ACT unveils constitutional policy, quietly shelves failed Treaty Principles Bill

On a Saturday afternoon in late August, the ACT Party unveiled a sweeping constitutional platform that amounts to a strategic pivot from its most contentious recent battle. The policy, released under the title One Law for All with One Future Together, charts a different course on Treaty issues than the one that dominated the party's previous election campaign—notably by abandoning any mention of the Treaty Principles Bill, the referendum proposal that had become the flashpoint of its political identity.

That bill, introduced in November 2024 as part of ACT's coalition agreement with National, had triggered one of the largest protest movements in recent New Zealand history. A hīkoi of tens of thousands descended on Parliament. The bill was voted down at its second reading. The wounds were still fresh when party leader David Seymour stood to announce what comes next. Rather than doubling down on the referendum approach, ACT has reframed the entire conversation around what it calls the problem of vague language in legislation.

The new policy targets what Seymour describes as the imprecision embedded in laws that reference the Treaty without spelling out what those references actually mean. Before any bill containing a Treaty reference is drafted, Cabinet would be required to explicitly agree what Treaty interests are engaged, who they apply to, and what specific obligations they create. Existing laws would be reviewed when amended, with vague or high-level clauses removed. Regulatory Impact Assessments would have to explain what each Treaty clause will actually do in practice—what decisions it changes, what it costs, how it will be enforced. The approach is similar to a review already promised by National and NZ First, but ACT's version goes further, making the process permanent and mandatory rather than discretionary.

The policy also restricts the judicial use of tikanga, the body of Māori customary law and practice. Courts would be prohibited from drawing on tikanga except where Parliament has expressly allowed it, or in cases where it is directly relevant—such as disputes between iwi. Seymour pointed to the 2022 Ellis decision, in which the Supreme Court held that tikanga formed part of New Zealand's common law, as an example of courts pushing beyond what Parliament had legislated. He framed this as judges overstepping their authority, part of what he called the problem of "activist judges" and "wig wearers" imposing their own interpretations on the law.

The platform also adds property rights to the Bill of Rights Act, a change Seymour argued would subject government interference with property to greater judicial scrutiny. New Zealand, he said, is out of step with comparable jurisdictions in not explicitly protecting property rights. The courts would be required to prefer an interpretation of legislation consistent with that right where possible, though the change would not give courts the power to strike down laws outright. Additionally, ACT proposes writing three principles directly into the Constitution Act: that Parliament is sovereign, the rule of law is fundamental, and all New Zealanders are equal before the law.

When asked whether these policies were coalition bottom lines—a question that would determine how aggressively ACT would push them in government—Seymour declined to commit. He noted instead that ACT has already exercised "massively disproportionate influence" on the current government without needing to declare bottom lines. The comment suggests a party confident in its leverage, even as it retreats from the most visible battle of its recent past.

Seymour was also asked directly whether he was risking another hīkoi, another round of strained relations with Māori. His answer was unequivocal: "Truth is always worth a risk." He argued that societies cannot function when the law is uncertain and when unelected judges change the rules without clear justification. If people oppose the policy by marching, he suggested, that is not a reason to abandon it—it is a reason to stand firm. The framing reveals the tension at the heart of ACT's position: it is proposing changes it believes are necessary for legal clarity and economic productivity, while acknowledging that those changes will almost certainly provoke significant opposition from Māori communities and their allies.