ACT has unveiled its election policy on constitutional issues, pledging to protect democratic values and property rights while curbing what leader David Seymour called "activist judges." The policy, titled "One Law for All with One Future Together," was released at 1pm and includes measures to add three principles to the Constitution Act, insert property rights into the Bill of Rights Act, and restrict when courts can consider Māori tikanga (custom).
Seymour said the policy was "about ensuring New Zealanders can move forward under one law for all with one future together." He criticised what he described as "wig wearers" in court and "lanyard wearers" in the public service, saying, "We won't unlock New Zealand's potential while the political and judicial classes experiment on our basic rights."
A key element of the policy is to add three principles to the Constitution Act: Parliament sovereignty, the rule of law, and equality before the law. Seymour argued that aside from the Treaty, no document outlined the country's core principles, adding, "These principles are the foundation of a free society and deserve a clear place in New Zealand law in their own right."
The policy also proposes adding a property rights clause to the Bill of Rights Act 1990, which ACT said would be "modelled on similar clauses from other jurisdictions," including some states in Australia and European countries. The clause would include "the peaceful enjoyment of property" and no deprivation except in the public interest, on just terms, and in accordance with law.
The property rights change would not give courts the power to strike down legislation, but would require them to prefer interpretations consistent with the right where possible.
The party raised concerns about recent Supreme Court decisions, citing the Smith v Fonterra and Marine and Coastal Area Act cases as having "pushed the line further than Parliament ever legislated." It also referenced the Supreme Court allowing the appeal of Peter Ellis's historical sexual offending convictions to continue after Ellis's death due to considerations of tikanga.
ACT intends to pass a law clarifying how courts can consider tikanga, saying it should only apply when "directly relevant to the case" or where Parliament has "expressly provided for it." Seymour said, "We cannot allow tikanga to become a separate source of law applying to broad areas of unrelated law without Parliament ever deciding that it should."
The policy would amend the Legislation Act 2019 to ensure statutes are read in the context of the time they were passed, allowing judges to resolve ambiguity but not override statutory language. It would also define the "rule of law" in the Senior Courts Act 2016 to make clear that Parliament has the final say.
Any bill referring to the Waitangi Treaty would require Cabinet to agree which interests were engaged, who they apply to, and what obligations they created. The policy would also require Regulatory Impact Assessments to explain what each Treaty clause will do in practice, including what decisions it changes, what it costs, and how it will be enforced. Existing Treaty clauses would be reviewed when an existing law was being changed or replaced, and any vague or high-level clauses removed when legislation is amended.
Notably, the policy does not mention the Treaty Principles Bill or a referendum, which had been the centrepiece of ACT's previous election platform. The Treaty Principles Bill, introduced in November 2024, drew a hīkoi of tens of thousands to Parliament and was voted down at its second reading. National leader Christopher Luxon has said he would not support another iteration of the bill.
Seymour named the 2022 Ellis decision as an example of the Supreme Court "pushing the line further than Parliament ever legislated." When asked about risking another hīkoi, he said, "truth is always worth a risk."
A party spokesman said legal experts were consulted in the development of the policy, but he could not disclose who they were without permission.
Seymour also said ACT had a "massively disproportionate influence" on the government without needing to make policies bottom lines.