ACT releases election Treaty policy - what's in it and what's gone

ACT has released its election policy on constitutional issues, pledging to curb "activist judges", enshrine property rights, among others — but the party's defeated Treaty principles referendum is nowhere to be found.

The policy, titled One Law for All with One Future Together, was released at 1pm.

It sets out measures which include introducing new Constitution Act "principles", inserting property rights into the Bill of Rights Act, restricting when courts can draw on tikanga, and requiring Cabinet to specify what Treaty interests a bill engages before drafting.

ACT's policies on constitutional issues from the last election were thrust into the national spotlight after its coalition deal with National to get the Treaty Principles Bill to a first reading in Parliament attracted some of the largest protests in New Zealand history.

Party leader David Seymour said today that ACT's policy was "about ensuring New Zealanders can move forward under one law for all with one future together," while criticising what he called the "wig wearers" and "lanyard wearers" whom he opposed.

"We won’t unlock New Zealand’s potential while the political and judicial classes experiment on our basic rights," he said.

Watch David Seymour announce the policy here.

“Inventing new legal concepts, dividing us according to some people’s version of history, and trampling our property rights might be fun for wig wearers in court and lanyard wearers in the public service, but all it does for the ordinary person is create uncertainty and frustration.

“ACT believes in freedom under the law. Each of us have an equal right to save, invest and produce, without interference by the political and judicial class.

“Every distraction from these activists means that productive people invest less, produce less, get paid less and find the challenges of their lives all the harder.

“If we want to unlock this country’s potential to be affordable, and even prosperous, we must reinforce the underlying protections for people’s right to save, invest, produce, and be treated the same no matter when their ancestors got here."

The policy does not mention the Treaty Principles Bill, which had been the centrepiece of ACT's election platform on co-governance at the last election.

That policy proposed a Treaty Principles Act followed by a binding referendum.

The bill was introduced in November 2024 under the coalition agreement, drew a hīkoi of tens of thousands to Parliament, and was voted down at its second reading.

Today's policy does not mention the bill or a referendum.

Instead, ACT posited that laws too often used broad phrases such as "give effect to the principles of the Treaty" or "have regard to the principles of the Treaty" "without saying what those words actually require".

“ACT will stop governments writing vague Treaty clauses into law that create uncertainty and leave courts and officials to decide what they mean through divisive interpretations.

“Before any bill containing a reference to the Treaty is drafted, Cabinet will have to explicitly agree what Treaty interests, if any, are engaged, who they apply to, and what specific obligations they create," Seymour said.

Existing Treaty clauses would be reviewed and "any vague or high-level clauses removed" when legislation is amended, according to ACT's policy document.

The proposal is somewhat similar to that in the National and NZ First coalition agreement in the current government for a review of Treaty principles.

But ACT's version would go further and make a process permanent, require clauses to be removed rather than leaving ministers' discretion, and extend the test to new bills.

The document also proposes that Regulatory Impact Assessments explain what each Treaty clause "will actually do in practice, including what decisions it changes, what it costs, and how it will be enforced". ACT said the changes would be made through Cabinet rules, the Cabinet Manual and changes to legislation where needed.

Seymour took aim at the application of tikanga through the judicial process.

"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," he said.

"ACT will make clear that tikanga cannot be used to influence court decisions except where Parliament has expressly allowed for it."

ACT said tikanga should only be used by courts in cases such as disputes between iwi, where it was "directly relevant to the case".

Seymour said recent Supreme Court decisions had "pushed the line further than Parliament ever legislated", naming the 2022 Ellis decision, in which the court held tikanga formed part of New Zealand's common law.

The party would also amend the Legislation Act 2019 so statutes were "read in the context of the time they were passed", and define the rule of law in the Senior Courts Act 2016 to make clear "Parliament has the final say".

It would also add a property right to the Bill of Rights Act, which Seymour said would mean "the Government faces greater scrutiny when interfering with people's property, including allowing courts to declare when legislation is inconsistent with that right".

“As with other rights in the Bill of Rights, courts would be required to interpret legislation so that a meaning consistent with the right must be preferred where possible."

Seymour said property rights had been left out of the Bill of Rights Act and New Zealand was "out of step with many comparable jurisdictions".

"What is the point of working hard, saving, investing, and building something if the Government can take it away without proper justification?"

The policy said the change wouldn't give courts the power to strike down legislation, but would require them to prefer an interpretation consistent with the right where possible.

ACT would also write three "principles" into the Constitution Act — that Parliament was sovereign, the rule of law was fundamental and all Kiwis were equal before the law.

“New Zealand does not have a single written constitution, but we do have important constitutional documents. Aside from the Treaty, signed in 1840, none explicitly sets out the principles that are key to a prosperous and united country," Seymour said.

"These principles are the foundation of a free society and deserve a clear place in New Zealand law in their own right."