Category: ACT Party

Source: ACT Party

ACT MP Cameron Luxton is congratulating Kieran McAnulty after his Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill passed its first reading in Parliament last night.


“It would give us a little more freedom over the Easter weekend, allowing pubs and supermarkets to sell beer and wine without the current nanny state restrictions. Adults will be treated like adults, capable of making their own choices.

“This scraps the absurd rule that compels customers to order a ‘substantial meal’ just to enjoy a pint at the pub on Easter and the arbitrary prohibition on ordering a drink more than an hour before or after eating a meal.


“This change is one part of a similar bill I spent months campaigning and lobbying for. I’m pleased to see a second attempt at this change has given the idea new life.

“I will be encouraging all those who supported my bill, particularly those businesses, workers, and industry groups I heard from, to throw their support behind Kieran’s bill at the Select Committee, and also to make the case for why MPs should support future efforts to relax trading rules over the Easter period.”

Source: ACT Party

ACT Small Business spokesperson Laura McClure is celebrating the first reading passage of her member’s bill, the Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill.

The bill would allow employers to open protected negotiations for the termination of an employment contract, avoiding costly unfair dismissal or personal grievance claims.

“Sometimes when one person employs another it just doesn’t work out. Relationship breakdowns, poor performance, or personal circumstances can make an employment relationship unsustainable,” says McClure.

“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.

“I know from experience that a common fear for employers is a long and costly personal grievance or unfair dismissal claim, even when the employer has adhered to due process. These processes are stressful for both employers and employees, and often end in a settlement anyway either due to entering the without prejudice process or from a PG.

“Hefty legal fees for personal grievance and unfair dismissal claims should not be seen as ‘the cost of doing business’.

“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.

“An employer could approach an employee and say, ‘This doesn’t seem to be working out. Would you be open to sitting down and coming to an agreement about your employment?’ The employee is under no obligation to take up that offer, or any offer made in the subsequent meeting.

“An employer could seek termination of the contract with the employee’s consent, in return for specified compensation. These conversations would 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.

“I want this legislation to be as effective as it possibly can be, so I’m now encouraging workers, employers, and advocates to engage with the select committee process around my bill.”

Laura McClure’s opening speech can be found here.

A copy of the bill can be downloaded here.

Source: ACT Party

Responding to the Reserve Bank cutting the Official Cash Rate by 0.25 points, ACT Leader David Seymour says:

“Spending restraint is paying off. The Reserve Bank has just delivered its fifth interest rate cut running, and households will start to see mortgage rates beginning with a four.

“Firms, farms, and families will have more money left to pursue their own ambitions, and their spending will flow through the economy.

“Households deserve credit for improving economic conditions. They reined in their budgets during a cost-of-living crisis.

“Likewise, the Government has reined in its spending. Government spending growth is tracking at around 1% per annum – in real terms, that’s a spending cut once inflation at 2.2% and population growth at 1% are taken into account.

“By resisting the temptation to spend our way through our challenges like Labour did, we leave space in the economy for further mortgage relief, and more growth in the private sector. We need to stay the course.

Source: ACT Party

ACT is celebrating the Government’s decision to wind down New Zealand Green Investment Finance.

“NZGIF has poured nearly $400 million down the drain with next to nothing to show for it. It’s the kind of greenwashed corporate welfare ACT has railed against for years,” says ACT Finance spokesperson Todd Stephenson.

In 2018 when Labour and the Greens set up the Green Investment Finance Fund, David Seymour warned:

“This kind of policy inevitably leads to government waste and corruption. The Fund will be picking technologies that can’t attract capital in an open market. It will pick them precisely because they fit the Government’s own particular political preferences.”

“If these green investment schemes made economic sense, private investors would have jumped in without taxpayers help,” says Stephenson. “Instead, we had Wellington picking winners. The failure of this approach was epitomised by the collapse of the NZGIF-backed SolarZero, which left taxpayers $115 million in the hole and left livelihoods in the lurch for the venture’s employees.

“Shutting it down is a win for economic sense. The market can sort out green innovation while politicians focus on removing barriers to growth and innovation. That’s what ACT is doing in government.”

Source: ACT Party

ACT is encouraging public sector organisations to make use of 90-day employment trials, once a law change announced today allows for it.

Today Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden announced the end of the ‘30-day rule’ which forces new employees onto collective contracts even if they are not union members. The removal of this rule will make it possible for public sector agencies to hire employees on a trial basis.

“Private businesses use 90-day trials prudently to take a chance on workers without fear of being locked into a dysfunctional employment relationship. It’s sensible business practice that should be extended to the public sector,” says ACT Public Service spokesperson Todd Stephenson.

“The public sector’s primary responsibility is to the general taxpayer, not its own employees. If it becomes clear in the first few weeks of employment that a new worker can’t deliver for taxpayers, that worker should be let go – so long as employment law allows for it.

“Brooke van Velden’s reforms mean taxpayers stand to save millions of dollars in golden handshakes and protracted performance management processes. Let’s make the most of this opportunity.”

Source: ACT Party

The Haps

The world is about to relearn economics, as Governments erect trade barriers between citizens of their countries and those of other countries. New Zealand cannot change the rest of the world’s trade policies right now, we can only ensure our own house is as competitive as possible. Putting on our own tariffs would be a tax on New Zealanders, we should remain a beacon of free trade for the world. The Government’s latest quarterly plan, filled with ACT initiatives, will keep the reform pressure on.

Treaty Principles Select Committee

The Justice Committee has reported back to the House on the Treaty Principles Bill. Thanks to ACT’s member on the Committee, Todd Stephenson, ALL of the submissions will be included in the final record, even though they couldn’t be processed in time for the report back.

The submissions have been roughly categorised as for or against. The Committee report says ninety per cent are against, and only eight per cent in favour. Free Press knows that’s misleading. The ACT Party and Hobson’s Pledge, two organisations heavily in favour of the bill, helped 55,000 submit between them. Those alone would be 17 per cent in favour but some organisations’ submissions were counted as one.

The truth is Select Committee submissions almost never reflect reality anyway. People are far more likely to submit in opposition to a bill than for it. Submissions on David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill were ninety per cent opposed, but it passed a referendum by two million votes to one million. A similar story played out with abortion law reform.

Like those examples, we know the public overwhelmingly support the principles proposed in the Bill. Scientific polling where everyone’s opinion has an equal chance of being included shows New Zealanders in favour of the principles by an average of two to one. When the third principle – that all people should be equal before the law – is read out, 62 per cent are in favour versus 18 per cent opposed.

A majority of Green voters, even, agree with the third principle, so all may not be lost. It’s the arguments that really matter, and what comes out of the Treaty Principles Bill hearings is that there are no arguments against the Bill. This week Free Press covers off the opponents’ attempts.

If anything, the submission process has shown why the Bill really is needed. Many submitters argued that the chiefs who signed the Treaty never ceded sovereignty. They believe that somehow descendants of the Chiefs shouldn’t have to follow Parliament’s laws (Te Pāti Māori has been acting this out).

The idea that investment, jobs, and growth need clarity from the law, and that people want to be treated equally before it, seems an afterthought to these submitters. As an aside, the ahistorical claim that 100,000 Māori wouldn’t have ceded sovereignty to 2,000 settlers shows how poor the debate in New Zealand has become. If a people devastated by the Musket Wars, worried about the French, and concerned about the threat of Europeans already ashore had nothing to gain from the unrivalled superpower of the day, why did they sign any Treaty at all?

Submitters also argued that Parliament cannot make this law, even if it has the right to make laws generally. The difference between Parliament, on the one hand, and the Courts, Waitangi Tribunal, and bureaucracy, on the other, is that Parliament is elected by the people. What the opponents are really saying is that the people should not have a say on their constitutional future, it should be decided by all the public institutions they can’t actually vote for. Telling people they cannot control the laws they live under usually ends in revolution, Free Press prefers democracy.

Opponents claimed at various times that Māori do not, in fact, have special rights in New Zealand. Just as many claimed that Māori in fact deserve special rights. This was best summed up in the following paragraph from the Green Party section of the report.

One often repeated statement was that Māori were given special privileges under the Resource Management Act. There was no substantive evidence provided for this, and the Auckland City Council in its oral submission rejected that this was the case. It is true that where there is an application for a resource consent for a use outside of the District Plan the interests of Māori, including local iwi and hapu, are relevant to decision making. However it is hard to understand how consultation with the mana whenua is in any way a special privilege.

The Bill gives all people equal rights. If Māori had no special rights there would be no reason to oppose the Bill. The facts are that Māori do have special rights under current law, including in Resource Management law, and that is why the Bill is opposed. Opposition to the Bill is opposition to equal rights for all people.

Other submitters said that the Bill prevents Governments trying to address people’s disadvantage. It does not. It prevents Governments discriminating by race, but there is no reason it cannot help disadvantaged people, regardless of race. There is no reason iwi cannot run charter schools, or their own healthcare, but any group should have the same opportunity. Seeing as not all Māori are disadvantaged and not all disadvantaged are Māori, racial profiling doesn’t do much good anyway.

So what next? The Bill will be debated in Parliament. ACT’s partners will have one last chance to do the right thing. If they do not, that is a shame for them. However it will not change how ACT works for your values. The party will never give up promoting universal human rights, and the next step of the Treaty Principles journey will be clear before the next election.

Source: ACT Party

Welcoming the Government’s Defence Capability Plan, ACT Defence spokesperson Mark Cameron says:

“This is a major win for New Zealand’s security and a testament to ACT’s push for a robust defence posture. We’ve campaigned for two percent of GDP on defence for years, and today’s plan finally delivers.

“The global situation is becoming less certain and less secure. Strength-focused leaders demand that allies who want to be taken seriously offer real capability. A $12 billion commitment across four years, with a goal to exceed the two percent-of-GDP target in eight, demonstrates to the world that New Zealand is ready to step up.

“Enhanced strike capabilities, deeper integration with our ANZAC partners, and innovations like uncrewed vehicles and space tech will make our Defence Force a credible deterrent.

“I’m especially pleased for our personnel. Finally, the men and woman asked to put their lives on the line will get the respect they deserve. Years of underfunding, MIQ deployment, and attrition hollowed out the Defence Force’s core. A new workforce strategy and equipment upgrades shows we’re serious about giving personnel meaningful roles, extraordinary skills, and fulfilling experiences.

“ACT will fight to ensure this momentum holds. Protecting Kiwis is the first job of government, and the time for complacence is over.”

Source: ACT Party

“ACT’s contribution to the Coalition Government’s Quarter Two Plan shows ACT’s continued outsized role in delivering real change,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“Close to half of the plan’s action points reflect ACT’s contributions. With ACT in Government, Kiwis are being liberated from red tape and wasteful spending, while smart investment continues to improve the safety and security of all New Zealanders.

“This document is full of ACT ideas that boost economic growth through better access to products, skills and investment from overseas, alongside Brooke van Velden’s reforms to the labour market and health and safety rules to supercharge New Zealand’s productivity.

“Actions taken on attendance, law and order, and benefit sanctions will continue to send a message of personal responsibility and consequences for crime.”

Of the 37 actions listed, 18 are led by ACT ministers, advance ACT coalition commitments, or reflect policies ACT campaigned on. These actions include:

Source: ACT Party

ACT can reveal that Waikato University’s law faculty is giving students an automatic 10-day extension for assessments submitted past deadline.

A law lecturer has confirmed the policy in an email to ACT, saying a normal deadline policy “creates a burden for students.” A concerned Waikato University student has told ACT that their lecturer explained the policy was part of a wider effort to “decolonise” the assessment process.

ACT Tertiary Education spokesperson Dr Parmjeet Parmar is condemning the policy, saying:

“Instead of aspiring for excellence, Waikato University is making excuses for mediocrity. This is the kind of degradation of values that, if left unchecked, would send our universities tumbling down international rankings.

“Deadlines are a fundamental part of any professional environment, and law graduates in particular must be prepared for strict timeframes. The faculty is developing a culture that risks innocent New Zealanders being put in jail when their mollycoddled lawyers fail to submit documentation on time.

“Universities already have processes to grant extensions in cases of genuine hardship. Automatically granting extra time to everyone destroys the entire meaning of the deadline, and it disrespects the efforts of excellent students who work extremely hard to submit on time.

“Justifying lateness as a kind of decolonisation is ridiculous. It sends a message that Māori students cannot handle deadlines, which is untrue, and frankly offensive.”

Source: ACT Party

“The Treaty Principles Bill Select Committee report confirms what ACT has long said. There are no good arguments against people being equal, and more people making bad arguments does not improve them,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“They came in their thousands to oppose the Bill, but only succeeded in showing why Parliament should pass it into law. The confused and often self-contradictory arguments against the bill (analysed below) show why it is necessary to clarify a simple truth by Parliament passing this law: All Kiwis are Equal, forever.

“The alternative version of New Zealand supported by many submitters, where Parliament is not sovereign and people shouldn’t have their rights upheld equally, is unworkable. The idea that two babies born in New Zealand should have a different place in New Zealand thanks to events occurring nearly two centuries before their birth is abhorrent.

“High profile bills often draw out Select Committee submissions that don’t reflect public opinion. Opponents will make much of the balance of submissions, but if they believed the public opposed the bill they could call for a referendum where everyone votes. You can’t say the majority decides the matter unless you’re ready for the majority to decide the matter.

“We have seen wide contrasts between submissions and public opinion before. In the case of the End of Life Choice Act, analysis of that showed 90 per cent were opposed. When that law was put to referendum, it passed by 65 per cent to 34 per cent (with a small number of ‘informal’ votes).

“When people are asked about the Bill’s principles, they come out strongly in favour. For example when a scientific poll asked about the specific wording of the proposed principles, it found:

1. The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the
   Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws in the best interests of
   everyone; and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
   Support: 45%
   Oppose: 24%
2. 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. However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, this applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
   Support: 42%
   Oppose: 25%
3. Everyone is equal before the law. Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.
   Support: 62%
   Oppose: 14%

“The principles in the bill are strongly supported by an average margin of two votes to one. However, even if the principle of equal rights for all was wildly unpopular (as it has been on many issues throughout our history), it would still be the right policy. The reason is that people truly are equal, and the law of the land should treat them as being alike in dignity.

“The submissions and the opposition parties’ summaries of them show why the bill is needed.

Here are the key arguments:

Māori never ceded sovereignty

“Various submitters claim that Māori never ceded sovereignty in the Treaty of Waitangi, and it’s implausible that they would have. It has always been inconsistent to argue that the Chiefs were all powerful when they signed, but only years later the British superpower was able to trample rights Māori with overwhelming force in the land wars.

“The truth is that Britain was the superpower of its day, and there were good reasons to seek its protection. A combination of the musket wars, unruly settlers, and concern about possible French intrusion made it very plausible that Māori would want British protection, including from other iwi.

“Furthermore, Rangatira raised the concern that sovereignty would be lost as a reason not to sign. They were fully aware of what they were signing up to, that people now say they were not an afront to their mana.

“More importantly, those submitting to Parliament failed to give any workable solution to a country without a sovereign Parliament. Without clearly understood and respected laws it would be much harder for people to build their lives, homes, families and businesses, as is the case in many countries around the world that lack strong democratic traditions.

“Widespread claims that Parliament does not have the right to make laws show why the first proposed principle is needed. The basic idea that the Government and Parliament have the full right to make laws is essential to a coherent country where people have certainty to plan their lives. Te Pati Māori have shown a hint of the anarchist alternative with their theatrics around the bill and subsequent Privileges hearing.

Parliament cannot interpret the Treaty

“One submission claimed ‘Parliamentarians come from all walks of life and have a vast array of skills, however very few have a coherent understanding of the historical context in which Te Tiriti was signed, nor proficiency in Te Reo Māori to understand the true context of the original text, nor the experience applying the principles in a judicial context. (Green Minority View)’

“Various submitters argued that the Courts, Waitangi Tribunal and various experts can interpret what Parliament meant when it legislated that there are Treaty Principles, but a Parliament of the people cannot. What they are really saying is that the destiny of the country cannot be decided by the people who must live in it. That is a recipe for disenfranchisement and growing discontent. Parliament can and must remain the highest court in the land.

Other countries have special indigenous rights

“One Party’s Minority View claims that ‘Canada, Denmark, Bolivia, Sweden, Finland, Ecuador, and the Philippines are a few countries that have enabled constitutional recognition of Indigenous rights.’  This is only partially true, none of these countries have a constitution that effectively splits Governance equally between two ethnic groups regardless of numbers, as many suggest New Zealand should be co-governed.

“More importantly, there are many examples of bad policies around the world that we should not want to emulate. Canadian indigenous policy, for example, is a very poor comparator to New Zealand, it is certainly not an example we should want to follow.

Māori don’t have special rights

“Various submitters were summarized as saying the Māori do not in fact have special rights. This contradicts the argument that Māori have separate sovereignty from the rest of New Zealand. It also brings into question why anyone would oppose a bill that says All New Zealanders have the same rights, notwithstanding Treaty Settlements.

“The contradiction emerged in one passage from the report:

One often repeated statement was that Māori were given special privileges under the Resource Management Act. There was no substantive evidence provided for this, and the Auckland City Council in its oral submission rejected that this was the case. It is true that where there is an application for a resource consent for a use outside of the District Plan the interests of Māori, including local iwi and hapu, are relevant to decision making. However it is hard to understand how consultation with the mana whenua is in any way a special privilege.

Māori do have special rights

“The above paragraph perhaps brought out the best contrast between those objectors who believe Māori do have special rights, and those who believe they do not. They began by claiming there are not special rights, then concluded Māori are so special they should expect to have special rights!

“Clearly many people do believe Māori should have special rights, while also claiming to support equal rights. That is why it is necessary to pass the Treaty Principles Bill.

Māori have a group right to language and culture

“One of the most interesting themes of the submissions was that the Māori have group rights to language and culture that must be protected by the Treaty. This reflects a genuine anxiety that opponents of the bill have created, that gains in te reo Māori, Kapa haka, and the application of Tikanga might be lost. I take that anxiety seriously.

“There is no need for specific Treaty protection for Māori language and culture for flourish. Choice programs and health and education, arts funding, and tikanga practices in everyday life can all flourish without a specific constitutional protection, none of them rely on it. All of them are part of a commitment to allowing all citizens an opportunity to flourish and succeed on their own terms.

“Furthermore, if Māori language and culture require constitutional protection, what about the many other groups who make up New Zealand. Are they somehow not entitled to their language and culture? If they are not, then how can we say we are a society committed to equal rights?

The bureaucracy criticised it

Some made much of the Public Service criticizing the Bill. Public servants were the most predictable critics of the bill. The whole point of the Bill is that the bureaucrats got it wrong. If their view of the Treaty was consistent with equal rights and democracy, it would not be necessary for parliament to intervene in the first place.

The Bill is divisive

“Others claimed that the Bill has been divisive. The Bill propose that the Treaty be interpreted in such a way that All Kiwis are Equal. What the Bill has done is reveal that New Zealand is divided. Many believe Parliament should not be sovereign, and the rights of two New Zealanders born on the same day might not be equal, depending on their ancestry.

“The Bill has revealed a drift towards division in this country. That drift to division further shows why the Bill is necessary.

In conclusion

“In conclusion, there are no compelling arguments that Parliament is not sovereign, and citizens of this country do not have equal rights. There are worrying arguments that New Zealand cannot function as a liberal democratic state if the Treaty gives different New Zealanders different rights. The Select Committee process has strengthened the case for the Treaty Principles Bill.”