three of ‘Dirty Politics’,” klaut.media, 28 September 2020, https://www.klaut.media/single-post/astroturfs-act-three-of-dirty-politics

¹⁵ “Rodney politicians clash over ‘gagging’,” Local Matters, accessed 26 April 2025, https://m.localmatters.co.nz/news/25183-rodney-politicians-clash-over-gagging.html

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ “Sayers Does It Again!,” Greg Sayers, accessed 26 April 2025, https://gregsayers.co.nz/sayers-does-it-again/

¹⁸ “Beth Houlbrooke - Elected Member Relationship Partner,” LinkedIn, accessed 26 April 2025, https://www.linkedin.com/in/beth-houlbrooke-8421a124/

¹⁹ “A web of connections between the Act Party, Taxpayers’ Union and National Party,” Your NZ, 1 October 2020, https://yournz.org/2020/10/02/act-party-taxpayers-union-and-national/

²⁰ “Act Party Appoints New General Manager/Party Secretary,” Scoop News, 17 July 2024, https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2407/S00111/act-party-appoints-new-general-managerparty-secretary.htm

²¹ Ibid.

²² Ibid.

²³ “Rodney First keeps iron grip on Rodney Local Board,” Local Matters, 30 July 2021, https://www.localmatters.co.nz/mahurangi-news/rodney-first-keeps-iron-grip-on-rodney-local-board/

²⁴ “Local Board machinations,” Local Matters, 27 July 2021, https://www.localmatters.co.nz/news/local-board-machinations/

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ “Why we should have zero tolerance for Act,” klaut.media, 29 September 2023, https://www.klaut.media/single-post/why-we-should-have-zero-tolerance-for-act

²⁷ “Act-party-regulatory-standards-bill-nz,” The University of Auckland, 15 January 2024, https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2024/01/15/act-s-quest-for-regulatory-reform.html

²⁸ “Astroturfs: Act Three of ‘Dirty Politics’,” klaut.media, 28 September 2020, https://www.klaut.media/single-post/astroturfs-act-three-of-dirty-politics

²⁹ “Our Candidates,” Act New Zealand, accessed 26 April 2025, https://www.act.org.nz/candidates

³⁰ “Beth Houlbrooke - Act,” Local Matters, 27 July 2021, https://www.localmatters.co.nz/news/beth-houlbrooke-act/

³¹ “Astroturfs: Act Three of ‘Dirty Politics’,” klaut.media, 28 September 2020, https://www.klaut.media/single-post/astroturfs-act-three-of-dirty-politics

³² Ibid.

³³ “Beth Houlbrooke - Act,” Local Matters, 27 July 2021, https://www.localmatters.co.nz/news/beth-houlbrooke-act/

³⁴ “Price plunges for Warkworth park and ride,” Local Matters, 15 August 2022, https://www.localmatters.co.nz/news/price-plunges-for-warkworth-park-and-ride/