Category: ACT Party

Source: ACT Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: ACT Party

The Haps

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

God Defend New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: ACT Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: ACT Party

ACT’s Immigration spokesperson Dr Parmjeet Parmar is welcoming today’s announcement that the Government intends to restore open work rights to the partners of skilled migrants, delivering on an ACT coalition commitment.

“Migrants are vital to address skill shortages in New Zealand,” says Dr Parmar.

“It never made sense to allow the partners of visa holders to be in New Zealand, consume services, and yet be banned from working and paying taxes.

“Today’s change is common sense, effectively lifting a ban contributing to New Zealand – something most migrants would be more than happy to do.

“We saw what happened when our borders were sealed shut. Businesses went to the wall, fruit was left to rot on the ground, the health system struggled to keep up with demand, and families were separated.

“But many were at risk of leaving due to unworkable rules requiring the partners of Accredited Employer Work Visa holders to also work for accredited employers and be paid the median wage. Making New Zealand a much less attractive place for migrants to live and work.

“This concern has been raised with me by businesses who are at risk of losing valuable staff. The uncertainty and distress this has caused for migrants and their families has been immense. I am relieved this issue is finally being resolved.

“ACT’s coalition agreement included a commitment to ‘liberalise the rules to make it easier for family members of visa holders to work in New Zealand, beginning with Skilled Migrant Category visa holders’.

“We are encouraged by this progress and are eager to see further improvements to our immigration settings to fulfil ACT’s coalition commitments and make our country the preferred destination for ideas, talent and investment.

“In particular, we look forward to introducing a five year, renewable parent category visa, conditional on that person’s healthcare costs being covered. This will help attract and retain migrants to ensure New Zealand has a competitive edge in the global war for talent. Doing right by migrants does not have to come at the cost of New Zealand’s own standard of living.

“Labour wrecked the economy and made a complete hash of immigration. ACT is determined to ensure that immigration policy is simple to navigate and welcoming so that migrants can reunite with their families, the economy can grow and more locals can be employed through job creation and investment.”

Source: ACT Party

The Haps

The Solicitor General backed down on prosecution guidelines that told prosecutors to ‘think carefully’ about someone’s race before prosecuting. It shows New Zealand has really changed. Not so long ago such policies bucketed down and people felt helpless. Now we are getting real change.

CPI inflation at 2.2 per cent, amidst the 1-3 per cent target band, is the news we’ve been waiting for. Inflation first broke out in 2021, with high interest rates following close behind. It’s taken less than a year of the new Government, one mini-budget, and one budget to get it under control. Now the way is clear for significant further rate cuts at the next Reserve Bank announcement on November 27.

Unreported in New Zealand

Last week, the Nobel Prize in economics was awarded to three economists, Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson “for studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity.” You won’t have read about this in the New Zealand press, besides syndicated cut and paste jobs, even though it is about colonisation, institutions, and prosperity.

The official Nobel Citation says: The richest 20 per cent of the world’s countries are now around 30 times richer than the poorest 20 per cent. Moreover, the income gap between the richest and poorest countries is persistent; although the poorest countries have become richer, they are not catching up with the most prosperous. Why? This year’s laureates have found new and convincing evidence for one explanation for this persistent gap – differences in a society’s institutions.

The economists studied many countries’ histories over the last 400 years, focusing on the influence of European countries that colonised most of the world. They conclude that what kind of set-up, or institutions, those colonising countries left has a strong bearing on the colonised countries’ prosperity today.

They divide countries into two types. There are inclusive countries, that give people equal rights, to vote, own property, and operate under the rule of law. There are extractive countries, set up to extract natural resources and benefit a small number of people.

The extractive countries tend to be the ones that weren’t very welcoming to colonisers, for example if there was a lot of malaria. In these cases, e.g. African ones, a small number of settlers arranged to get the wealth out of the ground, and that was about it.

The alternative is inclusive countries, with free markets, the rule of law and democracy. The United States is the obvious example, along with Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. These countries attracted settlers in large numbers and there were too many of them to simply exploit natural resources. Instead they created inclusive institutions.

There is a twist, an historic reversal of fortunes. The countries that were relatively poorer before colonisation, and ended up adopting more colonial institutions, are now relatively wealthier.

Another important observation is that history is not static. Over time, countries liberalise. Colonial institutions were not set down in a state of perfection, far from it. But they were capable of improvement, widening voting rights, compensating for past wrongs, and enhancing civil liberties.

You are probably starting to get a sense of why this work has not been discussed in the NZ Press. It finds that institutions matter if you want people to be prosperous. It doesn’t matter where you start, it’s where you finish that counts, and that depends on adopting the best institutions, democracy, the rule of law, property rights, free speech, and all of those values that allow people to flourish.

No doubt New Zealand universities will be holding book burnings in case these Nobel Prize winners’ ideas make students ‘feel unsafe.’ The same institutions trained the journalists, which may be why there’s been so little discussion about this.

Nonetheless, somewhere in our future is a country where free and open debate is not only allowed but cherished. It would be a country where we can discuss what works to create prosperity.

The central lesson of these economists’ work is really that wealth is not given or taken, it is not ‘owned’ rightfully by any historic group. It can be created, to the point that everyone is richer than 200 years ago, but some people are 30 times richer. The trick is to adopt the right institutions, the policies that work, as quickly as possible, and those institutions are democracy, free markets, the rule of law, and equal rights for all.

Source: ACT Party

ACT Local Government spokesperson Cameron Luxton is welcoming today’s announcement that the Minister intends to appoint a Crown Observer to Wellington City Council.

“The Council is an absolute shambles,” says Mr Luxton.

“What should be a thriving capital city is being run into the ground by reckless decisions and sheer incompetence.

“Tauranga has seen firsthand the consequences of stripping away local democracy, and I don’t want to see Wellington go down the same path. Any step that can fix the city while preserving local democracy is one I fully support.

“A Crown Observer will give the Coalition Government the opportunity to look under the hood of the council, assess what’s going wrong, and assist the council in good governance – something that has been sorely lacking to date.

“Many of the issues are well-known already. The Council is recklessly wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on ideological projects like cycleways, removing cars from the golden mile, and the wrecked town hall. While this is happening, leaks continue to appear all across the city and wastewater is being pumped into the harbour.

“But the deeper governance issues and factors influencing the Council’s poor decision making need to see the light of day. At the very least it will expose the poor leadership, ensuring they can be held accountable at the next local body elections on 11 October 2025.

“The Council must ensure that they have crown observer not a clown observer. That means putting their egos and ideologies aside and for once in their lives put the ratepayers of Wellington first.

“I urge them to heed the advice of the Observer, and take all necessary steps to cut waste, fix the crumbling infrastructure and keep rates down.”

Source: ACT Party

ACT Agriculture spokesperson Mark Cameron is welcoming the Government’s proposed amendment to the Resource Management Act that would restrict councils’ ability to notify freshwater plans prior to the replacement of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM).

“Farmers have been under real pressure from Labour’s NPS-FM and ACT has consistently argued for its full repeal,” says Mr Cameron.

“I have heard the concerns from farmers about the proposed changes to the Otago Regional Council’s freshwater rules, which are being drafted in accordance with the previous Labour Government’s policies.

“Labour’s NPS-FM is already set to be repealed. Yet some councils continue to trudge ahead with new freshwater plans, wasting ratepayer money and resources on something that will soon be redundant and have to be reworked anyway.

“The proposed amendment will stop ratepayer money being wasted and restore certainty for farmers and other resource users.

“Labour’s policy centralised control in Wellington, allowing bureaucrats to impose strict rules that don’t respect the practical realities of farming. The amorphous concept of ‘Te Mana o te Wai’, the mana of the water, was elevated above all else leading to even more restrictive red tape being imposed on farmers by regional councils.

“Concepts relating to spirituality or the meta-physical have no place in laws or regulations. Rules should be clear, reasonable and workable, but with Te Mana o te Wai having no clear meaning or environmental limits, farmers and councils were left clueless about what was required. A clear, science-based approach is needed.

“During Labour’s six years in Government, farmers faced a tsunami of red tape and costs adding unnecessary pressure on top of the day-to-day challenges of farming.

“Today’s announcement will relieve what was a significant headache for many farmers, delivering on this Government’s mandate to slash unnecessary red tape.

“ACT will continue to fight for farmers and rural New Zealand. Labour’s war on farmers is over and we’re restoring confidence so rural communities can get on with doing what they do best.”

Source: ACT Party

“Licensed liquor outlets are legitimate businesses that serve a demand in the community while offering employment and bringing shoppers to town centres,” says Dr Parmjeet Parmar, who has lodged a new bill in Parliament’s member’s ballot to strengthen the voice of liquor-licenced businesses.

“Establishing a licenced business involves financial commitment, risk, and hard work, but current legislation means that businesses are threatened with closure when they seek to renew their licence, or when a local alcohol policy changes.

“Labour made navigating a licence application or renewal process even more difficult than it already was. Too many groups have been given too much power to effectively block the establishment or renewal of liquor licences.

“ACT says that licencing decisions should prioritise the interests of those most affected – namely, the business itself, its customers, and the immediate local community. My bill limits eligibility to oppose an application for, or renewal of, a liquor licence, to those who reside within one kilometre of the premises.

“Licencing rules should also offer certainty to those who have obtained a licence but risks having a renewal rejected, such as when a childcare facility or church moves in nearby. My bill ensures licensing authorities must not take such sites into account if the licenced outlet is already established in the area.”

The Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Participation in Licensing Decisions) Amendment Bill can be viewed here.

Source: ACT Party

ACT Ethnic Communities spokesperson Dr Parmjeet Parmar is challenging Brian Tamaki after Indian New Zealanders and other ethnic communities raised concerns about a new campaign to “Make NZ Kiwi Again” which targets immigrants.

“I have been approached by representatives of ethnic communities in New Zealand alarmed to see Brian Tamaki is promoting conspiracy theories about an ‘Indian invasion’. In a long video tirade, Tamaki rails against Hindu temples, Indian civil aviation officials, and the proposed free trade deal with India.

“Tamaki wants New Zealanders to march to ‘Make NZ Kiwi Again’ , but he cannot be very Kiwi himself if he has forgotten our fundamental history and values. Every New Zealander has either crossed an ocean to build a life here, or is descended from someone who did. Kiwis believe in freedom and a fair chance for anyone who’s willing to offer their efforts to society.

“I hope Brian Tamaki doesn’t have to visit hospital any time soon, but if he does, he will experience firsthand the contribution of immigrant doctors, nurses, and carers that have made New Zealand home.

“The construction sector is powered by migrants who are literally building New Zealand’s future. Others develop cutting-edge technology right here in New Zealand to solve problems, boost exports, and create jobs that benefit us all.

“The migrant community shouldn’t be feared – they should be embraced for all they bring to New Zealand.

“Tamaki warns that Indians are ‘not bad people, but they have intentions’. That is part is true – we have intentions to build peaceful and prosperous lives, raise educated children, and open businesses that offer value to New Zealand.

“Brian Tamaki is a shameless self-promoter and is clearly willing to tap into any negative sentiment that draws attention and outrage. This week it’s Indians, next week it will be another group. It’s tempting to ignore him, but when he seeks to define who is and isn’t a Kiwi, he must be challenged.”

Source: ACT Party

“ACT welcomes the Solicitor-General withdrawing recently published prosecution guidelines, which did not reflect the Government’s values of treating New Zealanders equally regardless of their race,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“The proposed guidelines were totally inconsistent with the values of a civilised country where everyone is equal before the law.

“This change shows our Government is committed to the most Kiwi of values; no matter who you are or how you were born, you deserve the same equal rights, choices and chances at life.

“It also shows New Zealand is getting the real change we voted for, last year.

“I respect the autonomy and independence of the Solicitor-General, but the Government has set a clear direction where racial discrimination is not acceptable, no matter how deeply embedded in the public service it is.

“This kind of divisive policy rained down in buckets, unchallenged, and uncorrected by the previous Government. Now we have a Government committed to equal rights for all. The Need Not Race cabinet circular negotiated by ACT underlines that commitment.

“ACT called out these guidelines as soon as we became aware of them, including raising the issue with the Attorney-General. We are welcome the swift response, preventing what would have otherwise been an egregious breach of the foundational principles of our country.

“We fund Crown prosecutors to deliver justice without fear nor favour. The updated Prosecution Guidelines must reflect that and uphold the principle of equality before the law.”