Category: Political Parties

Source: ACT Party

The Haps

The country turned 185 on Thursday, but not everyone wanted to celebrate and debate. David Seymour’s address is here. They turned their backs and took his microphone, but nobody actually tried to argue that division based on ancestry is better than liberal democracy.

Spaghetti Government

Just over a year ago the New Zealand Initiative, a think tank, released a short and brilliant report on Government in New Zealand. Cabinet Congestion: The Growth of a ministerial maze.

The gist of the report is that our Government has far more Ministers, and far more portfolios, than similar-sized countries. For example the Government of Ireland has fifteen ministers with eighteen portfolios and eighteen departments.

Once upon a time New Zealand was roughly like that. Cabinet had sixteen ministers who all attended the main Cabinet meeting. Each Minister had one or two departments they were responsible for, and that was also their portfolio. For example, if you were the Minister of Police, you were responsible for Police, Police was your portfolio, and you were the only Minister of Police.

Then came the MMP and the Government required multiple parties. It meant the Bolger Government needed to share power, but wouldn’t. Instead, Ministerial power was diluted with a little water in the wine.

National negotiated the position of ‘Treasurer’ for Winston Peters, because they couldn’t imagine giving up Finance. The idea of a Minister outside Cabinet was also born, meaning Ministers who don’t attend the main Cabinet meeting. Four of these new Ministers meant 20 in total.

Not to be outdone, Helen Clark formed an even bigger Government three years later. Cabinet expanded to 20 Ministers, and Ministers outside cabinet doubled to eight. Then there were 28.

Not much has changed since then, except for an eruption of portfolios and departments. We now have a Ministry for Pacific Peoples, and a Ministry for Ethnic Affairs. Then there are portfolios without a specific department, including Racing, Mental Health, Auckland, the South Island, to name a few of the 78 Portfolios that now exist.

There are other complications. For example needing to pick nearly 30 Ministers from a Government majority of just over 60 MPs affects quality. It means nearly half of MPs are Ministers when their ‘side’ is in Government. There’s been more than a few in recent years who wouldn’t have got a job like being a Minister otherwise.

Most Ministers have multiple portfolios, around three to four on average. They’ll be less effective at, say, improving foreign relations if they’re also responsible for local government (Nanaia Mahuta was terrible at both). They’ll be less effective because they can’t specialise, but also because a specialist is less likely to be appointed in the first place.

On the other hand, many departments have multiple ministers. There are three in Education, but that’s nothing compared with the 18 that MBIE is responsible to. Who is in charge?

As the Initiative report argues, confusion empowers the bureaucracy. They can face multiple Ministers who themselves have many other jobs, often in totally unrelated areas. This makes it extremely difficult to shrink Government, or get much done at all.

Some will criticise ACT for creating the Minister for Regulation. The Party would respond that restricting how other people can use their property is the most important government power to restrain besides taxing and spending. The latter has the Minister of Finance and Treasury, but who restrains regulation?

ACT is now at the centre of government for the first time, and sits at the table that’s been set over the last thirty years of MMP. If the Party was charged with setting the table, there would be fewer placemats.

How would we do it again? Any future Government should stick to three rules when it’s being set up.

1. Every Minister sits in Cabinet so they’re part of every discussion.
2. Every Minister has a department, so there are no portfolios that don’t involve managing a department.
3. No Department has more than one Minister, so every public servant knows who they’re accountable to.

This would mean getting rid of about half the portfolios and eight Ministers. It would go a long way to improving government efficiency and allow the government to get a lot more done much faster with much less ‘resource.’

Source: ACT Party

Government Powhiri Address
David Seymour, Leader ACT New Zealand
Wednesday 5th February, 2025

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e rau Rangatira

Two years ago here, I set out my party’s three goals for the Treaty.

Tuatahi, ki a maimoatia te reo me te ahurea Māori

(one, to cherish the Māori language and culture).

Tuarua, ki a whakatika ngā hapa o mua.

(two, to put right the wrongs of the past)

Tuatouru, ki a ōrite ai te āhei atu o ngā Tamariki katoa ki a puāwaitia.

(three, to give every child an equal chance to flourish)

Since then I’ve held to these goals and promises. Some who heard my words here and understood them have tried to pretend they didn’t.

Instead they’ve poured poison in the ears of young people. They’ve said that I want to take away their mana, their reo, and their culture.

Some of the poison goes so far it’s actually funny. Rawiri Waititi even wrote in the newspaper that I want to take away people’s outdoor hobbies.

What is the point of these claims. It cannot be seeking the truth, because the things they say are not true.

Perhaps blaming me is a convenient distraction from other failures.

The numbers don’t lie.

Māori home ownership. Māori school attendance. Māori crime victimization. Māori unemployment. Māori incomes. Māori life expectancy.

None of it is good news, and none of it’s getting better because people think the Treaty is a partnership.

If this is what a Treaty partnership looks like, how is it working out for Māori?

What is good news is we now have a Government with practical solutions to these problems, and the ACT Party is proud to play its part.

New resource management laws and building laws will make it easier for the next generation to build a place of their own in this country.

Charter schools, and curriculums and assessments with rich content will provide young New Zealanders with useful maps for navigating the twenty first century.

We’ve got the values right on crime. Now the Government stands beside the victims, who are disproportionately Māori.

We know there’s no mana in dependency, it’s a trap, and traps Māori the most. That’s why the Government is bringing back mutual obligation in welfare.

Getting off welfare means jobs in a growing economy. I’m proud to lead the charge against the red tape that crushes the wairua of our economy.

The Government is funding more medicine than ever, by a lot. It’s setting ambitious targets to get health wait times down. The biggest health benefits will go to those with the biggest needs.

That is the mahi. Kia ōrite ai te āhei atu o ngā tamariki katoa ki a puāwaitia.

My critics need to explain why these problems can’t be solved under a treaty that granted equal rights.

They need to explain why divisive identity politics is necessary to solve these problems, especially when it’s going out of fashion around the world.

That’s my wero to you,

Ngā mihi.

Source: ACT Party

The Haps

David Seymour’s speech at the Treaty Grounds today is widely anticipated. This week’s Free Press covers other matters, but for a preview of ACT’s Treaty approach, you can read Seymour’s column in the Herald.

The COVID Royal Commission, Mark II, designed by Brooke van Velden, is open to public submissions, and now there’s an online portal to make it easy. After Labour’s attempted whitewash, ACT campaigned for people to be able to say what they think about the lockdowns, mandates, and other public health measures. There will be another pandemic, probably not this decade but almost certainly this century, and lessons learned from this one could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

If you don’t normally listen to Radio New Zealand, we understand. However Kathryn Ryan interviewed David Seymour for half an hour on the Regulatory Standards Bill, and we think it’s worth an exception.

Owning the Wrong Stuff

Last Monday we shared David Seymour’s State of the Nation speech. This week it is still in the headlines. How is this possible? The speech said two things people know deep down are true, but politicians are afraid to say.

The Government owns the wrong stuff. Its books show $570 billion worth of assets, enough to build a four-lane highway from Whangarei to Invercargill six times, but you wouldn’t know it. The Government is having to downsize hospitals while the rest of the world is buying military hardware, and our roads and pipes need attention.

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, the Government is invested in houses (60,000), a property valuation firm, farms, electricity generators, and sunset industries such as mail and television, among many other weird and wonderful things.

Could it be an idea to, just maybe, just ask the question, without anyone getting their knickers in a knot: Does the Government own the right stuff. And if not, should it try selling some shares in power companies to invest in some roads and water treatment plants?

Perhaps all Governments should think of ownership like this. Every year we ask what we own, what benefits the public get from it, and could the Government own something with greater public benefits for the same money? If the answer is yes, and it doesn’t look like it’s going to change, then sell the thing that doesn’t pay and buy something that does.

As for healthcare and education, the Government shells out a fortune, nearly $6,000 in healthcare for every single person each year. That’s up from $4,000 five years ago, but nobody’s happy. Perhaps it is time to say, if you want to take your $6,000 to a private insurer like Southern Cross, you can.

There would have to be rules. The company would need to accept any patient who applied, without discrimination. The company could never cancel anyone’s policy. They would become responsible for all of the person’s care. Hospitals still owned by the Government would need to accept patients from any insurer at the same price.

If this all sounds out there, fear not. It’s roughly how most healthcare systems in Europe work. It means that there would be people with an incentive to sort out the endless waste and dysfunction in what’s been described as our third world system run by first world medics.

The Left say in a private system the poor miss out. Europeans would be surprised to hear this. What the Left don’t seem to get is this: You can have equal public funding, but allow competition to provide the service. Some would say the best of all worlds.

Of course there is a reason why few politicians dare to raise these questions. The media have demanded to know from David Seymour exactly what he will sell tomorrow. They want a list. The hard Left say this is another Seymourian conspiracy, but they can’t say what. The Opposition have called on the Chris Luxon to rule out ever selling anything. Luxon says he won’t now but might in the future.

There’s another reason why there are still articles in today’s papers, ten days after the speech was given. People know that, while New Zealand is a success story, as countries go, we’re not holding our ground at the moment. What we’re doing isn’t working.

If we want to remain a first world nation and an island paradise—most countries can only do one—we need to work differently. That’s the other thing about Seymour’s speech, it told the truth we avoided all through the Clark-Key-Ardern era.

As goes the Treaty Principles Bill, so goes this speech. This country needs a party that’s brave, articulate, and patriotic, and we’re glad we have ACT.

Source: ACT Party

Responding to Te Pāti Māori’s call for an unelected Te Tiriti Commissioner to veto legislation from Parliament, ACT Leader David Seymour says:

“ACT would like to thank Te Pāti Māori for being so honest about the fact they don’t support rule by elected Parliament. Ironically, they’ve shown voters electing the next Parliament what’s at stake if they vote Labour, the Greens, or Te Pāti Māori.

“If we take Te Pāti Māori seriously, it would be one vote, for one party, once. A person who ‘needs to be Māori’ would have a veto on all laws.

“If breaking democracy is a bottom line for Te Pāti Māori, Labour and the Greens need to rule out ever being in Government with them, or they’ll never be in Government with anyone. New Zealand voters will see to it, and Labour and the Greens will be collateral damage.

“Labour and the Greens need to decide if they’re still serious parties. Labour and the Greens faced a test when the Speaker asked for their votes to censure Te Pati Māori’s haka last year. They voted against the Speaker and with Te Pati Māori. If they can do that to Parliamentary debate, what else are they up for?

“Te Pāti Māori’s latest crazy demand also shows why they oppose the Treaty Principles Bill. It is about all New Zealanders having an equal say through democratic processes. Te Pāti Māori want the opposite.

“The Treaty Principles Bill would prevent our founding document from being twisted to justify these kinds of constitutional travesties. Te Tiriti promised the same rights for all New Zealanders. That should include the right to cast a vote and have your values put into action by Parliament, without an unelected Commissioner vetoing your democratic choices on behalf of one group of New Zealanders.”

Source: ACT Party

The Government has been getting it in both ears over new climate commitments it’s made under the Paris Agreement.

James Shaw and Jacinda Ardern signed us up to impossible targets. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts is trying to make them workable.

As ACT’s Agriculture and Rural Communities spokesman, I’m writing to say: We’ve heard you.

As a signatory to the Paris Agreement, New Zealand is required to sign up to increasingly ambitious emissions targets. That’s what has led to the Climate Change Minister’s latest commitment.

However, ACT has heard serious concern over the economic impact of the Government’s commitment, including costs likely to be lumped on farmers.

Yesterday, the Herald interviewed David Seymour about the Paris Agreement:

We know New Zealand farmers are the most efficient in the world, and it does not make sense to reduce New Zealand food production only to see other less efficient farmers overseas picking up the slack.

In short, ACT is listening, and we encourage you to pass on your concerns to the Climate Change Minister and your local MP.

Meanwhile, ACT’s Ministers in the Government are delivering common sense, affordable policy in key areas that affect farmers such as replacing the handbrake that is the RMA, simplifying freshwater farm plans, and stopping the implementation of last Government’s attack on property rights with their directive on Significant Natural Areas. I’ve also lodged a member’s bill in Parliament’s ballot to stop councils from considering local emissions when granting resource consents.

ACT is determined not to sacrifice farmers and growers at the altar of the climate gods. There is more work to be done to return to common sense, and I hope we’ll have your support.