Kiwis caught flat-footed by Easter booze rules challenged to speak up

Source: ACT Party

Kiwis caught flat-footed this weekend by patronising rules around alcohol should make a submission on legislation currently being considered by Parliament’s Justice Committee, says ACT MP Cameron Luxton.

“This Friday and Sunday, pubgoers will have to order a ‘substantial meal’ just to have a wine or beer. There’s also an arbitrary ban on buying a drink more than an hour before or after eating.

“Then there’s the total ban on off-licence alcohol sales. Even grocery stores that are allowed to open on Easter can’t sell alcohol, forcing people to stock up for supplies on the Thursday and Saturday.

“So many Kiwis are fed up with being treated like children, and I know hospitality staff hate having to enforce the silly rules. I’ve been campaigning for Easter freedom for a while now, and finally, a bill to ditch the alcohol rules has passed first reading – but its future is uncertain.

“If you’re sick of being denied choice on Easter, I’d strongly urge you to make an online submission in support of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill.

“I’ll be making a submission myself, and I’ll be lobbying my colleagues across Parliament to support the legislation into law.

“The government shouldn’t get to choose your values. Whether Easter means going to church or having a pint, that should be up to you.”

Editor’s note: Cameron Luxton previously had a member’s bill drawn from Parliament’s ballot to reform both alcohol restrictions and wider shop trading restrictions. Luxton’s bill was voted down, so he and ACT are now leading the campaign in support of Kieran McAnulty’s narrower bill.

A video of Cameron Luxton’s speech on the Bill is available here.

Speech to Business Canterbury – 16 April 2025

Source: ACT Party

Introduction

Thank you very much to Leeann and the team for hosting me here at Business Canterbury.

I say it every time but I’ll say it again: we need to celebrate business in this country.

Too often, when a business makes a profit, people jump to the conclusion that someone, somewhere must be losing. That’s dangerously false. A person will engage as an entrepreneur, investor, worker, or customer only if doing so will make them better off than they would have been otherwise.

Business is not exploitative, sinister, or deceptive. It’s actually very simple. Four types of people achieve together what they couldn’t do alone.

Entrepreneurs ask others to bring their ideas and dreams to life.

Investors risk their savings in the hope of greater returns than they could achieve working alone.

Workers exchange their time and talents for money to buy what they want.

Those workers become customers who give up their money to buy things they couldn’t produce by themselves.

And the best thing of all? Nobody is forced to do any of this. Business is voluntary cooperation where adults freely trade value for value and get stronger together.

Business is not only a force for good in our community, it is beautiful human cooperation.

The most important thing we can do for business is to ensure New Zealand has a sound, predictable policy environment.

Today I’d like to talk about what the Government is doing to make it easier to do business. I hope you’ll agree our deregulation program is comprehensive and coherent.

Most of all I hope you are starting to feel the effects of deregulation. I hope you can spend less time on compliance activity and more time on productive activity.

But today, I’d like to talk not just about what the Government is doing to improve the business environment, but why.

Too often in the last four decades, people who favour open markets and entrepreneurship have won the technical argument, but we have lost the cultural argument.

Yes, business is a force for good. Yes, our prosperity depends on unleashing the creative powers of a skilled and educated population. Yes, free markets and freedom generally are the vehicle for doing that.

There is nobody serious who disputes that free markets work. We now have decades of data from hundreds of countries showing free markets lead to healthier, wealthier lives.

When I hear political reporting, and most of Parliament, though, I know we still have work to do establishing the facts.

Our nation of pioneers

I’d like to talk today about how we win the cultural argument for business and markets by discovering our true national identity. It draws on the pioneering spirit that brought our ancestors to these shores in search of something better.

We are a nation of immigrants. A nation built by those who chose challenge over comfort. Our ancestors crossed the globe—not to be given something, but for the freedom to build something.

To this day, people crossing the seas to our country don’t ask for guarantees, they ask for a fair go.

Like centuries past, they don’t seek safety above all else, they seek opportunity.

And they don’t want to wait for permission—they just want to get on with building a life for themselves and their families.

As it was for my ancestors eight hundred years ago by waka, so it is for New Zealanders arriving at the international terminals of the country’s airports today. The country at the edge of the world is the frontier for people seeking freedom and we need to adopt that part of our mentality.

The Treaty debate can be seen as a simple question of what defines your life. Is it events that happened many lifetimes ago, or the choices you make in your lifetime? If you know the answer to that, you’ll be able to answer most political questions.

The problem is somewhere along the way more and more people have chosen the first option, our futures were determined long ago. Our culture hesitates. Instead of cheering on success, we eye it suspiciously. Our instinct, cultivated over decades, seems to be caution over courage, conformity over creativity.

Take last week. A firm founded by New Zealanders, Zuru, was awarded the Total Consumables Supplier of the Year award by Walmart. It’s difficult to overstate how big that is. They proudly put out a New Zealand press release. It got no coverage in the New Zealand media, but one of Zuru’s owners applying to build a helipad will provide wall-to-wall clickbait. Why do we cut down tall poppies instead of celebrating them?

There are now five different tax rates, designed to ping people harder as their income grows. Why do we tell our kids to study hard, save, and invest, but punish disproportionately if their work pays off?

We are a top destination for migrants, but also have one of the world’s largest diasporas. Why do so many come here seeking hope, only to give up and move on?

The answer, I believe, lies in a deep tension in our national character. It’s not new, but it’s getting sharper. You could call it a divide—but it’s more like two tribes, invisible yet powerful, shaping our future.

On one side, we have the doers, the pioneers. I call them changemakers.

These are the people who see the freedom to act not as a privilege, but as a responsibility. These are the people who saw me driving the Land Rover up Parliament’s steps for what it was. No rules were broken, nobody was hurt, we raised tens of thousands for Heart Kids New Zealand.

The flip side was the endless whingers who said I ‘should have asked permission.’ The interesting thing is many of them didn’t know who I should have asked. They just know everyone should ask someone. What a depressing, defeated way to think and live.

Changemakers don’t think that way. They’re the ones who put everything on the line to start a business, employ others, and keep going when the odds are against them. The ones who work hard, employ others, save for a home, raise kids, build communities. They believe that life is what you make of it.

And too often, they’re punished for it.

Tall poppy forever?

They’re taxed harder, regulated more tightly, lectured more condescendingly. They’re told their success is a problem, their ambition is selfish, and their values are outdated. But they are the backbone of this country—and many of them are in this room today.

This is who ACT stands for, and who we represent. We are the party of people who believe in letting you make a difference in your own life, not telling you how to live it.

But there’s another part of New Zealand and its influence is growing. The people building what I’ve called a Majority for Mediocrity. They would love nothing more than to go into lockdown again, make some more sourdough, and worry about the billions in debt another day.

They blame one of the most successful societies in history for every problem they have. They believe that ancestry is destiny. They believe people are responsible for things that happened before they were born, but criminals aren’t responsible for what they did last week.

Far from believing people can make a difference in their own lives, they believe that their troubles are caused by other people’s success. They look for politicians who’ll cut tall poppies down – politicians who say to young New Zealanders ‘if you study hard, get good grades, get a good job, save money, and invest wisely, we’ll tax you harder’.

It’s not about any one group or party—it’s a mindset. A creeping belief that life should be comfortable, not challenging. That fairness means flattening everyone to the same level, not lifting people up. That success must be questioned, not admired.

They see every problem through the lens of blame. They see society’s gains as someone else’s loss. They want safety without sacrifice, reward without risk, rights without responsibility. They speak the language of resentment, not aspiration. And they vote for politicians who promise comfort today, at the cost of opportunity tomorrow.

It’s a toxic mix: personal disappointment and ideological resentment. And it’s being used to manufacture a new generation of mediocrity voters—disillusioned, angry, and ready to believe that someone else is to blame.

And too often, that’s exactly what politicians have done.

Instead of fixing systems, they’ve chosen scapegoats.

They’ve blamed farmers for emissions, despite the different profile of methane.

They’ve blamed law-abiding firearm owners for crime, whether they committed one or not.

They’ve blamed landlords for housing shortages, even though they’re trying to help.

They’ve blamed employers for low wages, even though they compete for workers.

They’ve blamed successful business owners for prices.

That’s the lazy politics of envy and distraction. And it’ll lead us nowhere.

This is the opposite of the spirit that brought people to New Zealand. It is not progress—it is retreat.

But here’s the good news: that’s not inevitable. The short-term outlook is brighter. Interest rates are coming down. Inflation has been brought to heel – albeit in an uncertain global economic environment. The Government is no longer borrowing recklessly. We’re cutting red tape, restoring sanity to regulation, and pulling back from the brink of identity politics.

The Government’s deregulation effort

We’re fixing the CCCFA. It was meant to protect consumers, but in practice it punished responsible borrowers and turned your mortgage broker into a marriage counsellor. That’s not financial literacy—that’s madness.

We’ve reformed building material approvals, so you’re not paying double just because a product is made overseas. If it’s good enough for Australia, it should be good enough for us.

We’ve legalised granny flats—because why on earth should families have to fight councils to look after their own loved ones?

We’re rewriting early childhood education regulations—because we trust teachers to know how to care for children more than we trust clipboard-wielding bureaucrats.

We’re reviewing health and safety laws to make sure they actually keep people safe, instead of tying businesses up in fear and compliance.

We’re unblocking the pathways in agriculture and horticulture, cutting through the outdated rules that stop our farmers and growers from accessing the same products our global competitors already do.

Take the hairdressing and barbering industry. It faces rules that are barely enforced, make no difference to the underground half of the industry, but add costs nonetheless. So we’re just going to get rid of them.

We’re looking at labour laws to restore balance to give people the choice to work the hours they want, under conditions that suit them, not some centralised formula written for the benefit of union organisers.

Perhaps the biggest of the lot, the Resource Management Act, once the single biggest handbrake on housing, infrastructure, and industry in this country. It’s being rewritten to serve people, not paperwork, with property rights at the centre.

Why can’t young New Zealanders afford homes? Why are power bills so high? Why can’t I buy McDonald’s in Wanaka? Each question has a common answer. The legacy of these reforms will be more productive activity, more high-paying jobs, and affordable housing. That’s how we give young Kiwis confidence to build families and futures here in New Zealand, and I’m very proud of the role ACT and Simon Court have played.

The Regulatory Standards Bill

But of course, there’s nothing stopping a future government, one driven by the majority for mediocrity from reversing this agenda and piling on more regulation. That’s where the Regulatory Standards Bill comes in.

In a nutshell: If red tape is holding us back, because politicians find regulating politically rewarding, then we need to make regulating less rewarding for politicians with more sunlight on their activities. That is how the Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back. It will finally ensure regulatory decisions are based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency.

It requires politicians and officials to ask and answer certain questions before they place restrictions on citizens’ freedoms. What problem are we trying to solve? What are the costs and benefits? Who pays the costs and gets the benefits? What restrictions are being placed on the use and exchange of private property?

The law doesn’t stop politicians or their officials making bad laws. They can still make rules that don’t solve any obvious problem, whose costs exceed their benefits, whose costs fall unfairly on some at the expense of others, and that destroy people’s right to property.

They can do all of that, but the Regulatory Standards Bill will make it transparent that they’re doing it. It makes it easier for voters to identify those responsible for making bad rules. Over time, it will improve the quality of rules we all have to live under by changing how politicians behave.

All of this deregulation is rebuilding the ability for people to make a difference in their own lives. Government should be a partner in innovation, not a cautious overseer who sees risk as a reason to regulate. When we begin every conversation about change by asking, “What’s the worst that can happen?” instead of “What can we achieve?” we create barriers. We unintentionally penalize ambition and hold back the very people who have the vision and drive to grow New Zealand’s economy and job market.

In a high-cost economy, regulation isn’t neutral – it’s a tax on growth.

These are real wins. And ACT is proud to be at the heart of the coalition government delivering them.

Conclusion

We’re focused on fixing the system, not finding someone to blame. That’s what’s needed to make New Zealand a nation of pioneers, rather than a retirement village of resentment.

That’s the legacy we must honour, not with empty slogans or timid half-measures, or by finding a new big business to beat up on, but by recommitting to the principles that made New Zealand great in the first place: freedom, responsibility, equality before the law.

And ACT is here to make sure New Zealand chooses aspiration over envy, freedom over fear, excellence over mediocrity.

After all, it’s human creativity that is the secret sauce to a business’s success, the power of people to think, to build, to innovate, makes all the difference. The role of policy is not to command and control that creativity. It’s to unleash it.

That only happens when Government remembers its place—not above the people, but in service to them. When we treat citizens as adults with their own ambitions, not as passive recipients of government programmes.

When we respect that people have different values, different goals, and that there is no single ‘right’ way to live, only the right to live freely.

Now, the lockdown lovers will say: that sounds risky. That sounds like letting go. And they’re right. It is. But let’s be honest, every great leap forward has come from people willing to take risks. From those who trusted themselves more than they trusted the state.

The real risk is in doing nothing. In clinging to systems that are broken. In pretending that more regulation will fix what regulation broke in the first place. We can’t be a place where our best and brightest only see a future of getting cut down, so they take their talents elsewhere. We need to show them that their ambition is not only tolerated it is welcomed, and we back them to fulfil it.

We are not here to manage decline. We are here to enable growth.

That’s the promise of New Zealand. That’s the kind of country we’re building. That’s what brought our ancestors here in the first place.

So where does that leave us?

It leaves us with a choice. A choice between two futures.

One where ambition is met with suspicion, and success is something to be taxed and tamed.

Or one where we cut back the red tape and back the people who take risks, work hard, and create something better not just for themselves, but for everyone around them.

We know which path ACT stands for. That is what the Government’s deregulation agenda is striving for – not to control, but to clear the way.

That’s why we’re rebuilding a culture of responsibility, not resentment. One where every person is treated not as part of a group, but as an individual with potential.

We cannot change our size, or the impact of the world’s largest economies. We can’t change our underlying history or culture, and we cannot quickly change our levels of education. What we can change is our policies.

There is a drive to reduce waste. There is a drive to get more money from overseas investment. The Regulatory Standards Bill will change how we regulate. The Resource Management Act is being replaced. Anti-money laundering laws are being simplified. Charter schools are opening, more roads are being built. These are all good things.

Norman Kirk once said, people everywhere need “someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work, and something to hope for”. It is still good advice for the success of any country.

I believe people are leaving because they feel let down. They’ve done their homework, got the grades, worked hard and saved money. And yet, life remains harder here than other places they could be. They’re ambitious people, but they are told success is not something to celebrate,

Bad regulation is at the heart of this. Make no mistake, in a country where you’re free to do as you please unless there’s a law against it, every extra law is a restriction on your basic freedoms, and I hear about it in nearly every field.

If we want New Zealand to be a place worth staying in, not just arriving to—we need to clear the path of needless regulations. And if we want to turn things around, we must start by trusting New Zealanders to be in charge of their own lives again.

Thank you to every New Zealander who’s taken a chance, whether it was sailing here generations ago, stepping off a plane just a few years back, or taking out a loan to start a business. However daunting the road ahead may seem, together we can make sure New Zealand’s best days are still to come.

Leaner Reserve Bank should restore inflation-fighting focus

Source: ACT Party

ACT is welcoming the Government’s announcement of a 25 percent reduction in budgeted operational funding for the Reserve Bank, which aligns with the commitment in our coalition agreement to narrow the Reserve Bank’s remit and focus on price stability.

ACT Leader David Seymour says:

“Under Labour, the Reserve Bank used its resources to weigh into climate change and Treaty issues. Labour also distracted the bank further from its inflation-fighting mission by giving it a new employment target.

“Last year there were at least nine full-time staff focused solely on DEI, Te Ao Māori, and climate change at the Bank. No one asked for that. We fund the Bank to keep prices stable at the checkout – not to waste money on virtue signalling.

“Overall staff numbers doubled as the Bank’s scope crept. Increased resourcing and more communications staff failed to stop inflation from spiking to above seven percent. In fact, the Bank poured fuel on the inflation fire by printing billions of dollars in an attempt to paper over the COVID crash.

“While the Reserve Bank acts independently, its remit is set by the Government. We’ve restored the Bank’s single target of keeping inflation between one and three percent, and now we’re tackling the waste and the bloat.

“ACT’s hope is that a leaner, less distracted Reserve Bank will better deliver on its primary goal of fighting inflation.”

Hipkins needs to listen to women

Source: ACT Party

Chris Hipkins has criticised the Associate Health Minister’s move to raise concerns over Health NZ’s practice of avoiding the term ‘woman’ in reference to female patients.

Responding to Hipkins’ comments, ACT MP Karen Chhour says:

“Sometimes the first job of a politician isn’t to speak, but to listen. Chris Hipkins should listen to the women who’ve felt confused and alienated by a health system that refers to them as ‘people with a cervix’ or ‘individuals capable of childbearing’.

“Women don’t want to be erased as a group by a public health system that has an unhealthy obsession with politically correct language. It’s left women feeling disrespected and dehumanised, and I’m glad we’ve now got a Government that is listening.”

One-way Traffic

Source: ACT Party

The Haps

St Francis of Assisi recommended having the serenity to accept what you can’t change, the courage to change what you can, and the wisdom to know the difference. He’d probably be quite useful for dealing with the Trump Tariff situation.

The Government of New Zealand cannot change the events unfolding overseas, but there are still useful things it can do. When you can’t change trade policy, the best trade policy is good domestic policy.

Regardless of trade conditions, the New Zealand Government can choose better domestic policies. It is (mostly) getting value from taxpayer funded services, regulating lightly, and managing the assets it owns. That’s where the emphasis should be as the May 22 Budget approaches.

One-way Traffic

Never has Parliament seen such a one-sided debate as the two hours it set aside for the second reading of the Treaty Principles Bill. A dozen MPs spoke against the Bill, but not one referred to the principles set out in the Bill. They certainly didn’t explain why they were opposed to the principles.

We saw the vote in Parliament, so we know the Bill was defeated in one sense, but in another sense it succeded. No idea can survive being displaced by a better ideal. The filtering of ideas is how open societies advance. On the other hand, no idea has ever been defeated by emotion and abuse alone. Only light can drive out darkness.

So long as an idea remains the best available argument, its time in the sun will come back around. Let’s put it another way, if there were better ideas than those put in the Bill, why didn’t opponents say what they were, at some point during a two hour debate?

Take Willie Jackson, who got booted from Parliament for calling David Seymour a liar, again. What’s interesting is this: Free Press knows Jackson had a chance to debate Seymour on TV3, but turned it down multiple times. For some reason we’re reminded of Ronald Reagan’s comment on the American flag: These colors don’t run.

Jackson didn’t just run in the media, though, he ran in the House as well. Parliament sat for over 100 days over the 14 months David Seymour was the Associate Minister of Justice responsible for the Treaty Principles Bill. Jackson could have asked Seymour questions hundreds of times but he only asked one question on the Bill. The question is captured in the YouTube video, viewed 80,000 times. The video shows why Jackson didn’t come back for more.

For all his talk, Jackson ran like diarrhoea when challenged to serious debate. Perhaps it’s not his fault, though. Perhaps nobody could give him good arguments. After all, if someone so passionately opposed to the Bill did have a good argument, they’d use it, wouldn’t they?

Not one MP in the debate got up and said ‘The Bill says x. I disagree with x. My reason is y. I think we’d have a better country if…z. None of them got to x. Nobody (except David Seymour) quoted the Bill. Even media commentators accepted David Seymour’s point that the opponents were not engaging with the Bill.

When the hysteria and personal attacks die down, people will be left to answer the simple question: what was wrong with the Treaty Principles Bill? Nobody has given an answer that engages with the contents of the Bill. That’s why we believe the Principles below will be the law of New Zealand sooner or later, it’s just a matter of time.

If you’re one of those people who’ve quietly (or not so quietly) supported David Seymour and ACT advancing the Principles below, thank you. We predict that, between now and the next election, ACT will lay out a new approach to making these undefeated principles part of our way of life. Until then we are grateful for your support.

Principle 1 The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws,— (a) in the best interests of everyone; and (b) in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.

Principle 2 (1) The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it. (2) However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

Principle 3 (1) Everyone is equal before the law. (2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to— (a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and (b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.

Union’s free speech stance exposes dictatorial impulse

Source: ACT Party

The Tertiary Education Union’s opposition to free speech legislation shows exactly why free speech policies are needed at university, says ACT Tertiary Education spokesperson Dr Parmjeet Parmar.

“We know that university staff want the power to decide what ideas are allowed on campus. We’re telling them no.

“Universities are primarily funded by the taxpayer, and we all have an interest in ensuring they are fostering genuine debate and disagreement.

“Universities have historically, and rightly, offered space for contrasting ideas to be tested in debate. In fact, the whole project of academic inquiry and enlightenment hinges on the premise that any idea can be aired and challenged.

“Free expression includes the right to seek different perspectives. If students invite a willing speaker – whether it’s Don Brash or an extremist like Tamatha Paul – that speaker should be allowed to speak. No-one is forced to listen, and the political opinions of university staff shouldn’t come into it.

“The suggestion that a free speech policy is ‘nanny state’ regulation is laughable. ACT secured the free speech commitment precisely to get busybody university staff out of the business of regulating speech. We have set out clear requirements for a complaints process precisely because we have seen universities fail to uphold their students’ speech rights.”

Green MP must explain fundraising for extremist group

Source: ACT Party

ACT Justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson is calling on Green MP Tamatha Paul to clarify her party’s stance on crime and explain her decision to fundraise for the extremist group People Against Prisons Aotearoa (PAPA).

“This is a group that openly calls for the abolition of prisons and the police,” says Mr Stephenson.

“New Zealanders – and especially Ms Paul’s constituents – deserve to know whether this reflects her views and those of the Green Party. If it doesn’t, she needs to explain why she chose to support them by nominating them to receive proceeds from the sale of merchandise featuring her image.

“The question that needs to be answered is what ought to happen to murders, rapists and terrorists if prisons and the police force no longer exist?

“Ms Paul can’t have it both ways. She’s previously claimed not to support police abolition after being challenged by ACT, yet she continues to promote and raise money for an organisation that exists solely to push that very agenda. If she disagrees with PAPA’s goals, why is she using her public platform to amplify and fundraise for them?

“Paul has also stated she’s received ‘nothing but complaints’ about police beat patrols in Wellington. If that’s true, either she’s not talking to normal people, or her constituents have concluded she’s living in La La Land and see no point in engaging with someone so disconnected from reality.

“This group isn’t about reducing crime, it’s about facilitating a descent into anarchy and chaos. Supporting them means supporting an extremist vision for New Zealand’s justice system, where victims are forgotten and dangerous offenders are allowed to walk free.”

Some of People Against Prisons Aotearoa’s policy positions include:

  • Abolishing the New Zealand Police
  • Abolishing prisons entirely
  • Ending reincarceration for breaches of parole, probation, or bail
  • Banning incarceration of transgender offenders
  • Decriminalising benefit fraud
  • Progressively defunding the Department of Corrections
  • Repealing three strikes for the worst repeat violent and sexual offenders
  • Blocking any public sex offender register

ACT welcomes wider recognition of New Zealand’s veterans

Source: ACT Party

Responding to changes announced today to recognise more former defence personnel as veterans, ACT Veterans spokesperson Mark Cameron said:

“This is a long overdue gesture of respect for those brave men and women who stepped up for our country.

“For too long, the definition of a ‘veteran’ under the law has been too narrow, excluding many who are worthy of our respect and recognition.

“These are people who trained hard, gave up time with their families, and stood ready to defend our freedoms. That deserves recognition, plain and simple.”

Only ACT has courage to defend equal rights

Source: ACT Party

“ACT was the only party with the courage to defend equal rights in Parliament by voting for the Treaty Principles Bill at its second reading,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“Is New Zealand a tribal society where your rights depend on your ancestry, or a liberal democracy where everyone has the same rights?

“That question isn’t going away. It will only be answered when Parliament decides to fill a decades-long void and define the principles of the Treaty so that New Zealanders are equal before the law.

“New Zealanders have told us loud and clear they are ready for this conversation, but their representatives are not.

“Parliament had an opportunity to push back against the courts and the bureaucracy, and define what the Treaty means itself, but New Zealanders have been let down by their political leaders.

“A vocal minority of New Zealanders have revealed themselves to not just be comfortable with unequal rights, but to be demanding of them. While they’ve scrambled to make submissions against the bill, numbers are no substitute for logic.

“Polling shows a plurality, and even a majority, of New Zealanders support the Treaty Principles Bill. But even if only a tiny minority supported equal rights, it would still be the right policy.

“Not a single submission has made the case for why ranking New Zealanders by their date of arrival will make the future better.

“ACT has shown how New Zealand can be a society where people are equal in rights, respect and dignity, no matter their ancestry.

“The logic of equal rights is irresistible. Even if it is not a reality today, it will be eventually. And ACT will be working tirelessly to make sure that day comes sooner rather than later.”

David Seymour’s speech notes from the second reading debate can be found here.

Speech: Treaty Principles Bill, second reading

Source: ACT Party

Intro

I move, That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Speaker, members of this House, who’ve so far been so fortified against reason, can still change their minds and send this Bill onwards to a referendum of the people.

I ask that Members listen carefully, to understand the choice they’d be denying the New Zealand people by opposing this Bill.

Five decades ago the House passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act. Parliament said the Treaty had Principles. It did not say what they were, but nor are they going away.

Even the National Party-New Zealand First commitment to review the Principles will not get rid of them. It will not touch the Treaty of Waitangi Act that gave us the Principles, and it will only ‘review’ them in other Bills. Review, that is, with the help of Te Puni Kokiri.

With the elected Parliament silent on the Principles, the unelected judges, Waitangi Tribunal, and public servants have defined them instead. They say the Treaty is ‘a partnership between races.’ They say one race has a special place in New Zealand.

The practical effects of the Partnership Principle

In recent years the effects of these principles have become more and more obvious.

We’ve seen a separate Māori Health Authority.

We’ve seen Resource Management decisions held up for years awaiting Cultural Impact Assessments.

We’ve seen half the seats governing three waters infrastructure reserved for one sixth of the population.

We’ve seen public entities appoint two Chief Executives to represent each side of the so-called Partnership.

We’ve seen a history curriculum that indoctrinates children to believe our history is a simple story of victims and villains.

Some will say a Government can change these things, and indeed our Government is. Here’s the problem, though. Another Government can just as easily bring those policies back, because the bad ideas behind them were never confronted by most of the Government.

That’s why we see professional bodies, Universities, the public service, and schools watering the divisive idea that the Treaty is a Partnership, hoping it will grow again.

The Problem with the Partnership Principle

The Partnership tells us that Kiwis should be ranked by the arrival time of their ancestors.

We’ve seen it in recent weeks with the disgraceful attacks on my colleague Parmjeet Parmar for being a migrant who proudly chose this country. That the comments were made by the Dean of a Law School, who faced no consequences, shows how low our country has sunk.

The idea that your race matters is a version of a bigger idea. It is part of the idea that our lives are determined by things out of our control. They may have occurred before we were even born. It’s a denial that we each can make a difference in our own lives, and have a right to do so.

This kind of primitive determinism should have no place in New Zealand. We are all thinking and valuing beings with nga tikanga katoa rite tahi, the same rights and duties, just as te tiriti itself says.

That’s why the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill would finally define the Principles, in line with the Treaty itself, as giving equal rights for all Kiwis.

The Principles Proposed by the Bill

Let me read the proposed Principles. If anyone wants to vote against this bill, let them explain, specifically, why they oppose these principles.

Principle 1

The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws,—

(a)   in the best interests of everyone; and

(b)   in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.

Principle 2

(1)   The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it.

(2)   However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

Principle 3

(1)   Everyone is equal before the law.

(2)   Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to—

(a)   the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and

(b)   the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.

People should ask themselves, what is the best argument they have against these principles? Are they prepared to say that argument out loud? If not, perhaps they should support this Bill.

The Select Committee Submissions

I now turn to the submissions to the Select Committee. I’d like to thank the Chair and most members of the Committee. They heard eighty hours of submissions, a near record.

Submissions are not a referendum. If MPs believe the Bill should be passed depending on public opinion, they should front up, vote for the Bill, and send it to an actual referendum.

Many bills have attracted large numbers of opposing submissions, and yet been very popular with the general public. End of Life Choice and Abortion Law Reform both attracted 90 per cent opposition at select Committee, but proved overwhelmingly popular with the public.

So it is with these principles. They are supported by the public by a ratio of two-to-one, but most of the public are too busy working productive jobs to submit on select committees.

Select committees don’t tell us about numbers, but they can tell us about ideas. I believe the submission process has been very useful.

Some argued against the Bill’s first principle, that this Parliament has the full power to make laws. They said that the chiefs never ceded sovereignty.

What they cannot explain is how a society is supposed to work without clear laws that apply equally to all. The answer is that it does not and cannot work. Those people who believe a County or an Indian Band having limited jurisdiction in a limited territory is the same as shared sovereignty cannot be taken seriously.

Still others argued that maybe Parliament can make laws, but it cannot make this law. What they’re really saying is that they’re happy for the unelected to decide the constitutional future of the country, but not this House of Representatives, and not the people in referendum.

Those are fundamentally undemocratic propositions. Anyone opposing the Bill on those grounds is really saying they do not trust the New Zealand people to determine their future. I’m proud that my Party does.

There were two objections that cancelled each other out.

One said, the Bill isn’t needed because Māori don’t have special rights.

The other said, the Bill is an abomination because it denies Māori special rights.

Which one is it? The truth is we are all equal, deep down, but too many of our policies aim to treat people differently based on ancestry. That is why we should remove the idea that New Zealanders have different rights, ranked by the arrival of their ancestors.

A more interesting objection is that Māori have group rights to such things as language and culture. Some Māori have been told that this Bill would take away their mana, their reo, their tikanga. That is deliberate, cynical misinformation by opponents of the bill.

The truth is that all New Zealanders have culture, we all have language, we all have customs. Māori are not alone in those things. The proposed principle two says the Crown should uphold the rights of Māori, to the same extent it upholds the rights for all.

It means if we’re going to have Divali, Lunar New Year, and the Highland games, of course we should also have Kapa Haka. That is a vision of a country where all cultures thrive.

The same can be said for language. We have media in many languages, there’s no reason te reo Māori should not be available. The Bill provides for that, we just don’t need to divide the country into a partnership between races to do it.

Other critics said the Bill must be wrong because the unelected bureaucracy said so. That misses the whole point of the Bill. If we wanted to be ruled by the unelected we could keep the principles they’ve dreamed up. The problem is they contradict equal rights and democracy.

Finally, some critics said the debate is divisive. I say it has revealed division. It has revealed a sizeable minority of New Zealanders simply aren’t committed to equal rights and liberal democracy.

Conclusion

I want to end with a quote from a Jewish man who wrote a book in Christchurch while hiding from the Nazis. The Book is the Open Society and it’s Enemies, and it’s been described as the most important book ever written in New Zealand. His name was Sir Karl Popper and he said:

The more we try to return to the heroic age of tribalism, the more surely do we arrive at the Inquisition, at the Secret Police, and at a romanticized gangsterism. Beginning with the suppression of reason and truth, we must end with the most brutal and violent destruction of all that is human. There is no return to a harmonious state of nature. If we turn back, then we must go the whole way—we must return to the beasts…

But if we wish to remain human, then there is only one way, the way into the open society. We must go on into the unknown, the uncertain and insecure, using what reason we may have to plan as well as we can for both security and freedom.

A free society takes hard work and uneasy conversations. I’m proud my party has the bravery, the clarity, and the patriotism to raise uneasy topics.

I challenge the other parties to find those qualities within themselves and support this Bill so New Zealanders can vote on it at referendum.

If they do not, one party will never give up on the simple idea that all Kiwis are equal, no matter when your ancestors arrived.

We will fight on for the truth, that All Kiwis are Equal, AKE, AKE, AKE.