New Zealand’s coalition parties are at odds over a newspaper advertisement urging right-leaning voters not to give National their party vote. ACT and New Zealand First approved the advertisement, while Luxon said National did not support the campaign and described his coalition partners’ approval as disappointing.
Written by Don Brash, the advertisement promotes a vote-splitting strategy in which voters give their electorate vote to National and their party vote to ACT or New Zealand First. Its intended outcome is for National to win electorates while its coalition partners increase their party-vote shares.
The distinction between the two votes is central to the disagreement. The campaign advocates an electorate vote for National while directing party votes towards ACT and New Zealand First. Those are the voting choices it seeks to encourage, not established electoral outcomes.
Seymour defended ACT’s position by saying that a party vote for ACT added to the coalition. His response framed the proposed party vote as a contribution to the coalition, rather than accepting National’s objection to the campaign.
Peters defended voters’ use of their party vote. The two responses offered different arguments: Seymour emphasised what an ACT vote contributed to the coalition, while Peters focused on voters’ choice. Neither defence changed Luxon’s stated position that National did not support the campaign.
Approval and authorship
A New Zealand First spokesperson also said the party had approved a separate newspaper advertisement from the same campaign publisher, while having no role in creating it. That account distinguished permission for the advertisement from responsibility for its content.
The distinction matters when describing the party’s involvement. The spokesperson acknowledged approval, but not participation in producing that separate advertisement. Approval should therefore not be presented as evidence that New Zealand First wrote it or helped to create it.
Seymour confirmed that ACT had given permission for an advertisement linked to the strategy. He also said the party initially refused permission before agreeing on conditions involving Epsom and Tāmaki. His account described conditional agreement, rather than approval from the outset.
ACT and New Zealand First’s approval of the advertising is distinct from National’s support for the campaign. Luxon’s response makes that separation clear: the two parties authorised advertising promoting the strategy, but National did not endorse the campaign.
Campaign material and advertising rules
The campaign publisher’s own material, published on 21 October 2026 and updated on 22 October, advocates the same broad approach: an electorate vote for National and a party vote for ACT or New Zealand First. It supports the existence of the vote-splitting strategy.
That material does not, by itself, establish the approvals for the later newspaper advertisement. The campaign’s recommendation and the parties’ authorisation are separate questions. Evidence of what voters were being urged to do should not be treated as independent confirmation of who approved a particular advertisement.
The Electoral Commission’s official 2026 election-advertising guidance sets out the general authorisation requirement. A third-party promoter needs written authorisation from each party secretary or candidate if an advertisement promotes more than one party or candidate.
The guidance confirms the rule, but does not independently verify the approvals in this case. It provides the framework for authorising such advertising; it is not a finding about the particular advertisements or confirmation of the accounts of permission given by the parties.
The disagreement remains over a strategy that National rejects and its coalition partners have defended. Its proposed electoral effect is clear, but the approvals, authorship and intended voting outcome must be kept distinct: permission for advertising does not establish who created it or how voters will respond.
