ACT To Hold Annual 'Free & Equal' Rally In Auckland This Sunday 13 July
The rally will feature policy updates from ACT's Ministers and MPs, a keynote address from Deputy Prime Minister and ACT Party Leader David Seymour, and an international guest keynote by Dr. James Lindsay.
The event is expected to attract a strong audience, following last year's rally which sold out and saw keynote speaker Paul Henry's address viewed more than 200,000 times online. ACT describes its annual gathering as an opportunity to connect with supporters, outline the party's policy direction, and foster open debate on the country's future.
'ACT's annual rally is about more than politics – it's about lifting the standard of public debate in New Zealand,' says David Seymour.
'It's a chance to talk directly to voters about our vision for a freer, fairer, and more ambitious country.'
Attendees will hear updates from ACT's Ministers on the Government's policy programme, including progress on crime, economic reform, and reducing regulatory burdens.
International guest Dr. James Lindsay, an American author, mathematician, and prominent advocate for free speech, will deliver this year's keynote address. Dr. Lindsay is best known for his bestselling book Cynical Theories.
'Dr. Lindsay is one of the world's leading lights in challenging ideological extremes,' Seymour said.
'His insights on defending free expression and liberal values are especially relevant in New Zealand today.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Treaty Principles 2.0? Hearings Begin Into Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill
Analysis: A week of political scrutiny lies ahead for one of the government's most polarising bills, dubbed by some critics as "Treaty Principles 2.0". Starting Monday morning, the Finance and Expenditure select committee will reconvene for about 30 hours over four days to hear public submissions on the lightning rod Regulatory Standards Bill. The bill - championed by ACT's David Seymour - sets out "principles of responsible regulation" and would require ministers to explain whether they are following them. It would also set up a new board to assess legislation against those benchmarks. But while it may sound dry and technical, the legislation has become a flashpoint in a wider debate about the country's constitution, te Tiriti o Waitangi, and competing ideologies. Among the submitters on day one: former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Green MP Darleen Tana, Transpower, and the Royal Australian and NZ College of Psychiatrists. What's in the bill? The bill lists principles that Seymour believes should guide all law-making. These include: Respect for the rule of law Protection of individual freedom and property rights Keeping taxes and fees fair and reasonable Proper consultation and clear cost-benefit analysis Ministers introducing new laws would have to declare whether they meet these standards, and justify those that do not. The new Regulatory Standards Board - appointed by the Minister for Regulation - could also review older laws and make non-binding recommendations. "We need to make regulating less rewarding for politicians by putting more sunlight on their activities," Seymour told Parliament in May. Why are people so upset? Opposition to the bill has been intense. An early round of consultation last year attracted about 23,000 submissions, with 88 percent in opposition and just 0.33 percent in support. Seymour has dismissed that as "meaningless" and initially claimed many of the submissions had been created by "bots". He later walked that back, but maintained they were driven by non-representative online campaigns. It is true campaign groups have provided templates for submissions or even offered to write them on people's behalf. But the pushback has come from far and wide: lawyers, academics, advocacy groups and public servants. Even Seymour's own Ministry of Regulation has raised concerns. Seymour has labelled much of the criticism "alarmist" and grounded in misinformation. He's also targetted some critics on social media, accusing them of having "derangement syndrome" and conspiracy thinking. The most common criticisms are: 1. That it elevates ACT's values above all else Critics argue the bill embeds ACT's political ideology into law, particularly its emphasis on individual rights and private property, while ignoring other considerations. Notably, te Tiriti o Waitangi is not mentioned in the bill - an omission which critics fear could undermine the Treaty's legal status and influence. Seymour says he has yet to hear a convincing reason why the Treaty should get special consideration when evaluating good law-making. Critics also object to the principle of individual property rights being given prominence over, say, collective rights. They fear the bill could dissuade governments from introducing rules that protect the environment, or restrictions on tobacco and alcohol, because that might be seen as breaching the listed principles. Even though the government could still pass those laws, critics worry it would send a message that profits and property are more important than public health or environmental protections. For his part, Seymour is unapologetic about the principles proposed and open that he wants to reset the culture of government. "If you want to tax someone, take their property, and restrict their livelihood, you can, but you'll actually have to show why it's in the public interest," Seymour says. 2. That it's a solution in search of a problem New Zealand already has a raft of systems in place to check laws are made properly. For example, Cabinet's Legislation Guidelines require ministers to follow best practice principles - including the rule of law, human rights compliance and consultation. The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, made up of experts and officials, also provides detailed feedback on bills, and Treasury checks the impact of major policy decisions. As well, Justice officials and Crown Law conduct Bill of Rights vetting of legislation, with the Attorney-General required to report any breaches. Critics say this bill just adds another layer of process - increasing cost and workload for little benefit. To that, Seymour says: "If the public service think being required to justify their laws is a faff, imagine what it's like for the public they have to serve who are obliged to follow them." 3. That it is a corporate power grab A lingering concern has been whether the bill could open the government up to legal challenges or claims for compensation - especially from large corporations. Among its principles, the bill does include the concept that property should not usually be taken without consent and "fair compensation". But the legislation also clearly states that it does not create any new legal rights or obligation enforceable through the courts. That means companies would not have a new avenue to sue the government if a law affected their property or profits. Still, critics argue that simply embedding the principle in law could alter expectations over time. Businesses or lobby groups, for example, might point to it to put pressure on ministers to avoid certain policies. As well, lawyers say the courts could take note of the new principles when interpreting legislation or reviewing regulatory decisions elsewhere. The political debate The National-ACT coalition agreement includes a firm commitment to pass the bill through into law - though not necessarily in its current form. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the government will pay close attention to the select committee process and remains open to changes. "The devil is in the detail," he told reporters on Friday. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as "a work in progress" and has indicated his party wants changes. He has not specified which provisions in particular concern him. The opposition parties, Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, have already promised to repeal the bill if elected next year. That means, for all the noise, the bill's practical impact may be limited, affecting only the parties introducing it - which presumably would adhere to these principles whether they were codified in law or not. The select committee hearings will run from 8:30am till 5pm, Monday through Thursday.
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Hearings begin on Regulatory Standards Bill
David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill has been put through its paces at Parliament, with its opponents lining up one by one to tear it down. Beginning this morning, and for the next three days, MPs are hearing feedback on the legislation which sets out new gold-standard principles for lawmaking. Ministers introducing new laws would be required to declare whether they'd met the new standards and to justify themselves if not. Acting political editor Craig McCulloch spoke to Lisa Owen. To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Cutting Red Tape So Young Kiwis Can Start Saving
Associate Minister of Justice Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee is making changes to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Act that will make it easier for parents to open bank accounts for their children. 'Opening a bank account for children should be a simple and positive step toward teaching them the value of saving. Unfortunately, regulations designed to prevent serious crimes can make the process unnecessarily difficult,' says Mrs McKee. 'The Government is cutting red tape that can make it harder for parents to do the easy thing and open a bank account for their children. 'According to the Act, a parent who wants to open an account for their eight-year-old child needs to gather and verify a long list of information, including their child's address, date of birth, name, and their own authority to act on their child's behalf. The Act also requires banks to obtain the nature and purpose of the business relationship, evaluate whether further due diligence is required, and monitoring the child's transactions on an ongoing basis. 'Under the Government's new reforms, banks will be allowed to apply a simplified processes when risk is low. This means that if a bank puts measures in place to make a child's bank account low-risk (e.g. by setting appropriate transaction limits) all that could be required is a birth certificate to confirm the child's name and date of birth, and prove the relationship to the parent. 'They could also skip the intrusive and unnecessary questions about the 'nature and purpose' of the account, and reduce or forego ongoing monitoring of a child's banking activity, until the account's settings are changed (e.g., removal of transaction limits when a child turns 18). The Government has also directed the future AML/CFT supervisor to issue clear guidance so that businesses like banks know exactly how to apply these simplified checks without fear of penalty. 'This is a common-sense reform. Parents shouldn't be asked to jump through bureaucratic hoops just to open a bank account for their kids. We're streamlining the system so that New Zealanders can spend less time on paperwork and more time teaching their children the value of money. 'These changes reflect the Government's wider commitment to smarter regulation, focusing on outcomes rather than ticking boxes, and trusting New Zealanders to make responsible decisions without being buried under red tape.'
