What ACT's new plan to change how judges and the Treaty work would actually do
The ACT Party has released a plan to change how judges do their job and how the Treaty of Waitangi is used in law. The party says some judges have gone too far, and it wants Parliament to have the final say. (RNZ)
Party leader David Seymour said the policy is about equality. "Ensuring New Zealanders can move forward under one law for all with one future together," he said. The announcement follows a pledge Seymour made on 16 December 2025 to bring the Treaty principles debate back in 2026, saying he would never give up on his vision for it. (Te Ao News) Seymour had previously argued that "activist judges and bureaucrats" had "twisted" the Treaty of Waitangi principles. (Law News)
The main idea is to add three principles to the Constitution Act 1986: that Parliament is the top authority, that the rule of law matters, and that all New Zealanders are equal before the law.
Another key part is about tikanga, which is Māori custom. Seymour said recent Supreme Court decisions had gone further than Parliament ever intended. He pointed to Parliament pushing back in the Smith v Fonterra and Marine and Coastal Area cases, but not in the Ellis case, where the Supreme Court expanded how tikanga is used in law. ACT wants to make clear that tikanga cannot influence court decisions unless Parliament has specifically allowed it.
The policy also targets how judges interpret laws. ACT wants to amend the Legislation Act 2019 so that laws are read based on what they meant when they were passed. Judges could clear up confusion but not override the actual words of a law.
ACT also wants to stop governments from writing vague Treaty clauses into law. These are clauses that mention the Treaty of Waitangi but don't spell out exactly what they mean, leaving courts and officials to figure it out. Under the proposal, any bill referring to the Treaty would need Cabinet to agree which interests are involved, who they apply to, and what obligations they create.
The broader context is that these changes touch on some big constitutional questions at the same time. New Zealand's Constitution Act 1986 is not locked in — it can be changed by ordinary legislation, like any other law. So even if these principles were added, whether a future Parliament would treat them as binding or just as a statement of values is something the policy doesn't address.
The tikanga restriction is the part most likely to get pushback from lawyers and judges. The Supreme Court's decision in Ellis v R, which recognised tikanga as part of New Zealand law where relevant, was seen by the bench and legal academics as a careful, step-by-step change. Restricting its use to only where Parliament has specifically allowed it would move authority over tikanga's role in law from the courts to Parliament. That is a change to the balance of power between judges and politicians, not just a disagreement about outcomes.
The Legislation Act proposal is also worth a closer look. The current law already tells courts to interpret legislation based on its text and purpose. What ACT is proposing seems to narrow that further by tying a law's meaning to the time it was passed, which would limit interpretations that take account of how society has changed.
The Treaty clause mechanism would mean Cabinet has to sign off on exactly what a Treaty reference means before a bill goes forward. Treaty references in legislation have historically ranged from broad statements to detailed rules. This proposal would standardise that process early on.
For those watching from the Press Gallery, the fact that this policy revisits Treaty principles territory that was politically difficult for ACT last term is notable. Seymour's December 2025 commitment to bring the debate back was clear, and this package is more detailed than the earlier Treaty Principles Bill. Whether National would consider any of these proposals in coalition talks after the 2026 election is the political question that now sits alongside the constitutional ones.
