ACT has unveiled a wide-ranging constitutional policy aimed at reasserting Parliament's authority over the courts, restricting how tikanga can influence judicial decisions, strengthening private property rights and ending vaguely worded Treaty clauses in legislation. Te Pāti Māori has attacked the proposals as divisive, but the underlying policy raises a much larger constitutional question: who should ultimately make New Zealand law — elected Parliament or the courts interpreting it?
eLocal Report: Based on reporting by RNZ and eLocal's review of ACT's full One Law for All. One Future Together policy, released 23 August 2026.
ACT Wants to Reset the Constitutional Balance
ACT has released a substantial new constitutional policy arguing that New Zealand has allowed courts and officials to acquire too much influence over the development of law.
Party leader David Seymour says the objective is to establish what ACT describes as three fundamental democratic principles:
Parliament is sovereign, the rule of law is fundamental, and all New Zealanders are equal before the law.
ACT proposes inserting those principles directly into the Constitution Act 1986.
The party argues that New Zealand's existing constitutional framework sets out the machinery of government but does not clearly state the fundamental principles on which that government operates.
The proposal is therefore considerably broader than simply another debate about the Treaty of Waitangi.
It addresses four areas:
constitutional principles, property rights, judicial interpretation and Treaty clauses in legislation.
Together they amount to a proposed redistribution of constitutional authority towards Parliament.
Parliament Versus the Courts
The most contentious proposal concerns the judiciary.
ACT argues that recent Supreme Court decisions have developed tikanga and Treaty principles beyond what Parliament expressly enacted.
Seymour told RNZ:
“Parliament is elected, judges are not.”
ACT specifically identifies Smith v Fonterra, the Marine and Coastal Area cases and Ellis as examples of the evolving relationship between Parliament, common law and tikanga.
The policy says courts have an essential role interpreting and applying legislation but argues that the balance is lost when judges create legal duties Parliament never enacted.
ACT therefore proposes amending the Legislation Act 2019 so statutes are interpreted according to what Parliament enacted and in the context in which they were passed.
Judge-made presumptions could still resolve ambiguity.
They could not, under ACT's proposal, override clear statutory language.
The party also proposes defining the “rule of law” in the Senior Courts Act 2016 to establish explicitly that law should be certain and Parliament has the final say.
That is an important distinction.
ACT is not proposing abolishing judicial interpretation.
It is proposing to legislate boundaries around it.
Tikanga Would Be Restricted
ACT's proposal would also establish clearer statutory boundaries around the use of tikanga Māori by the courts.
Its starting position is that tikanga should apply where it is directly relevant to a dispute — ACT gives a dispute between iwi as an example — or where Parliament has expressly provided for its application.
What ACT opposes is tikanga progressively developing into what it describes as a separate source of law across unrelated areas without Parliament expressly deciding that should occur.
Seymour argues the Supreme Court's decision in Ellis demonstrated how far that process could develop.
The constitutional question underneath the political argument is significant.
New Zealand has no single entrenched written constitution comparable with the United States.
Its constitutional system instead combines legislation, parliamentary convention, common law, judicial interpretation and constitutional practice.
ACT's proposal would deliberately strengthen one component of that system:
the authority of the elected Parliament.
A New Property Right
Less prominent in the political reaction, but potentially just as consequential, is ACT's proposal to amend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
ACT wants property rights explicitly protected.
The proposed protection would draw on overseas models and include peaceful enjoyment of property and protection against deprivation except in the public interest, on just terms and according to law.
ACT argues that property rights extend beyond the Government physically taking someone's land.
Regulation can also substantially reduce a property's value or restrict its use.
Putting property rights into NZBORA would require governments to justify such interference more clearly.
However, the proposal would not allow courts to strike down Acts of Parliament.
Instead, courts would be required, where possible, to prefer interpretations consistent with the property right, broadly following the existing structure of NZBORA rights.
This could have consequences well beyond residential property.
Farms, businesses, environmental regulation, planning restrictions, infrastructure projects and government acquisition of land could potentially be affected.
The practical significance would ultimately depend on the precise wording enacted by Parliament and how courts subsequently interpreted it.
ACT Targets Vague Treaty Clauses
The fourth component directly addresses Treaty clauses in legislation.
ACT argues Parliament has repeatedly enacted broad requirements such as:
“give effect to the principles of the Treaty”
or
“have regard to the principles of the Treaty”
without defining exactly what those obligations require.
That ambiguity, ACT argues, transfers effective decision-making from Parliament to public officials and courts after legislation has been passed.
The party proposes changing the process before legislation reaches Parliament.
Before a Bill referring to the Treaty is drafted, Cabinet would have to explicitly identify:
which Treaty interests are engaged;
who those interests apply to;
and what specific obligations they create.
When existing legislation is amended or replaced, those interests would also have to be specifically identified.
ACT proposes removing vague high-level Treaty clauses and requiring Regulatory Impact Assessments to explain what each remaining provision actually does, including which decisions it changes, what it costs and how it will be enforced.
That last requirement could prove particularly significant.
It would turn Treaty clauses from broad statements of principle into provisions whose practical consequences are supposed to be identifiable before legislation is enacted.
Te Pāti Māori Rejects the Proposal
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngārewa-Packer strongly rejected ACT's approach.
Speaking to RNZ, she compared it with ACT's earlier Treaty Principles Bill and pointed to the Hikoi mō Te Tiriti protests as evidence of public opposition.
She said:
“What we should be doing is having a government and parties that indicate their willingness to take the country forward and not have this nonsense.”
Ngārewa-Packer accused Seymour of “dog whistling” and creating a problem that does not exist.
She challenged ACT to identify examples where Treaty considerations had prevented access to a house, farm or public space.
“Māori are not in the way of the progress of Aotearoa.”
That response highlights the political divide surrounding the proposal.
But it does not resolve the constitutional questions ACT is raising.
What Would Actually Change?
Stripped of the political rhetoric from both sides, ACT is proposing four identifiable changes.
First, Parliament's sovereignty, equality before the law and the rule of law would be expressly written into the Constitution Act.
Second, property rights would enter the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Third, Parliament would impose statutory boundaries on judicial interpretation and the circumstances in which tikanga can influence decisions.
Fourth, governments would have to define the intended meaning and practical consequences of Treaty provisions before putting them into legislation.
These are measurable proposals.
If enacted, it would therefore be possible to assess whether they actually produce the certainty ACT promises.
The Constitutional Question
The dispute also exposes an unusual characteristic of New Zealand government.
Parliament is generally regarded as sovereign.
Yet legislation inevitably requires interpretation.
When Parliament passes deliberately broad language, courts must determine what that language means when real disputes arrive before them.
That means ACT's criticism of judicial expansion cannot be separated entirely from Parliament's own drafting practices.
Indeed, ACT's policy acknowledges this.
It says courts are often responding to unclear legislation or parliamentary silence when they issue decisions that substantially change how the law is understood.
In that sense, one of the most consequential elements of the proposal may not be restricting judges.
It may be forcing Parliament itself to be more precise.
If politicians intend a Treaty obligation, ACT's model says they should define it and accept democratic responsibility for it rather than leaving officials and judges to establish its practical meaning later.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
Fundamentally.
This is not simply another Treaty policy.
If implemented in full, ACT's proposal would affect the constitutional relationship between Parliament, the judiciary, property owners, Māori customary law and the Treaty of Waitangi.
Those changes could eventually influence decisions involving land, regulation, resource management, iwi interests, commercial disputes and government power.
They could also generate new litigation.
Writing principles such as property rights and the rule of law into legislation does not eliminate judicial interpretation.
Courts would still have to determine what those rights mean when individual cases arise.
That creates an interesting tension within ACT's own proposal.
The party wants to restrict judicial expansion while simultaneously introducing a new statutory property right that judges themselves would inevitably have to interpret.
Current Relevance
The immediate issue is political.
ACT has released the policy ahead of the election, meaning voters can assess an unusually concrete constitutional programme rather than a general statement of principle.
But several implementation questions remain unanswered in the three-page policy.
It does not specify the exact legislative wording of the proposed Constitution Act amendments.
It provides the intended model for property rights but not a draft NZBORA amendment.
Nor does it establish a detailed transition mechanism for existing Treaty clauses across New Zealand's statute book.
Those details would matter enormously.
Long-Term Relevance
If ACT secured sufficient parliamentary support to implement the programme, the consequences could extend well beyond a single term of government.
The Constitution Act, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, Legislation Act and Senior Courts Act sit close to the foundations of New Zealand's constitutional arrangements.
Changing all four areas together could materially alter how future governments, officials and courts approach legislation.
The key measures should therefore be established before implementation.
Does litigation decrease?
Do Regulatory Impact Assessments identify the costs and consequences of Treaty provisions?
Does stronger property protection materially change government regulation?
Do courts apply tikanga differently?
And do the reforms create greater legal certainty — or simply produce a new generation of constitutional litigation?
Those are outcomes voters could eventually measure.
Historic Relevance
The argument reaches back to one of the oldest questions in representative government:
Who makes the law?
New Zealand's answer has traditionally been Parliament — but within a constitutional system in which courts interpret legislation and develop common law.
ACT believes that boundary has moved.
Its opponents believe the evolution of tikanga and Treaty jurisprudence is a legitimate development of New Zealand law and constitutional identity.
That is the substantive debate beneath the political language.
The electorate is therefore being offered more than another argument over Treaty principles.
It is being offered a choice about where constitutional authority should sit.
And if ACT wants Parliament to reclaim that authority, an equally important principle follows:
Parliament must also accept responsibility for saying precisely what its laws mean.
Sources
RNZ — ACT Party takes aim at 'activist judges', Treaty of Waitangi clauses
ACT New Zealand — One Law for All. One Future Together — 23 August 2026
Read ACT's full policy HERE
Independent reporting. Original context. Credited sources.