The release of party policy by David Seymour at the weekend showed ACT completely understands the wants, needs and desires of those on the right of politics. Not only was the policy itself impressive but David was too. Of all the party leaders, David is the best at enunciating clearly what the purpose of the policy is and why it is needed. There is no ambiguity about where the party stands on any given issue. Clear direction and choice is given to voters, especially those who might be still undecided when it comes to casting their vote.
The weekend policy release was about ‘one law for all, one future together’. This is precisely what those on the right thought they were voting for at the last election but have subsequently been let down by what has been done which is of a wishy-washy nature and has not tackled the major problems and issues regarding race relations in this country. In some cases certain components have been removed from one piece of legislation only to be returned in a slightly different form somewhere else. This is no more than tinkering around the edges.
David is echoing concerns we all have. The overreach of the judiciary, the insertion of Māori custom where it doesn’t apply and ensuring the country operates under a principle of one nation with laws reflecting that. David says the policy reflects the concerns expressed by many New Zealanders that democracy and the rule of law have become shaky. “Parliament makes a law and then the judiciary take it upon themselves to make another law in its place.”
He gives an example of Three Strikes, where the judiciary decided, on multiple occasions, that parliament didn’t really mean Three Strikes and took it upon themselves to side with the guilty, rather than the victim. “The changes to the Constitution Act, the Bill of Rights, the Legislation Act and the Senior Courts Act are a coordinated set of policies to put the people, the parliament and the rule of law back front and centre so people can have certainty what the law means, will not have their property rights eroded and will be treated equally with one law for all and one future together.”
David says ACT will be campaigning to add to the Constitution Act that parliament is sovereign. Also ACT wants to add that the rule of law is fundamental. These moves are designed to rein in the judiciary and prevent them from putting their own interpretation on laws passed by parliament. The courts will also be told there is one law for all. These decisions will allow New Zealanders to challenge laws and practices that do not accord with the fundamental rights of New Zealanders to own property, to be equal and for their parliament they elect to be sovereign. The courts will be told parliament makes the laws and it is not for them to add their interpretation.
The Bill of Rights will have property rights inserted into it. The Senior Courts Act and the Legislation Act will be amended to make it clear to the courts we do not believe it is up to them to legislate from the bench. “We would make it clear that parliament is the one that must be listened to when the law is interpreted and the context at the time the law was made, not when the courts decided that they could take into account their own reference and change the meaning of the law later on.” The party wants to ensure that tikanga was applied only where it was relevant. David describes the courts uses of it in some cases as “judicial activism of the highest order”.
ACT would have the Treaty clauses made properly through parliament’s and cabinet’s processes. “At present the statute books are littered with vague references to honouring the Treaty and giving effect to the Treaty. All of these different legal constructs have been lazily added to the statute books over the last 20 years, leaving a wide array of interpretations open to the courts. These changes are designed to restore confidence and certainty that New Zealanders know what the law is and can predict how it will be interpreted by the courts.
This is all sensible and both NZ First and National should have no problem agreeing with it. This is essentially what those on the right have been asking for: a clean-up of judicial activism and a better application of Treaty references and their interpretation by the judiciary. This has the potential to take further votes from National, weakening it still further. It beggars belief that National itself is not taking the lead in these matters. Instead they are now flip-flopping over the introduction of a bed tax.
David articulates the party’s position very clearly and the reasons given show it to be a well-thought-out policy. There is no doubt it will receive the support of many on the right, who will see it as a step in the right direction. Many will want more to be done.
