Category: ACT Party

Source: ACT Party

ACT is calling for an end to the “broadcast allocation” for election campaigns that sees taxpayer money given to political parties to buy television and radio ads.

ACT MP Todd Stephenson suggested this in the Justice select committee’s inquiry into the 2023 election, and the report has been made public this week.

The committee resolved to recommend that the Government “consider” whether the broadcasting allocation be removed, although this was opposed by Labour and the Greens.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay for the election campaigns of parties they oppose,” says Mr Stephenson. “Democracy is healthier when political parties have to go out to supporters and make the case for voluntary donations.

“Ditching the broadcast allocation would save taxpayers around $4 million every three years. This would show respect for the priorities of households who would rather pay their own bills than those of political parties.

“The broadcast allocation is also unfair in how money is allocated based on past performance. This favours major parties over challengers.

“It was disappointing but not surprising to hear Labour and the Greens defend their parties’ taxpayer funding. They want to take your taxes to pay for ads to convince you to vote for higher taxes. What a rort.”

Source: ACT Party

Tauranga-based ACT MP Cameron Luxton has written to the Auditor-General, raising concerns about the Council’s recent sale of the Tauranga Marine Precinct and requesting an investigation.

“The Precinct was sold for at least $4 million below its valued price. Ratepayers deserve clarity around this decision to ensure their interests have been put first,” says Mr Luxton.

“But while ratepayers are losing this valuable asset, they will continue to remain on the hook for wharf upgrades to the tune of $25-30 million. This appears to be spending public money for private benefit, taking money from the have-nots and giving it to the have-yachts.

“Many ratepayers are already under immense pressure resulting from rising rates bills. Selling the precinct at below market rates is yet another kick in the guts left by the departing commissioners.

“I am concerned about the lack of public consultation, timing and sale price relating to this decision. The people of Tauranga deserve an explanation.

“I hope the Auditor-General takes all possible steps to bring some much-needed transparency and accountability to this decision.”

Source: ACT Party

Parliament will debate ACT MP Laura Trask’s member’s bill to help employers and employees avoid costly unfair dismissal or personal grievance claims.

The Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill would allow employers to open protected negotiations for the termination of an employment contract.

“Sometimes when one New Zealander employs another it just doesn’t work out. Relationship breakdowns, poor performance, or personal circumstances can make an employment relationship unsustainable,” says Trask, who is ACT’s Small Business spokesperson.

“Some employers would happily offer an employee money to leave, and in many cases the employee would happily accept. But this is not an option under current law.

“A common fear for employers is costly and stressful personal grievances or unfair dismissal claims, even when the employer has adhered to due process.

“Hefty legal fees for personal grievance and unfair dismissal claims should not be seen as ‘the cost of doing business’. So my bill makes it easier for two adults to come to an agreement, shake hands, and move on to greener pastures before any dispute is escalated to the Employment Relations Authority.

“My member’s bill proposes the introduction of protected negotiations between an employer and an employee to terminate the employee’s contract under certain circumstances, such as when the employee is not meeting the demands of the role.

“The Bill allows the employer to seek termination of the contract with the employee’s consent, in return for specified compensation. Crucially, these conversations would be considered to be without prejudice, meaning they could not be used as a part of any future unfair dismissal or personal grievance case, unless certain exemptions apply.

“Similar legislation in the United Kingdom has proven effective, and this bill aims to provide a fair and balanced approach for both employers and employees in New Zealand. I hope it will have support from parties across Parliament.”

A video of Laura Trask talking about her bill can be downloaded here.

A copy of the bill can be downloaded here.

Source: ACT Party

The twin threats of GP fee hikes and the downscaled Dunedin hospital project ought to put steel into the Government’s efforts to find savings and interrogate the business case for the proposed $380 million Waikato medical school, says ACT Health spokesperson Todd Stephenson.

“In Auckland we have 97 percent of GPs hiking or planning to hike fees, a move that could discourage a patient from making a trip to the doctor that could save the health system thousands of dollars down the line. Meanwhile in Southland and Otago, communities have marched en masse over fears the Dunedin hospital upgrade won’t be big enough to meet the regions’ needs.

“It’s a matter of record that ACT campaigned to increase GP funding by 13 percent in last year’s election. And we share concerns about health service needs across Otago and Southland, particularly in the high population growth area of Central Otago.

“The common theme here is that the Government needs to find far more money in the couch cushions to deliver the medical care Kiwis need. ACT doesn’t support taking more money from struggling households, so we need find savings, including in the health budget.

“Prior to the election, we expressed that we weren’t convinced that establishing a whole new medical school in Hamilton is a better option than expanding the two we already have in Auckland and Dunedin, which have both said they can train more doctors. The work on the proposal done to date has not changed our view. You have to ask, if it doesn’t stack up, and other areas are screaming out for funding, why are we doing it?”

Mr Stephenson will meet with Mayors of Dunedin, Invercargill, and Waitaki outside Parliament at 12:30pm today to hear their concerns over possible reduced capacity in the Dunedin hospital project.

Source: ACT Party

ACT’s Finance spokesperson Todd Stephenson has written to Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche, congratulating him on his appointment and suggesting that he allow public servants to use rideshare services like Uber as a more taxpayer-friendly alternative to traditional taxis.

“There seems to be a widespread rule that public service employees are not able to claim back or expense a rideshare service used in the course of their employment, and this is unnecessarily costing taxpayers money,” says Mr Stephenson.

“Rideshare services are typically more affordable than traditional taxi services, and there is no justification for a blanket ban on their use.

“A 2017 report from the Taxpayers’ Union estimated savings of upwards of $3 million a year if public servants used rideshare services instead of taxis. The savings are likely to be even greater today.

“There could be other benefits. Rideshare apps offer live location tracking and number plate verification, enhancing safety for public servants. Digital receipts that show journey start and end points add another layer of accountability that ensures travel privileges are used appropriately.

“While ACT hopes the new Commissioner will be looking far more widely for ways to improve value for money in the public service, I hope he’ll take my suggestion on board as a ‘small, but easy’ change.”

Source: ACT Party

The Haps

The media and the usual suspects are breathless at David Seymour’s school lunch success. He’s halved the cost and delivered for more children, despite believing it’s the parents’ job in the first place. If Labour had done it the same way, they could have saved over $800 million. First they said he’d cancel it. Then they said he couldn’t do it. Now they say the savings are too great, and not enough businesses will make money from the scheme. Moaning Report managed to hang their coverage of the Government saving $170m off one Principal who didn’t like it.

The Achieving Society, and Paku Manu Ariki Whakatakapōkai

David McClelland was a psychologist who analysed children’s books to understand the values of different cultures. His work is summarised in Richard Prebble’s classic I’ve Been thinking.

The basic conclusion is that societies who tell their children they can make a difference in their own lives, if they take responsibility and make an effort, will grow wealthy and peaceful. Those who tell their children that life is a bit like bad weather, something you’re powerless to change, have difficult times ahead.

It worked. Writing in the 1950s, McClelland was able to forecast Japan’s economic miracle based on his study of their nursery rhymes. It was a big call for a war-torn country under foreign occupation.

That basic story has become the kernel of the modern ACT Party. Own your future, change your future, real change, change makers, make a difference in your own life and the lives of those you care about… Individuals matter because they’re the only entity that can choose to act, and sometimes the most unlikely people have insights that will benefit us all.

Why does the Party care about property rights? Because it’s hard to make a difference if everything you acquire gets nicked by criminals, or the IRD, or if you can’t use your property the way you want to because of red tape. It’s also why education matters, and you shouldn’t be discriminated against on any personal characteristic.

What, then to make of Paku Manu Ariki Whakatakapōkai? Apparently the best picture book at the book awards for children this year, by McClelland’s standards it shows New Zealand is stuffed.

The story has barely been covered in New Zealand, with two exceptions. A beautiful op-ed by Josie Pagani, that contrasts the book with Barack Obama’s liberalism, and a gushing interview with the author published by the parallel state-funded universe that is The Spinoff.

The story is a stream of consciousness from a young boy. My name is Paku Manu Ariki Whakatakapōkai, you can call me Paku Manu Ariki Whakatakapōkai. And he’s off. The usual reason for saying ‘you can call me…’ is to offer an alternative. It’s a sign of friendship and a will to get on with one another. Instead Paku uses the phrase to insist right off the bat that you must use his 13 syllables.

The book carries on in this vein, Paku believes that he was created at the same time as the universe and everyone was created at the same time. He doesn’t understand why there are rules or anyone is required to follow them, but he’s sure they shouldn’t apply to him.

Then the author has him say “I will hit all the English people in the face because they stole the land”. And “My Dad is Māori like me. I feel sorry for my Mum. She’s only Pākehā.”

The kind interpretation, that the author sells (and may genuinely believe) is that the book is designed to ‘stimulate conversations.’ The voice is simply the musings of a child, why be so hard on him?

As Pagani says, ‘those sound like adult words.’ The author doesn’t challenge the tropes that she puts in the mouth of the young child. There’s no conclusion that racially motivated violence is actually a bad thing. There’s only reference to Nana, who says you shouldn’t hit people, but she is abandoned as a quaint figure.

Parents (Paku is modelled on the author’s son) are apparently not to guide their children, they’re there to be their friends. Rather than passing on values of achievement, cooperation, respect for the dignity of others, Paku’s worst instincts (or is that the author’s prejudices?) are amplified.

Besides winning the Picture Book award, this book was funded by Creative New Zealand. This is the same Creative New Zealand that funded Tusi’ata Avia’s poem that cast Captain Cook as an avatar for Europeans in New Zealand and celebrated stabbing him with a pig knife.

Of course, the Government, and specifically Arts Minister Paul Goldsmith, is turning over appointments in these outfits and setting new expectations. Nonetheless this book, its taxpayer funding, and its national award show how deeply ingrained is New Zealand’s appetite for self-destruction.

Only by recommitting ourselves to universal human rights—equal rights—for each and every person can we overcome such corrosive thinking. Thankfully, there is a whole political party committed to doing just that.

Source: ACT Party

ACT MP Simon Court, who sponsors the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Repeal of Licensing Trust Monopolies) Amendment Bill, responds to recent reporting and feedback on the bill:

“My bill has received a very positive response from Westies frustrated with being denied choice and competition in pubs and bars,” says Mr Court.

“Some outlets have reported that my bill abolishes licencing trusts. This is not correct. Rather, it removes the trusts’ monopoly status, allowing new businesses to operate and compete.

“Trusts in Invercargill and Mataura, which do not restrict competition to the same extent as those in West Auckland, would be less affected by bill. However, Southlanders would be able to buy beer and wine from supermarkets and a range of liquor stores, as they do in most parts of the country.

“Claims that my bill undermines local democracy are fundamentally misguided. The free market is a democracy. Consumers are able to take a dollar and decide which goods and services they would like represented in the market, and which they don’t. With monopoly powers removed from trusts, individual consumers could choose whether to support the trusts or shop around.

“Other than with legislation, the only way to remove trusts’ monopoly powers is for locals to gather verified signatures from 15 percent of the residents and initiate a local referendum. That is higher than the national threshold of 10 percent for a citizen-initiated referendum, and in West Auckland it has proven a very difficult process despite the trusts’ own polling showing most residents oppose the trust monopolies.

“Finally, the trusts derive most of their profit from pokies, not alcohol. The trusts’ revenue is already well-diversified so they should not be concerned about competition from other hospitality venues, liquor stores, or supermarkets.”

Source: ACT Party

ACT Building and Construction spokesperson Cameron Luxton is welcoming the Government’s announcement of reforms to reduce the role of council inspectors in certification processes.

“New Zealand’s overreliance on councils in consenting and certification results in bottlenecks and delays. This drives up the cost of getting almost anything built, and this cost flows through to higher housing costs and less productivity,” says Mr Luxton, who is also an LBP.

“ACT has long argued we need to provide alternatives to costly council processes for building. Our coalition agreement commits to ‘explore allowing home builders to opt out of needing a building consent provided they have long-term insurance for the building work.’

“Today’s announcement is a step in the right direction, but real change is needed to tackle the fundamental incentive problems that lead councils to grind construction to a halt.

“Rather than making everyone pay the price of burdensome regulation, we should hold bad builders to account. The market can do that.

“The fundamental incentive problem is that when building projects are botched, it’s councils, and therefore ratepayers, who shoulder the liability. It means councils only see risk whenever they look at a building project that doesn’t fit into their cookie-cutter understanding of building. Under this system it’s a wonder new designs get consented or certified at all.

“Instead of just fulfilling council box-ticking exercises, expert builders ought to be able to shoulder the liability with the protection of insurance. Crucially, to negotiate a good deal on the insurance market they’d need to demonstrate a reputation of quality work.

“By transferring the liability and risk from ratepayers and onto builders and insurance companies, we can bypass the box-checking processes and let insured professionals make calculated decisions to get things built efficiently, safely, and with innovation.”

Source: ACT Party

The Haps

ACT achieved enormously for New Zealand last week, as outlined in David Seymour’s speech to the House. Karen Chhour was decisive in dealing with Youth Justice inmates climbing on the roof. Brooke van Velden introduced faster information sharing of sex offender histories with schools, and deregulated lotteries that fundraise for charities like Pet Refuge. Nicole McKee unveiled a single-supervisor plan to cut Anti-Money Laundering compliance costs. David Seymour showed how the school lunch program can be done well for half the cost.

God Defend New Zealand

Free Press was the only New Zealand outlet to pick a Trump victory in 2016. We predict that he will win again next Tuesday.

It’s not our job to say whether that’s good or bad for America. Besides, nearly everyone has a view and few are willing to change it anyway. We are interested, though, about what a second Trump Presidency might mean for New Zealand.

Trump 2.0 will be different from 1.0. He is angrier, knows better how the Presidency works, and will surround himself with people loyal to him personally rather than the Republican Party or any other calling.

Expect to see him make good on his agenda of demanding friends and allies contribute more to their defence. A 20 per cent tariff on imports would be too disruptive to carry out (especially if you campaigned on reducing the cost of living).

We could be wrong about Trump, but even under a President Harris, the United States is making an inward turn. They try isolationism every few generations. For a country like New Zealand, whose security has depended on 200 years of British then American naval dominance, American attitudes to the world really matter.

One likely outcome of the U.S. Election is that the New Zealand Government will need to spend more on defence. This change comes on top of already strained defence policy, something the ACT Party has factored in for a while now.

New Zealand defence policy is entirely based on an alliance with Australia. At what point does their goodwill run out? When they are asked to divert defence personnel and assets to the east, increasing their own risk to protect people who chose not to protect themselves?

ACT campaigned on increasing defence spending to 2.0 per cent of GDP, because the world has changed and New Zealand is out of step. Our Government spends 0.9 per cent, the Australians are at 2.0 heading for 2.4 at the end of the decade.

How will Australia respond if the Americans give them a deal with AUKUS Pillar II that New Zealand can’t afford to be part of. What would that mean for joint operations?

To put that in hard numbers, New Zealand GDP is about $400 billion, so 0.9 per cent is 3.6 billion, two per cent is $8 billion. There’s roughly 3.5 million taxpayers, so right now we’re at $1,000 per taxpayer on defence, two per cent would be $2,000 per taxpayer.

That level of spending would make New Zealand an equal player in an ANZAC defence force, with similar levels of resourcing. The thing is, it’s easy to say you want something, the hard part is always giving up something else to get it.

The Government basically has three options if it wants to spend more on something. It can borrow, it can tax, or it can make savings elsewhere.

Extra borrowing is out, with debt at 40 per cent of GDP, and interest alone set to hit $10 billion. Borrowing is not sustainable and the interest is already more than New Zealand’s dream defence budget.

The Government could tax an extra $1000 per taxpayer, the fairest and simplest way to do this would be to raise the bottom rate from 10.5 to 17.5 per cent. That would roughly raise the $1,000 per person.

The Government could raise the pension age to 67, perhaps at three months per year for the next eight years. That scheme would save about $3 billion, so would pay for most of the change.

Free Press doesn’t necessarily favour either of those options. There may be a better one. Nonetheless they convey the scale of what New Zealanders may need to give up, around $1,000 per taxpayer per year in extra cost to keep what we already have.

Either way, the world is changing and it’s likely to mean New Zealand, with its already fragile fiscal and economic situation, is going to need to pay more to enjoy what it already has.

Source: ACT Party

West Auckland-based ACT MP Simon Court has lodged a new member’s bill to abolish New Zealand’s last remaining liquor monopolies and treat Westies who want to have a drink like adults.

“In West Auckland, as well as in Invercargill and Mataura, only licensing trusts can operate liquor stores, taverns, and licensed hotels. These monopolies are an outdated, nanny state throwback to the 1970s – they limit choice and inflate prices,” says Mr Court.

“My bill would repeal the monopolies held by the Invercargill, Mataura, Portage and Waitakere Licensing Trusts. It would break these communities free from silly rules and give entrepreneurial locals the ability to sell alcohol under the same rules that apply nationwide.

“West Auckland is growing rapidly. But there are only eight venues licensed as taverns or hotels in West Auckland to serve a population of 296,000 – one for every 37,000 residents. In Auckland as a whole, there is one venue for every 3,900 people.

“The community is being underserved. It means that some locals either go without the services that other Aucklanders rightfully expect the market to provide, or they have to travel and spend their money elsewhere in Auckland.

“The current rules are a confusing mess. In my home patch of West Auckland, you can operate a hotel, but you’re not allowed a bar or room service. Supermarkets can’t sell alcohol, but you can get it delivered to your door. It’s totally ridiculous.

“One of the arguments for liquor monopolies is that all the profits go back into the community. But 80 per cent of profits are from pokies, not alcohol. Revenue from gaming machines makes up most of the funding for these trusts, not liquor sales.

“Another argument is that when monopolies control and limit the sale of alcohol in an area there’s less harm. But there’s simply no evidence that there’s less alcohol-related harm in West Auckland because of the monopolies.

“My bill would bring back some of the vibrancy, diversity and colour to local communities by allowing more bars and eateries to emerge, offering a wider range of choices for people eating and drinking out. 

“The benefits will also flow through to other businesses as more people are attracted into the town centre, including those currently venturing into more competition-friendly areas that are not bound by the same antiquated restrictions.

“I urge all MPs, and in particular those living under these liquor monopolies, to support my bill to free the people of West Auckland, Invercargill and Mataura from these outdated, paternalistic monopolies.”

Simon Court’s Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Repeal of Licensing Trust Monopolies) Amendment Bill can be read here.