Category: ACT Party

Source: ACT Party

The Haps

We’ve had tremendous feedback on last week’s Free Press, which was a cook’s tour of ACT’s progress in Government.

Now Parliament goes into recess for a week, so your property is safe. The country keeps grappling with the problem of wanting first world energy without making the choices needed to have it. Most of all we need political consensus so people will want to invest.

ACT has challenged Labour and the Greens to ‘show us ya stack’ because they say they want a cross party energy accord but they won’t include gas. Right now gas and coal are 20 per cent of energy in New Zealand (mostly gas), so there’s no credible energy stack without gas in it. Labour and the Greens need to come back to earth for all our sakes.

Stable Policy

There are recurring themes in the questions people send to Free Press. One of them is, roughly, ‘why can’t politicians just put aside their differences and work for the good of the country?’ It’s a fair question, and this week we take our best shot at answering it.

The cheeky answer is that politicians disagree because the people they represent disagree. Our political system is really just a way for people to work out their differences without hitting each other (hence Julie Anne Genter’s tantrum was such a big deal). When all the voters agree, so will all the politicians.

Besides politics being less annoying, we’d also be richer if politicians agreed more. For the most part, countries get rich depending on whether it’s safe to make a sacrifice today and get paid back tomorrow.

If any digger you buy will be stolen, you might as well use a spade. There’s not much point earning a PhD in Physics if you get hacked with a machete. There’s no point investing in something like gas exploration if it might be banned after the next election.

ACT knows the politicians will never agree because the voters don’t agree, so a lot of the party’s policies are designed to make the political system more predictable. Here are four.

David Seymour’s four-year term bill was drafted in opposition, now it’s coalition policy to get it up for first reading in the first fifteen months of Government. The bill gives a four-year term, with a twist.

The Bill only allows a Government to go four years if they effectively turn the select committees over to the Opposition. Hearings would be led by opponents of the Government. Imagine Adrian Orr or Ashley Bloomfield fronting a Select Committee dominated by MPs who don’t support the Government of the day (we saw a glimpse of this during the COVID committee in 2020).

For lawmaking the implications are stronger. The Government would have more time to think about its policies and build consensus. It would also have to get its laws past hostile Select Committees, who would be much more likely to listen to public submitters and make changes.

The elected Government would have the ultimate say, because all bills come back to the full Parliament in the end, but both sides would have to work so much harder to justify their positions. The whole dynamic of lawmaking would turn from rubber stamps to a real political contest.

The Regulatory Standards Bill was another David Seymour bill in opposition. It will require lawmakers to ask and answer basic questions like ‘what problem are we solving?’ ‘What are the costs and benefits, and who’s paying/benefiting?’ Putting some basic discipline around lawmaking will go a long way to making the regulatory environment lighter-touch and more stable.

The city and regional partnerships, or deals, are another policy designed to make policy more predictable. Under the deals, an incoming Government would find it has a deal with every region. Free Press predicts incoming Governments will be afraid to break them. The same goes for councils who have a deal with the Government. Infrastructure investment will be more predictable now there’s a framework for local and central Government to work together on it.

Teachers tell us they’d love nothing more than ten years without any political meddling. Charter Schools will give educators a deal where they are immune to the fads and interference that emanate from the Ministry of Education, just so long as they achieve their attendance and academic progress results. In fact, Charter Contracts are ten years twice-renewable, so really it’s thirty years.

Politicians disagree because voters disagree, but they can disagree more predictably with better rules, and that’s good for investment. One of the less reported, but highly important things ACT is doing in Government is introducing laws and policies that will make investment in the future more attractive.

Source: ACT Party

ACT Leader and MP for Epsom David Seymour has written to Auckland Transport and the Albert Eden Local Board in opposition to removing car parks from the West Side of Manukau Rd at Greenwoods Corner.

“I’ve seen this movie before. Auckland Transport or the Local Board gets an idea, consults lightly, then ploughs on,” says Seymour.

“When I visited the affected businesses last week I found three things.

“One, they knew about the changes. Two, they opposed them. Three, they had not yet filled out Auckland Transport’s consultation form. This was consistent across a dozen businesses.

“Auckland Transport and the Local Board need to listen to Greenwoods Corner Business Owners. Here’s what I learned in an hour of knocking on doors.

“These businesses are destination businesses, people drive especially to go to a special boutique, hairdresser, or the famous Epsom Dolls’ Hospital. On the West side of Manukau Rd, where the parks would be removed, there is no back alley for pick-ups and deliveries. They are worried about customers who are older, or living with a disability, who rely on driving.

“In difficult economic times with large rate rises, this unwanted project is exactly the sort of thing that Auckland Transport should just kill. After all, the last thing Epsom folk want is to end up like Takapuna, where Hurstmere Road shops have expensive street furniture and for lease signs, but no carparks and no customers.”

Source: ACT Party

ACT Leader David Seymour is challenging leaders of New Zealand political parties to take up the energy sector’s call for a cross-party consensus on energy resilience.

Twelve organisations from across the energy sector have written to party leaders echoing ACT’s call for a cross-party accord to address energy shortages over the long term.

“On winter mornings we’ve come perilously close to blackouts, while mills and factories shut down operations in response to spiking energy prices. We risk a structural transformation of the New Zealand economy, we’re being deindustrialised,” says Seymour

“There is strong consensus from the energy sector that a clearer plan for energy is needed, and that it needs the backing of both sides of politics. The number one issue is that investment in generation takes decades, whereas the political cycle is only three years.

“People investing in generation are trying to hit a target for returns thirty years from now. That is a challenging business decision with political stability, but nearly impossible when they have no idea what the policy settings will be.

“So far, chopping and changing visions for New Zealand’s energy future have only seeded uncertainty and shattered confidence. Companies in the natural gas sector, for example, have little reason to take a punt on new exploration or generation, knowing that a change in government could see their operations made illegal. Meanwhile, across the sector, investors have been spooked by the threat of taxpayer-funded projects like Lake Onslow Hydro squeezing private operators out of the market.

“If we expect any energy company to invest in new generation, we need to give them some level of baseline certainty that a future government won’t pull the rug out from under them with new restrictions or massive interventions into the market.

“Yet it’s not only certainty that’s required. Labour and the Greens could offer a future of certain poverty. ACT says there’s no possible energy stack that both a) doesn’t have gas for the foreseeable future and b) will allow New Zealand to be economically competitive. If Labour and the Greens disagree, they need to show the world how that’s possible, hence, show us your stack!

“As it stands, 21 percent of the energy we use comes from gas and coal, and crucially, those energy sources can run when households need them, not just when the weather conditions play ball.

“A cross-party accord on energy should deliver certainty for the future of each energy resource, be it solar, wind, oil, gas, or even nuclear. Certainty is most needed for those sectors struggling with regulatory-imposed scarcity, and those most threatened by changing political visions.

“ACT is asking Labour and the Greens to show us your energy stack. Show us how New Zealand can keep the lights on without natural gas, and if you accept that’s impossible, give the sector a commitment that exploration and investment can continue.

“Opposition parties may have a vision of some ‘ideal’ energy mix dominated by renewables, and that’s fine – but a cross-party consensus should also allow for the practical likelihood that New Zealand will, to some extent, continue to rely on non-renewables like gas to keep the heat on and factories running through our coldest weeks.”

Source: ACT Party

ACT MP Laura Trask is raising the alarm over a possible extinction event for small incorporated societies expected to comply with the Incorporated Societies Act 2022 by April 2026.

“Small incorporated societies sit at the heart of civil society. Communities are healthier and more connected when Kiwis give up their time for a common cause or interest, or to play sport together.

“Small clubs and volunteer-run societies that have been operating problem-free for decades under the old legislation are now set to be burdened with a new regime under the Incorporated Societies Act 2022. The Act’s extensive rules reach across financial reporting, health and safety, notification of constitutional or membership changes, and managing conflicts of interest.

“Corporate-style governance rules might be feasible for nationwide organisations with teams of paid staff, but will be a massive burden – if not completely unattainable – for smaller community clubs.

“It’s ridiculous to ask bowling clubs and stamp collectors to fork out thousands for expert legal and financial advice just to continue operating as they have always done. They face a difficult choice between hiking membership fees, or facing automatic disillusion when they reach the April 2026 deadline.

“Kiwis shouldn’t have to sacrifice their membership of a rowing club or bridge club just because a piece of legislation loaded on costs in a cost-of-living crisis. The people running these clubs aren’t paid administrators; they’re busy parents, grandparents, and hobbyists building communities and networks with no financial reward.

“The Amateur Sport Association has called the looming deadline an extinction event. They have worked hard to bring Parliament’s attention to these issues and ACT has listened.

“I am preparing a member’s bill to address these issues. In the meantime, I have written to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs suggesting the Government defers the deadline for compliance while it fixes this mess of an Act and gives small societies confidence they can continue serving their communities with their current practices.”

Source: ACT Party

ACT Health spokesperson Todd Stephenson has accepted a petition from Social Justice Aotearoa to amend the End of Life Choice Act 2019 to include degenerative disease.

“Today I met with advocates who believe it is wrong that someone with a terminal illness cannot choose assisted dying simply because the illness may not end their life within six months,” says Stephenson.

“Having considered this issue since I entered Parliament, and having heard the experiences of New Zealanders unable to access assisted dying services, I agree.

“I have accepted the petition of 3353 New Zealanders and it will be presented to Parliament tomorrow. I also gave an assurance that I will take further steps to progress a change in the law, including preparing a member’s bill.

“The End of Life Choice Act was a landmark achievement for personal choice and dignity in New Zealand. The legislation ultimately passed was highly cautious, with strict safeguards against abuse, and was approved two-to-one by New Zealanders in a referendum.

“Now that the legislation has been in place for a number of years, we have heard powerful stories of people who’ve spent their last moments at a time and place of their choosing, surrounded by people they love.

“We’ve also heard the experiences of New Zealanders denied access to assisted dying despite having a terminal illness and being in enormous pain and in a state of irreversible decline. I believe they deserve dignity too.”

Source: ACT Party

Responding to the news that the Northland Regional Council and Hastings District Council may join Palmerston North City Council in attempting to ignore the Government’s Māori wards law, ACT’s Local Government spokesperson Cameron Luxton has said:

“Ratepayers struggling to make ends meet in the face of double-digit rate hikes expect their councillors to focus on the basics. Instead, councillors are using their privileged positions to grandstand against a Government they don’t like.

“What do councillors have to fear from allowing the people to vote in a referendum? They’re worried a referendum won’t deliver the result they want, but that’s democracy.

“ACT believes voters are capable of making decisions together as a community, not as two separate groups divided by race, because the basic problems councils exist to solve are not race-based.

“These three Councils are playing with fire. The elected Government has been very clear in its requirement for councils to repeal Māori wards or put them to a referendum. Coming from Tauranga I’ve experienced firsthand one option available to the Minister – having the council replaced with commissioners. That would be an even bigger blow to democracy than the council refusing a referendum.”

Other councils, including the Greater Wellington Regional Council and the Horizons Regional Council, have voted to keep their Māori wards and then complained of the cost of holding a poll.

“Councils can avoid the cost of having a referendum by voting to get rid of their Māori ward.”

Source: ACT Party

“By saying Māori didn’t cede sovereignty, Chris Hipkins is calling for a divided New Zealand”, says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“The only way this works is to have two states, with some citizens not part of the state ruled by the New Zealand Government. It implies a separate Māori Government, like He Puapua proposed.

“This is as divisive as it gets, and is totally unnecessary for self-determination. ACT is the party that, more than any other, promotes self-determination. Not only does ACT support self-determination for Māori to live on their own terms, we support self-determination for every single New Zealander.

“If Chris Hipkins said communities should be free to take control of their education, whether ethnically based or not – like Māori, Pacific, and other communities did with charter schools – we would agree with him. But if he believed this, he wouldn’t have closed charter schools.

“He has learned nothing from his Government’s divisive tenure.

“What Chris Hipkins will never be able to explain is, how does New Zealand work according to his framework of different groups with different basic rights?”

Source: ACT Party

ACT has reaffirmed its longstanding position that Landcorp/Pamu should be sold after it reported a net loss after tax of $26 million for the year ending 30 June.

“Government has no business being in farming, particularly when New Zealand has plenty of ambitious, talented farmers who deserve the opportunity to farm the land currently owned by Landcorp”, says ACT’s Primary Industries spokesperson and Ruawai dairy farmer Mark Cameron.

“Landcorp has delivered an extremely poor return on the taxpayer’s investment for many years.

“An independent review in 2021 found the organisation failed to meet financial forecasts, had high corporate costs, and invested in unprofitable off-farm ventures.

“No private operation would be able to continue to fail like this. Landcorp is taking taxpayers for a ride.

“ACT has previously proposed selling Landcorp off in chunks and using the proceeds to fund conservation on private land. Where Treaty of Waitangi concerns precluded the sale of particular pieces of land, we would retain them in Crown ownership and provide long-term leases to the SOE.

“If private farmers owned these farms, they would operate them more efficiently because they would have skin in the game.

“The role of government is to provide essential services, not to compete with businesses in the private sector.”

Source: ACT Party

The Haps

The media spent last week trying to blame Nicole McKee for March 15. ACT is used to being attacked but this is final proof of something Free Press has long said. The media are not going broke because of the internet but because they are not selling a good product. As for Nicole, she is a calm and classy act.

Boot on the other Foot

We campaigned to end the Human Rights Commission, and it should still be gone. However, recent events have almost changed our mind.

Watching the left and media react to people with the ‘wrong’ views being made Human Rights Commissioners is what the lecturing class used to call a ‘teachable moment.’

We long warned that the Commission was being politicised by appointments with a view and an agenda that didn’t mesh with most New Zealanders’ views of human rights. There have been so many howlers it would be quite funny if we taxpayers didn’t have to pay them, which is basically ACT’s position.

There was Susan Devoy who tried attacking white men when her job was to promote racial harmony. There was the even more hapless Meng Foon, who made a series of gaffes then resigned in embarrassing circumstances.

There was Paula Tesoriero, the Disability Commissioner who talked the halls of Parliament campaigning against the End of Life Choice Act. Her basic logic was that people with a disability were too feeble to make choices. In doing so she undermined decades of hard-won recognition for people living with disability.

These, however, were harmless in comparison with Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt. This delightful character needed to be dragged kicking and screaming by Kim Hill to denounce antisemitism. At one point, on his watch, the Commission defined lesbians out of existence (by saying you couldn’t insist a woman was biologically female).

We could go on, but you get the picture. Enter into this sorry tale some genuinely good and principled people. Stephen Rainbow is a long-time gay rights activist who passionately believes in human rights, including free speech, for everybody.

Here’s part of a write up in the Herald, quoting Rainbow.

Asked if some people might feel excluded from the aims of the Commission because of what he’d posted online, Rainbow said he was “open to talking to anybody … about any issue”.

“I think one of the things that is desperately needed in New Zealand at the moment is more honest dialogue about the issues we’re facing.”

In a free society, we had to accept there was “no one set of correct views”, but a range of views, and we were privileged to be free to express and debate those views with others who might not share them “in order to reach the truth”, he said.

“That’s the whole basis of our free society, and I’m going to be absolutely committed to upholding that … clearly I’m not going to disavow the views that I formed over 60 years, but I am utterly committed to honest, open dialogue about the key challenges that we face.”

What a breath of fresh air! This cannot stand, according to no less than the Rt. Hon. Helen Clark, who says “Looking at profiles of some new appointees to Human Rights Commission, there are grounds for concern. Such senior statutory appointments need to be able to command respect. Ideologically extreme appointments won’t & would diminish the institution.”

Well, Helen, look who the Race Relations Commissioner is! Dr Melissa Derby is a founding member of the Free Speech Union, one of the people who has been championing academic freedom in an increasingly suffocating campus environment.

The Spinoff, after a brief interlude producing the brilliant Juggernaut podcast, are back to left-wing identity politics fundamentalism, denouncing the appointments as the end of life as they know it (which could be true).

Where does that leave us? Layers of delicious irony.

For those who believe in high taxes and big government, the ‘teachable moment’ is that you can take our money for political purposes we disagree with, but we can do it to you, too.

For the intolerant left, who believe they own human rights and tolerance, a terrible conundrum. Why can’t they tolerate people with different views at the HRC?

Now, it would still be better if there was no Human Rights Commission, but these appointments will do good in two ways. One is they’ll continue to expose the hypocrisy of the intolerant left. Two is they’ll actually promote real human rights, universalism, tolerance, free speech: the things New Zealand needs.

If you’re a Free Press reader, you can take a little credit for these appointments, we just can’t say how.

Source: ACT Party

ACT Social Development spokesperson Dr Parmjeet Parmar is welcoming the Government’s announcement of strengthened oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system – a commitment secured in ACT’s coalition agreement.

The announcement ensures the independence of the children’s monitor, and creates a stand-alone Children’s Commissioner.

“Children in the care of the state deserve a truly accountable Oranga Tamariki, and that means having a truly independent and accountable advocate in their corner,” says Dr Parmar.

“Labour’s reforms of Oranga Tamariki oversight let kids down by stripping accountability and shifting the ‘Independent’ Children’s Monitor to the Education Review Office. ACT campaigned on undoing Labour’s reforms and creating greater oversight independence by establishing the children’s monitor as an Independent Crown Entity so it is absolutely clear who has the job of advocating for children in state care.

“Now, in government, we are delivering. Together with the Minister for Children’s repeal of Section 7AA, this move brings us closer to an Oranga Tamariki system that puts the safety and wellbeing of children first, with protections against poor bureaucratic decision-making that could have lifelong impacts.”