School Strike 4 Climate: then vs now

We’ve come a long way.

In 2019, 170,000 students ditched school to strike for climate change. At the time, the Labour-Green-NZ First Government said skipping school to protest could be justified.

In 2026, around 200 students turned up at Parliament.

The picture speaks for itself.Schools, parents, and students are taking attendance seriously again because ACT in Government has made it a priority.We know that young people can feel passionate about issues and anxious about their future. But:“If you want to make real change in the world, you need to turn up to school and get a good education now. Schools should treat students protesting today as explained but unjustified absences.” – David Seymour

And while the media tried to tell New Zealanders that Friday’s strike was a big deal, the reality is simple: the era of climate-strike politics is over, and ACT helped to end it.

Treaty “principles” still exist throughout our laws

A free and equal society requires constitutional principles to be determined by elected lawmakers accountable to the public, not gradually rewritten through vague interpretation.The Government’s review of Treaty references demonstrates why New Zealand still needs clear statutory definitions of Treaty principles.

Last week, the Government announced it will change or remove references to the Treaty of Waitangi across 19 pieces of legislation.

Repealing some Treaty references outright, and standardising others so agencies need only “take into account” Treaty principles, is an improvement, but it does not solve the core issue.

Even requiring agencies to just “take into account” Treaty principles still leaves the fundamental question unanswered – what exactly are those principles?“

We were told there were no Treaty principles, and perhaps this review would remove them. Well, the jury is in. The words ‘Treaty principles’ still exist throughout our laws. “Undefined Treaty principles have created uncertainty, inconsistent legal obligations, and endless scope for activist interpretation and bureaucratic expansion.” – David Seymour

As ACT has always said, the Treaty principles aren’t going anywhere, they do need to be defined, and our Treaty Principles Bill was designed to do exactly that.

“One day, sooner or later, the debate begun by the Treaty Principles Bill will need to conclude. The idea of Treaty principles is not going anywhere, so wouldn’t it be better for New Zealanders to know exactly what they mean?

“If Parliament does not define Treaty principles clearly, courts, officials, consultants, and activist groups will continue expanding them over time.” – David Seymour

A full list of the laws with repealed Treaty references can be found here.

New Zealand can’t keep spending money it doesn’t have

In two weeks, the Government will deliver Budget 2026. The direction is already clear: less waste, tighter spending, and a renewed focus on the basics that matter most to New Zealanders – healthcare, education, defence, and law and order. One major change already confirmed is the end of Labour’s failed Fees-Free scheme. After costing taxpayers roughly $350 million every year, it reportedly helped just 1,500 additional students into tertiary education. The reality is New Zealand cannot keep spending money it does not have. Years of bureaucratic expansion under Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First left New Zealand with a structural deficit – meaning the Government continues spending more than it earns, even when the economy is performing normally. ACT’s view is simple: if you want lower inflation, lower interest rates, and a stronger economy, the Government has to live within its means too. That is why ACT has pushed hard for fiscal discipline across government – helping save billions, reprioritise spending, and reduce pressure on taxpayers. “Spending less new money means less debt. It means Kiwis will keep more of what they earn, so life is more affordable.“Debt is not free money. It is taxation by time travel. Politicians spend today and send the bill to children who are still learning their ABCs. “The alternative is more borrowing or higher taxes. ACT rejects both. New Zealand does not need a capital gains tax, wealth tax, inheritance tax, or any other envy tax. We need a Government that spends less, regulates better, and leaves more money with the firms, farms, and families who earned it.” – David Seymour In a volatile world, New Zealand needs buffers – not bigger debts, higher taxes, and more government waste.

Parliament makes laws. Not activist judges.

A climate activist is suing major Kiwi companies like Fonterra, claiming their emissions harm his land and demanding they slash output to remake the economy.

The Government is sensibly legislating to kill this nonsense stone dead.Here’s the thing: New Zealand already has climate laws. We already have an Emissions Trading Scheme. Businesses already pay for emissions. Parliament already made the rules.

But activists are trying to use the courts to invent an entirely new climate regime where New Zealanders sue each other for their emissions.

That’s why the Government is stepping in to clarify the law and stop activist lawfare from rewriting climate policy through the courts.“This is a long-overdue victory for New Zealand’s farmers, exporters, and productive economy,” says Mark Cameron.

“Activists have tried to weaponise the courts to force radical climate ideology onto the industries that feed, clothe, and power this country. We’re putting an end to their lawfare.“New Zealanders elect governments to make climate policy through Parliament, not judges responding to activist campaigns.” – Mark Cameron

ACT would go further.For years, regional councils have used the Resource Management Act to pile climate restrictions onto farmers and productive businesses, despite emissions already being managed nationally. You cannot have every council in New Zealand running its own mini climate crusade. That’s why Mark Cameron has lodged a Member’s Bill to stop regional councils using the RMA to suppress productive land use in the name of climate policy. 

Diabetes treatment based on need, not ethnicity

New Zealand’s healthcare problem is increasingly an access problem – and ACT is focused on fixing it.

Thanks to David Seymour in his role as Associate Health Minister, the Government secured a $604 million boost for Pharmac over four years to fund more medicines and widen access to treatment.

This week, David welcomed Pharmac’s proposal to expand access to three type 2 diabetes medicines based on clinical need, while removing ethnicity-based eligibility rules.

Type 2 diabetes can lead to serious heart and kidney complications, and earlier access to treatment can save lives, reduce pressure on hospitals, and give families more precious time together.

“Ethnicity shouldn’t decide what funded options you can access to manage type 2 diabetes.

“These medicines help lower blood sugar and reduce the likelihood of heart and kidney complications. Everyone who needs this support should have access to it.” – David Seymour

If approved, Pharmac estimates around 10,000 more people could benefit in the first year alone, rising to roughly 23,000 people within five years.

A full copy of the release can be found here.

Interview transcript with Heather du Plessis Allan on NewstalkZB:

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now let’s turn to the old devil jabs that make
your skinny. Farmac has announced its planning to make GLP
one like Ozempic more widely available for people with diabetes.
Under the proposal, twenty five thousand more diabetic key weis
will gain access to the drugs over the next few years.
David Seymour is the Minister for FARMAC and with us Hi, David, now,
is this just for people who already have diabetes or

(00:23):
is this also going to catch people who are too
fat who may well develop diabetes.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
So without calling anyone too fat, FARMAC are assessing two
applications and at least one of them is for obesity.
So it’s both of those things. And as for where
FARMAC get to with that assessment, obviously you know I’m
not trying to influence them, but nonetheless that there’s clearly
a lot of potential investing in these types of drugs

(00:53):
to prevent other health problems down the line.

Speaker 1 (00:55):
Right, So, so those people would not necessarily have diabetes,
it’s in case they develop diabetes.

Speaker 2 (01:01):
Yeah, yeah, So, as I understand.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
The BMI have to be for the to be eligible
for this.

Speaker 2 (01:08):
Well, again, I don’t want to I don’t. I don’t
have the full briefing from FARMAC as far as what
they consider, and part of that is because they are
eventually if they if they funded in a negotiation with
the novn artists of the world to procure it, so

(01:28):
that they try not to play cards with poker on
their table. So not going to say what your BMI
had to be, for example, But that’s the kind of
thing they’re looking at.

Speaker 1 (01:36):
Okay, but it’s going to be very small proportion of
people who would be overweight, right because the number of
people in this country whose BMI actually does qualify them
for a prescription is enormous, isn’t it. It’s like hundreds
of thousands of people.

Speaker 2 (01:48):
Yeah, well it’s that’s what the UK have done, and
you know they’ve obviously made their choice. But it is
true that you can spend an enormous amount of money
and there are two basicues with paying it back. Number
one is that if you stop people developing diabetes well
into the future, then that is going to save the

(02:12):
taxpayer money on things like dialysis in about ten years time.
And it’s quite challenging the way that our current government
budgeting process works to capture those sorts of benefits today.
That’s number one and number two our healthcare system. When
it comes to accounting for the costs of things like
putting a person on dialysis, they don’t do what they

(02:33):
call price and volume funding. So it’s actually difficult to
make the case that you’re saving money if they don’t
know what things cost. So I’m not trying to make excuses,
but we’ve made a lot of progress on this kind
of whole of society approach to funding medicines that will
save us money in the long term. But that’s some
of the challenges that we’re running to so far, and

(02:53):
it just means we’ve got to keep fixing those things.

Speaker 1 (02:55):
What is the ethnicity based eligibility criteria that have been.

Speaker 2 (02:58):
Removed, Well, previously there’s been applicability where if you know
Mari or Pacific, then that becomes a factor and whether
you get considered. The government has a need not race policy,
and what we’ve found is that generally, if you look
at most illnesses, they don’t actually disproportionately affect people because

(03:24):
of their race. They affect people because of their age,
because of their body mass index, perhaps because of their habits.
Those things are usually will help you catch people who
have just the same amount of risk but are a
different race, without lumping a whole lot of people in
together just because they happen to be mari, which I

(03:46):
am strongly opposed to as a concept.

Speaker 1 (03:48):
Ye fair enough, okay, and listen thoughts on air New
Zealand and it’s projected loss.

Speaker 2 (03:53):
Well, the in New Zealand love to be an icon
of New Zealand in the best of times. Unfortunately, I
think they have to wear that in the worst of times.
And in many ways in New Zealand has become a
flagship for what ails us. There’s spent a huge amount
of time pursuing every single pet project, from hydrogen to
paper cups to sustainable sustainable ag aviation fuel to you

(04:20):
very long glossy reports about climate change. And yet what
they haven’t done is what Peter Blake would do is
ask will this make the boat go faster and in
their case take off and land at the right time
for an affordable price. Now, I would argue that that
is partly because of the Bord appointments and the letters

(04:41):
of expectation that Grant Robertson gave them five years or
so ago. You’re seeing the flow through of that, but
I’d also argue that, you know, the same sort of
distraction politics is one of the reasons that we have
a real challenge with productivity growth in New Zealand. We’ve
pursued too many blind alleys, not enough making the boat
go faster and in a funny way in New Zealand

(05:03):
as an icon for New Zealand, but probably not the
one they’d want to be.

Speaker 1 (05:06):
Well said David. Thanks very much appreciated. David Seymour