Summarised by Centrist
ACT leader David Seymour says he has no objection to Māori customary rights, but believes judges have expanded their application beyond what Parliament intended.
His criticism centres on who should make the law: elected politicians or unelected judges.
Seymour has accused courts of allowing tikanga Māori, or customary practices, to influence areas of law where Parliament never expressly authorised their use.
ACT's proposed constitutional reforms would make clear that Parliament is sovereign, the rule of law is fundamental and all New Zealanders are equal before the law.
The party also wants to restrict courts from applying tikanga unless legislation specifically permits it or it is directly relevant to a case.
Seymour has cited the Supreme Court's handling of the Peter Ellis case as an example of judicial overreach, arguing that tikanga was introduced into a case where it had not traditionally applied.
“Parliament is elected. Judges are not,” Seymour said when announcing the policy in August.
ACT would also amend legislation governing statutory interpretation, strengthen property rights and require governments to spell out the meaning of Treaty clauses rather than leave their interpretation to the courts.
Critics, including legal academics, argue that developing common law is a normal judicial function and that portraying judges as activists overlooks Parliament's existing power to change the law.
Image: Glenn Davies
Re-published from the Centrist with permission
