In a wide-ranging Webfit News interview, ACT candidate Manu Singh defended lower taxes, opposed a capital gains tax and called for greater personal responsibility.
Part of our coverageNZ Election 2026Polls, policies, candidates and how to vote, all in one place. →
In a wide-ranging Webfit News interview, ACT candidate Manu Singh defended lower taxes, opposed a capital gains tax and called for greater personal responsibility. But questions about housing affordability, working families and young offenders revealed where his answers were less specific.
By Webfit News | Election 2026 | Auckland | 24 October 2026
Can hard work and financial discipline still guarantee a better life in New Zealand?
That question ran through Webfit News' election interview with Manu Singh, ACT Party candidate for Māngere, as he discussed the financial pressures facing South Auckland families, the difficulty of buying a first home and his party's approach to crime.
Singh, who described himself as a former community nurse, businessman, real estate professional and Rotary leader, said he entered politics after years of community service convinced him that helping people individually was not enough.
He wanted to influence the policies shaping their lives.
But the interview also exposed a tension between his belief in personal responsibility and the economic barriers confronting families who are already working hard.
Asked whether New Zealand was becoming a country that only wealthy people could afford, Singh rejected that characterisation.
He pointed to migrants who had arrived with limited English and found employment through determination.
"It's all about attitude," he said.
His argument was that people willing to work and make sacrifices could improve their circumstances.
But the answer left a wider economic question unresolved: what happens when someone works full-time and still cannot afford essential living costs?
Singh acknowledged that some working families, particularly those on low wages with several dependants, may still need support through existing welfare arrangements.
He did not provide a specific income threshold at which full-time work should eliminate the need for government assistance.
| Issue | Singh's position in the interview |
|---|---|
| Cost of living | Lower taxes and returning more earnings to working families |
| Government spending | Reduce costs by merging ministries and cutting bureaucracy |
| Housing investment | Opposes Labour's proposed capital gains tax |
| First-home affordability | Emphasised mentoring, education and financial discipline |
| Working families | Acknowledged that some may continue needing government assistance |
| Repeat offending | Supported ACT's tougher sentencing approach |
| Youth offenders | Said he needed to study the policy before giving a definitive answer |
| Immigration | Favoured employing suitable local workers before recruiting overseas |
| Māngere priorities | Illegal dumping, education and local employment opportunities |
Singh drew on his own experience of arriving in New Zealand and working long hours to save for a property deposit.
He said he had worked seven days a week, sometimes for 12 to 14 hours a day, and believed younger people could benefit from similar discipline.
He also argued that a capital gains tax would discourage property investment and potentially affect the supply of rental homes.
However, when asked what he would tell a young Māngere family that might never afford a house, Singh focused primarily on financial education and mentorship.
He did not identify a specific housing affordability measure that would directly reduce the deposit or income required for first-home ownership.
That distinction matters.
Financial education may help families save and avoid expensive borrowing. But housing affordability also depends on property prices, household incomes, interest rates and housing supply.
The interview highlighted the need to examine both personal financial choices and the broader conditions in which those choices are made.
Crime produced one of the interview's most revealing exchanges.
Singh strongly supported tougher penalties for repeat offenders, arguing that victims, particularly uninsured households and small businesses, deserved greater protection.
He referred to ACT's three-strikes approach and described repeat offending as a serious community problem.
But when asked whether a 14-year-old repeat offender should be treated like an adult, he declined to give a definitive policy answer.
He said the issue required more detailed consideration and acknowledged that he had not prepared for that particular question.
"I don't want to answer that question without reading clear policies," he said.
It was an important admission in an election conversation where candidates are frequently expected to have immediate answers.
The distinction between adult sentencing, youth justice and rehabilitation remains central to assessing how tougher criminal justice proposals would work in practice.
Toward the end of the interview, Webfit News asked Singh to identify a result voters should judge him on after three years.
His first example was surprisingly local: illegal rubbish dumping.
Singh said discarded rubbish was a recurring problem across Māngere and proposed that Auckland Council consider designated collection areas and scheduled disposal arrangements.
He argued that the council already incurred costs collecting illegally dumped waste and should explore a more organised approach.
The proposal would require assessment of collection costs, site management, environmental safeguards and whether such arrangements might encourage further dumping.
Singh also wanted greater employment opportunities for young people, particularly through local businesses, trades and industries connected to the airport and surrounding commercial areas.
Unlike broader national debates over taxation and welfare, these were tangible neighbourhood issues on which residents could seek measurable progress.
The interview concluded with a series of short questions that offered a clearer picture of Singh's priorities.
| Webfit News asked | Singh answered |
|---|---|
| Could you survive a week on minimum wage? | "I can survive." |
| More police or more youth workers? | "More youth worker." |
| Free school lunches or lower taxes? | "Lower taxes." |
| One thing you would change about ACT? | Said he was not in a position to answer |
| One question for Christopher Luxon? | What he would do to stop crime |
His preference for more youth workers was particularly notable alongside his strong support for tougher criminal penalties.
It suggested an acknowledgement that preventing offending among young people deserves attention alongside punishment.
Singh repeatedly encouraged voters to read party policies, compare alternatives and discuss their choices with family members.
He also challenged Labour's long-standing political presence in Māngere, arguing that the electorate needed a different approach.
Those claims are part of his campaign case, not established conclusions about Labour's record or local voters' views.
What emerged most clearly from the interview was Singh's belief that opportunity comes through work, education, discipline and personal responsibility.
Yet the questions facing Māngere families extend beyond individual effort.
A young person can finish their education and struggle to find employment. A family can work full-time and still need housing assistance. A small business can operate responsibly and still face rising costs.
The test for any candidate is not simply whether they believe people should work hard. It is whether their policies address the obstacles that hard-working people cannot overcome alone.
For Singh, and for other candidates seeking to represent Māngere, that is a question voters can continue asking before election day.
Reporting: Webfit News exclusive election interview with Manu Singh, ACT Party candidate for Māngere.
Editor's note: Statements about ACT policy, Labour's record and proposed sentencing arrangements are attributed to Singh. They should not be read as independent verification of the precise legal or financial effects of those proposals.
