International Speaker Announced For ACT's 2025 Rally In Auckland
ACT is proud to announce that the international keynote speaker for the Party's 2025 Rally on 13 July will be Dr James Lindsay – a globally recognised advocate for free speech, open inquiry, and classical liberal values.
'ACT's annual rally always features a thought-provoking keynote to elevate the standard of public debate in New Zealand,' says ACT Leader David Seymour.
'Dr Lindsay fits that tradition perfectly. He is the author of the bestseller Cynical Theories and one of the world's leading lights in the fight against identity politics, conformity and oppression. His message about reclaiming liberalism in an age of extremes could not be more timely.'
'Last year, Paul Henry's address at ACT's rally was viewed more than 250,000 times by Kiwis who wished they'd attended in person. This year, I predict it will be even more important not to miss out.'
Notes:
Dr Lindsay is an American author, mathematician, and leading advocate for free speech and intellectual freedom. He is the founder of New Discourses, a platform dedicated to defending reason, open debate, and the principles of liberal democracy.
His bestselling book Cynical Theories has become a global phenomenon, exposing how radical ideologies undermine free societies. Dr Lindsay's message resonates with everyone concerned about the rise of identity politics, censorship, and authoritarian thinking.
He has spoken before the US Congress, universities, and grassroots movements around the world. At a time when free expression is under threat, Dr Lindsay delivers a clear and urgent message: we must stand up for liberty, open inquiry, and common sense.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
19 hours ago
- Scoop
PM's Intervention To Kill Simon Watts' Ute Tax 2.0 Welcomed By Taxpayers
The Taxpayers' Union is welcoming the Prime Minister's intervention to rule out the Inland Revenue Department's proposal to apply Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) to all utes worth $80,000 or more and other work vehicles — a plan directed by Climate Change and Revenue Minister Simon Watts. In response to media comment issued by the Prime Minister's Office last night, Taxpayers' Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said: 'Simon Watts was pushing a new Ute Tax, without his Cabinet colleagues or the public even knowing. Had it gone ahead, farmers and tradies would have been slammed with thousands of dollars in additional tax each year – not just once like Labour's Ute Tax, but every year.' 'The documents are crystal clear. IRD was instructed by Minister Watts to proceed with and consult with the tax industry on the implementation of a new FBT regime that would capture work vehicles, regardless of how they're actually used. This was a massive tax hike by stealth.' "As far as we can tell, the Revenue Minister didn't consult with any taxpayer, business, or farming groups, despite work having been done on this for nearly a year. Had he bothered to engage, the unfairness and political risk would have been obvious. That lapse saw the Government facing backlash because it was tax boffins who blew the whistle and it took everyone by surprise. Minister Watts should learn the lesson." 'Within hours of our campaign launch yesterday, the National Party was in damage control. Within six hours, the PM's team overruled Watts and confirmed the policy would not proceed.' The Taxpayers' Union yesterday revealed documents showing that IRD had been working on changes to remove the logbook exemption for work vehicles and impose FBT on the assumed private use of double cab utes. According to IRD's own estimates, the tax grab would have cost farmers, tradies and other ute owners $100 million per year. 'We give credit to the Prime Minister and his office for stepping in quickly and pulling the handbreak.' says Mr Williams. 'This is a clear win for taxpayers and proof that grassroots pressure works. We thank the thousands of Kiwis who used our online tool to email National MPs and demand the Ute Tax 2.0 be scrapped."
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Not-so-special agents exercising agency in troubled times
What have we been looking at over the course of the past week? Yes, we have been watching, horror-struck, as two sovereign states unleashed fire and death upon each other's populations. Israel pre-emptively, Iran in self-defence, both have entered into a state of war. Given the geostrategic fragility of the Middle East, this is alarming. Even more alarming, however, is that the United States appears (at the time of writing) to be seriously contemplating joining the war at Israel's side. So, this past week has been a week of violence and dread. A week of fear. But, it has also been a week of agency. Agency, as in "action or intervention producing a particular effect" is a crucial attribute of geopolitical power. A sovereign state without the will and the means to act, to intervene, with high levels of confidence that the nett effect of its intervention will accord with its expectations, is not a geopolitically significant power. It might be assumed that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — the USA, the UK, the Russian Federation, France, and the Peoples Republic of China — would all be possessors of geopolitically significant agency. The veto power wielded by each of the five permanent members is, presumably, an acknowledgement of their ability to disturb the peace of the world unilaterally and seriously. Of their agency. Except that, in the 21st century, only two of the five permanent members, the USA and the Russian Federation, have demonstrated significant geopolitical agency. The Americans have invaded and conquered (if only for a little while) Afghanistan and Iraq. Russia has invaded and occupied roughly a third of Ukraine's territory, but Ukraine continues to rule the rest. Now, it could be convincingly argued that these invasions and occupations, far from being examples of geopolitical agency, are actually demonstrations of American and Russian weakness. In the American case especially, the failure to secure the anticipated effects of its Middle Eastern interventions called into question its status as ''the world's sole remaining superpower''. Ditto, in regard to the Russian Federation. The Russian President Vladimir Putin's confident expectation that the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, would fall to his armoured columns in less than a week proved to be wildly misplaced. Three years, and one million Russian dead later, Kyiv remains free. And the other permanent members? What of their agency? In this century, neither the UK, nor France, have attempted to act or intervene unilaterally. Indeed, their capacity to do so must be seriously doubted. After all, if the UK and France were in possession of genuine geopolitical agency they would have confronted Vladimir Putin with steel, not protests. Not that they were permitted to do otherwise. Until the arrival of Trump, it was a rock-solid American policy that the movers-and-shakers of Europe: the UK, Germany, France and Italy; must never be permitted to acquire the military strength to act independently of the US. The European states were never to become agents in their own right. Hardly surprising, when you think about it. Twice in the 20th century, just one of those powers, Germany, took on the whole world – and came within an ace of winning. But what about China? Aren't geopoliticians touting the People's Republic as the next global superpower? Isn't the Chinese dragon seen as Uncle Sam's understudy, just waiting to huff-and-puff its firepower on the world stage? Well, China is certainly building up a massive military force. It already boasts the world's largest and most up-to-date navy, and the People's Liberation Army currently has more than 2 million "active personnel". The thing is, neither the Chinese army, nor the Chinese navy, has been in a real fight since 1979 – when the Vietnamese kicked their ass. Unlike the Americans and the Russians, the Chinese cannot call upon troops who know what it's like to go to war. No-one on the planet knows how the Chinese armed forces will perform in the face of a determined enemy ( such as Taiwan) and it's difficult to avoid the impression that China's leaders are in no real hurry to find out. Though it vexes the five permanent members beyond measure, it is Israel that best exemplifies geopolitical agency. And it will likely continue to do so – right up until it runs out of American ammunition. ■Chris Trotter is an Auckland writer and commentator.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
The Employment Relations Amendment Bill: A State-Sanctioned Assault On The Working Class
The National-ACT-New Zealand First coalition government's Employment Relations Amendment Bill (ERAB), will see a sweeping series of legislative changes that reshape the legal terrain of labour in Aotearoa. These changes, billed by the government as necessary for 'labour market flexibility' and 'economic growth,' represent a radical rollback of worker protections. Cloaked in technocratic language and presented as pragmatic reform, the bill in fact amounts to a systemic attack on organised labour, unionism, and the basic rights of working people. ERAB does not signal the failure of the state to protect workers, it reveals the true nature of the state itself. The bill should be understood not as a policy misstep, but as a calculated act of class warfare by a government acting as the political arm of capital. What the Bill Contains At the heart of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill lies a multi-pronged effort to deregulate labour protections and entrench power in the hands of employers. There are four major pillars to this legislative shift: The Introduction of a 'Contractor Gateway Test' The Limitation of Personal Grievance Remedies The Repeal of the 30-Day Rule for New Employees The Restoration of Employer Powers to Deduct Wages During Partial Strikes Each of these measures contributes to the erosion of worker autonomy and legal protections, and together they mark a sharp rightward shift in employment law—one that prioritises capital accumulation over dignity, security, or fairness. Institutionalising Insecurity: The Contractor Gateway Test Perhaps the most structurally damaging reform is the introduction of a 'contractor gateway test.' This test is intended to establish a legal presumption that certain workers are not employees, but independent contractors—thereby removing them from the protections afforded under the Employment Relations Act. If a worker meets a checklist of conditions (such as having a written contract stating they are a contractor, having the theoretical ability to work for others, and not being penalised for declining work), they can be categorised as contractors regardless of the actual nature of the work. This change is designed to exploit the legal fiction of contractor 'freedom.' In practice, it will increase precarity for thousands of workers who are functionally dependent on a single employer. Gig economy workers, cleaners, hospitality staff, care workers, and migrant labourers will be among the hardest hit – those least able to negotiate or contest exploitative arrangements. By facilitating this mass misclassification, the state legitimises a race to the bottom. Sick leave, minimum wages, overtime, and holiday pay become luxuries rather than rights. Workers will be rendered atomised economic agents, responsible for their own exploitation. Making Workers the Problem: Personal Grievance Restrictions The bill also proposes restricting workers' ability to raise personal grievances, especially in cases of dismissal. Under ERAB, employers may avoid paying compensation if the dismissed worker is deemed to have contributed to their dismissal through 'serious misconduct.' In other words, the government is offering employers legal leeway to terminate employment while avoiding financial consequences. The bill also excludes workers earning more than $180,000 from being able to raise personal grievances, creating a two-tier system in which legal recourse is determined not by the justice of one's case, but by the size of one's paycheque. These provisions are punitive and ideological. They send a clear message: if a worker is sacked, it is probably their own fault. This is not an attempt to resolve disputes fairly – it is a mechanism of discipline. A demoralised, fearful workforce is a compliant one. Attacking Unionism: Repealing the 30-Day Rule Another key component of ERAB is the repeal of the 30-day rule. Previously, when a worker started a job in a workplace with a collective agreement, they would automatically receive the terms of that agreement for their first 30 days. This protected workers from being picked off and offered worse contracts before they had a chance to join a union or understand their rights. Its repeal will allow employers to immediately undercut collective agreements by offering inferior individual contracts. The aim is not to promote fairness—it is to weaken union density, divide workers, and remove the incentive for employers to negotiate with unions at all. It is a classic tactic of divide and rule. Recriminalising Solidarity: Deductions for Partial Strikes Finally, the bill reintroduces employers' ability to deduct pay for 'partial strike' actions—where workers might refuse specific duties while continuing to perform others. Partial strikes are a form of limited industrial action that allow workers to escalate disputes strategically and carefully. Punishing them with pay cuts is intended to suppress this tactic and reassert managerial authority. This reform is aimed squarely at reasserting capital's power to punish resistance. It also represents a symbolic victory for employers: a return to the draconian provisions of the Employment Contracts Act era. A Longer History of Repression While these reforms are severe, they are not novel. Rather, they follow a decades-long trajectory of neoliberal labour market restructuring in Aotearoa. The 1991 Employment Contracts Act, spearheaded by National's Ruth Richardson, abolished compulsory unionism and national awards, deregulating industrial relations and shifting power dramatically towards employers. This was complemented by the broader economic reforms of the Fourth Labour Government, which introduced market logic into almost every facet of public life, including education, health, and welfare. Since then, no government has meaningfully reversed this trend. The Clark government (1999–2008) offered some mild reversals, and the Sixth Labour Government (2017–2023) introduced the Fair Pay Agreements (since repealed). But the fundamental structure of employer dominance has remained untouched. In this light, ERAB is not a betrayal of some progressive consensus. It is a continuation of the neoliberal project with renewed aggression. Its goal is to further erode the legal terrain on which workers might mount a defence. The State as the Manager of Capital Anarcho-communists have long argued that the state does not function as a neutral arbiter in labour relations. It is the executive committee of the ruling class, managing the conditions under which capital can reproduce itself. It may, at times, offer workers concessions such as welfare payments, labour protections, or health and safety laws, but these are always tactical, not moral. They can be revoked as easily as they are granted, and they are most often granted in the wake of unrest or threat. ERAB illustrates this logic perfectly. Rather than responding to a crisis of productivity or economic necessity, it seeks to pre-emptively disarm the working class in anticipation of future struggle. Its goal is to ensure that capital can extract more surplus value with fewer obstacles. In this sense, the bill is not simply anti-worker—it is anti-democratic, in the truest sense. It aims to suppress the ability of people to determine the conditions of their own labour, and thus their own lives. Resistance: Beyond Legalism, Beyond the State Faced with these developments, many liberal commentators and union leaders have called for legal challenges, electoral change, and lobbying. But anarcho-communists recognise that such strategies are insufficient. The state has already shown its allegiances. No matter which party holds office, workers' rights will be contingent on the approval of capital and its political servants. Instead, we must build resistance from below. That means rejecting the logic of legalism and instead fostering the conditions for direct action and solidarity. This includes: -Rebuilding radical, rank-and-file led unions that are accountable to workers, not party officials. -Organising mutual aid networks to provide material support for striking or sacked workers. -Occupying and collectivising workplaces under threat, with or without legal recognition. Conclusion: No Authority but Ourselves The Employment Relations Amendment Bill is not a detour from democratic principles – it is a confirmation that parliamentary democracy in a capitalist state is a dead end for the working class. It consolidates employer power, undermines unionism, and exposes the state's role as an instrument of class domination. But in this dark moment, there is also clarity. The illusions of social partnership, of progressive government, of justice through legislation are burning away. What remains is the possibility of something else: the possibility of worker self-organisation, of mutual aid, of a society based not on hierarchy or profit, but on solidarity and shared need. We must turn away from begging for better laws and begin building our own power. The road ahead is not easy, but it is ours. And as always, it begins not in Parliament but on the shop floor, in the streets, and in the hearts of those who still believe that another world is possible.
