Category: ACT Party

Source: ACT Party

“In a predictable move, Labour are again talking about introducing new taxes. There are two clear reasons this is wrong. The data doesn’t exist to support it because we are already highly taxed, and the morality is all about taking instead of building,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“We are highly taxed compared with all but old Europe. The latest comparable data, from 2022, shows New Zealand’s Government taxing 33.8 per cent of wealth produced that year. The OECD average is 34.0 per cent. In the Asia-Pacific, only the Japanese are more highly taxed than Kiwis.

“The reality is that countries compete to attract talent and investment. Taxes are one factor skilled workers and investors consider when choosing a destination. Australians, Koreans, Canadians, Singaporeans, Chileans, Americans, and everyone else in the Asia-Pacific pay less tax than New Zealanders. Raising taxes further would only make it less attractive to work, save, and invest here in New Zealand.

“If New Zealand was a low-tax country, you could ask if there’s room to raise taxes and still attract skilled workers and investors, but the facts are that simply isn’t true. There are those who say they only want to change the tax mix. However higher earners already pay disproportionately more income tax than lower earners, and that tax applies to income from investments.

“All that is left for a new tax to achieve is to further punish people who work save and invest. It tells a generation of voters that your problems are caused by someone else’s success, and politicians can solve your problems by taking their money and giving it to you.

“New Zealanders do not need more wealth redistribution; we need more wealth creation. We won’t get that by any Government adding new taxes. By proposing tax as a major part of the solution to our problems, Chris Hipkins is really saying his ambition is to manage the decline of New Zealand with himself in charge as the divider in chief.

“Rather than coming up with a tax solution that solves no problem except perhaps feeding envy, New Zealand needs win-win thinking where every person can succeed.”

Source: ACT Party

Health NZ’s decision to target free GP and nurse services based on race shows how badly we need to see the delivery of ACT’s “need, not race” coalition commitment, says ACT Health spokesperson Todd Stephenson.

“In Hawkes Bay, 14 to 24 year-olds who were recently receiving free GP services will now be excluded on the basis of their race. Health NZ’s policy change means that a healthy, wealthy person with Māori or Pacific in their family tree will be prioritised above someone of Asian or European or African descent in more difficult circumstances.

“ACT has long said that targeting services based on race is lazy and divisive.

“There are plenty of good reasons, backed by science, to target health services, such for young people from poor families or with long-term health conditions. Race is not one of those good reasons, because the vast majority of health conditions are not race-based. Elevating race above other considerations inevitably means taxpayer money will be misdirected and young people in real need will miss out.

“If Health NZ stopped doling out free consultations based on race, they would have more resources at hand to expand eligibility based on economic deprivation or long-term conditions. That should be a no-brainer.

“The change in government should have sent a clear message to our bureaucracies that New Zealanders are sick and tired of race being put at the centre of everything. But clearly, Health NZ either didn’t get the message, or is actively resisting it.

“Soon, Health NZ will have no excuses for this kind of discrimination. ACT’s coalition agreement commits to ‘Issue a Cabinet Office circular to all central government organisations that it is the Government’s expectation that public services should be prioritised on the basis of need, not race‘.”

Source: ACT Party

The Haps

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

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

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

Stable Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: ACT Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: ACT Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: ACT Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: ACT Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: ACT Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: ACT Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: ACT Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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