ACT New Zealand – Party Overview
Last updated: 3 August 2026
ACT New Zealand is a right-wing, classical-liberal political party that advocates for limited government, lower taxation, individual responsibility, private enterprise, property rights and reduced regulation.
The party is led by David Seymour, the MP for Epsom and current Deputy Prime Minister.
ACT has been represented in Parliament continuously since 1996. Its political influence increased substantially at the 2023 General Election, after which it entered a coalition Government with National and New Zealand First.
ACT’s transport and infrastructure position is closely connected to its wider economic philosophy.
The party generally argues that transport investment should:
Follow clear economic demand.
Be funded more directly by users and beneficiaries.
Make greater use of private capital.
Be planned beyond the three-year electoral cycle.
Be protected from repeated political cancellation.
Give local communities clearer decision-making authority.
Reduce unnecessary compliance and consenting delays.
Focus on maintenance, value for money and measurable delivery.
ACT supports road construction, electronic road pricing, tolling and public-private partnerships. It is also a strong supporter of reforming the Resource Management Act and creating longer-term infrastructure agreements between central government and regions.
Compared with National, ACT is generally more willing to rely on direct user charges and private investment to fund infrastructure.
Compared with Labour and the Green Party, ACT places less emphasis on public ownership, transport subsidies and government-directed mode shift.
ACT argues that government should create clear rules, protect competition and allow transport investment to respond more directly to demand.
As a coalition party, ACT’s current transport position must be assessed in two parts:
Policies ACT has formally announced or previously campaigned on.
Policies and reforms it has secured or influenced through the coalition Government.
ACT has now released one specific 2026 election transport commitment involving rural school buses. Its wider 2026 transport manifesto is still developing.
Leadership and Key People
Party Leadership
Hon David Seymour – Leader of ACT New Zealand, MP for Epsom, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Regulation.
Hon Brooke van Velden – ACT MP for Tāmaki and Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and Internal Affairs.
David Seymour has led ACT since 2014 and has been the principal figure behind the party’s growth and expansion.
As Minister for Regulation, Seymour has led a wider programme aimed at reviewing government rules, reducing compliance costs and requiring stronger analysis of the effect of regulation on personal freedom, property rights and economic activity. (act.org.nz)
Brooke van Velden has served as ACT’s deputy leader and remains a senior minister in the coalition Government. She announced in March 2026 that she would not seek re-election, creating an eventual vacancy in ACT’s parliamentary leadership after the election. (act.org.nz)
Transport Leadership
Cameron Luxton – ACT spokesperson for Transport, Infrastructure, Local Government, Housing, Building and Construction, Environment and Conservation.
Luxton is ACT’s formal transport spokesperson.
His portfolio combination links transport with:
Housing growth.
Local-government decision-making.
Infrastructure provision.
Building regulation.
Environmental planning.
Urban and regional development.
Before entering Parliament, Luxton worked as a licensed builder and dairy farmer. ACT presents that background as giving him a practical perspective on construction costs, regional access, regulation and local infrastructure. (act.org.nz)
Infrastructure Leadership
Simon Court – ACT spokesperson for Infrastructure, Energy and Resources and Climate Change.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister responsible for RMA Reform.
Court is a civil and environmental engineer with experience in consulting, contracting and local government.
He has been closely involved in:
Public-private partnership reform.
Market-led infrastructure proposals.
Infrastructure funding and financing.
RMA replacement.
Long-term infrastructure planning.
Asset management.
Private investment.
Energy infrastructure.
Court should be described as ACT’s principal infrastructure specialist, while Cameron Luxton remains the party’s formal transport spokesperson. (act.org.nz)
Rural Transport and School Buses
Hon Andrew Hoggard – ACT MP and minister with a strong focus on rural communities and primary industries.
Hoggard announced ACT’s first significant standalone transport commitment for the 2026 election: an Open Seat Rule for rural school buses.
His involvement reflects the way transport responsibilities can extend beyond the formal Transport portfolio, particularly where school access, rural communities and education policy overlap.
ACT’s Transport and Infrastructure Direction
ACT’s transport and infrastructure approach can be grouped into several broad themes:
User-pays transport funding.
Tolling and electronic road pricing.
Private capital and public-private partnerships.
Thirty-year infrastructure planning.
Stronger central-local agreements.
Reduced consenting and regulatory barriers.
Local democratic accountability.
Greater use of existing infrastructure and capacity.
Competition and market-led delivery.
Stronger maintenance and asset-management discipline.
These principles have been consistent across several election cycles.
The main question for 2026 is which earlier policies ACT will carry forward unchanged and which will be updated as a result of its experience in government.
Current Coalition Programme Versus ACT Election Policy
ACT has influenced several major coalition reforms, including:
Replacing petrol excise with electronic road-user charges.
Reversing selected speed-limit reductions.
Developing time-of-use charging legislation.
Restructuring Auckland transport governance.
Developing a 30-year National Infrastructure Plan.
Establishing City and Regional Deals.
Refreshing the public-private partnership framework.
Reforming infrastructure funding and financing.
Replacing the Resource Management Act.
Reducing temporary traffic-management costs.
Repealing the Clean Car Discount.
Increasing the focus on local-government accountability.
These are current government policies or coalition achievements.
They are not automatically the same as ACT’s final 2026 election manifesto.
ACT’s own campaign platform may seek to move further or faster than the National-led Government, particularly in areas such as private finance, government spending, user charges, deregulation and local-government reform.
Confirmed 2026 Policy: Rural School Bus Open Seat Rule
On 5 May 2026, ACT announced an election commitment to introduce an Open Seat Rule for rural school buses.
Under the proposal, any child living along an existing school-bus route would be able to use an available seat, regardless of whether the child attends the nearest eligible school.
ACT argues that the current system can result in school buses passing children while carrying empty seats because those children do not meet Ministry of Education eligibility requirements.
The party’s position is that where:
The bus is already operating.
A safe seat is available.
The child lives along the existing route.
The service does not require an immediate additional vehicle.
the child should be allowed to travel.
ACT says the policy would generally use existing capacity and would therefore require little additional spending in many cases.
Where routes become full, ACT proposes funding additional buses from within the Ministry of Education’s existing budget by redirecting spending from administration and other areas. (act.org.nz)
Why the Open Seat Rule Matters
School-bus eligibility is generally based on distance, age, school enrolment and whether a student attends the nearest appropriate school.
Those rules are intended to manage costs and prevent unlimited expansion of taxpayer-funded services.
However, rural families can face situations where:
An existing bus passes their property.
The bus has spare seats.
The child is not eligible because the family selected a different school.
A parent must drive behind or alongside the same bus route.
ACT presents the Open Seat Rule as a way to reduce waste without redesigning the entire school-transport system.
Questions About Implementation
The principle is straightforward, but implementation would require detailed rules.
Questions include:
Would eligible students retain priority over open-seat passengers?
What happens when a route reaches capacity?
Would open-seat access be free?
Would parents need to register children in advance?
Who would maintain emergency and passenger records?
Could extra stops be added?
How would longer journey times be managed?
Would operators receive additional payments?
Who would fund additional vehicles?
Would the policy apply to urban school routes?
Would privately contracted or parent-funded routes be included?
What happens if demand changes during the school year?
ACT’s announcement establishes the policy direction but does not yet provide the full operational framework.
Long-Term Infrastructure Planning
ACT has advocated for 30-year infrastructure planning since before entering government.
The party argues that New Zealand’s three-year political cycle is too short for major projects that can take decades to plan, consent, finance, construct and operate.
Frequent changes of government can result in:
Projects being announced and later cancelled.
Business cases being repeated.
Land and design work becoming obsolete.
Contractors losing confidence.
Construction-sector capacity moving overseas.
Costs rising before work begins.
Councils and developers being unable to plan with certainty.
ACT supports a longer-term framework involving central government, local authorities, infrastructure agencies and private investors.
The independent National Infrastructure Plan released in February 2026 takes a 30-year view of New Zealand’s infrastructure needs.
In June 2026, the Government formally supported all 16 recommendations, with three supported in principle pending further work.
ACT infrastructure spokesperson Simon Court described the plan as advancing principles the party had promoted for several years: long-term planning, disciplined investment, improved maintenance and prioritising projects according to national need and affordability. (act.org.nz)
The Government response includes:
A review of the land-transport funding system.
Long-term investment plans for government agencies and Crown entities.
Stronger asset-management reporting.
Better infrastructure-project assurance.
Greater coordination between fiscal planning and infrastructure needs.
Improved national infrastructure data. (beehive.govt.nz)
Infrastructure Discipline
ACT’s infrastructure position is not simply that more should be built.
The party argues that governments need to:
Identify what they already own.
Maintain existing assets properly.
Publish realistic long-term plans.
Prioritise projects before announcing them.
Disclose full costs and risks.
Use the most appropriate delivery model.
Avoid designing projects beyond what communities need.
Measure whether projects achieve promised outcomes.
Simon Court has used smaller local projects, including the delayed replacement of the Burnside Bridge in Central Hawke’s Bay, to argue that infrastructure costs can grow because councils and agencies overdesign projects, apply excessive standards or struggle to select practical alternatives. (act.org.nz)
The broader ACT argument is that New Zealand’s infrastructure deficit is not caused only by insufficient spending. It is also caused by slow planning, poor maintenance, risk aversion, repeated consultation and weak accountability.
City and Regional Deals
ACT has promoted long-term agreements between central government and regions since at least 2019.
The model involves central and local government agreeing on:
Long-term growth objectives.
Major infrastructure priorities.
Housing development.
Transport investment.
Funding responsibilities.
Project sequencing.
Performance measures.
ACT argues these agreements can reduce the risk of projects being abandoned after elections and provide stronger certainty for councils, developers and investors.
City and Regional Deals formed part of the National–ACT coalition agreement.
In May 2026, the Government signed a long-term deal with Western Bay of Plenty councils. The agreement covers growth, housing, infrastructure and regional development and follows an earlier agreement involving Auckland. (beehive.govt.nz)
ACT described the Western Bay of Plenty agreement as its policy being put into practice, particularly because it creates a longer-term relationship between central government and councils rather than relying solely on individual Budget announcements. (act.org.nz)
Potential Benefits
Regional deals may provide:
Greater long-term certainty.
Better coordination between housing and transport.
Clearer responsibility.
More predictable project pipelines.
Stronger local input.
New funding and financing models.
Potential Risks
Questions remain about:
Whether agreements will survive changes of government.
How projects will be selected.
Whether smaller regions will have equal negotiating power.
How public consultation will operate.
Whether councils could take on excessive financial risk.
How obligations will be enforced.
Whether central government can commit future governments to long-term spending.
Public-Private Partnerships
ACT strongly supports using public-private partnerships where they can deliver infrastructure more efficiently.
Under a PPP, a private consortium may:
Design the project.
Finance construction.
Build the asset.
Maintain it.
Operate part of the service.
Receive long-term government or user payments.
The asset generally remains publicly controlled or returns fully to the Crown under the contract.
ACT argues that PPPs can introduce:
Private capital.
Commercial discipline.
Better risk allocation.
Whole-of-life maintenance.
Stronger performance incentives.
Greater delivery certainty.
International expertise.
Simon Court has played a direct government role in refreshing New Zealand’s PPP framework.
The Government released a revised framework in November 2024 and updated the associated guidance in December 2025.
The revised approach seeks to improve risk allocation, reduce bid costs, make affordability tests more realistic and strengthen collaboration and dispute management. (beehive.govt.nz)
ACT has also promoted:
Strategic leasing.
Market-led proposals.
Infrastructure special-purpose vehicles.
Private tolling concessions.
Direct investment from domestic and international capital.
These models are intended to expand the range of projects that can proceed beyond what the Crown can fund immediately through taxation and borrowing. (act.org.nz)
PPPs Do Not Remove Public Cost
Private finance can change when and how government pays for infrastructure.
It does not make the project free.
Private investors expect a return, and payments may ultimately come from:
Government availability payments.
Road tolls.
Property levies.
User charges.
Long-term service contracts.
Revenue generated by the asset.
The relevant test is whether the private model provides better whole-of-life value and risk management than conventional government procurement.
Transport 2026 will continue to examine:
Financing costs.
Contract transparency.
Risk transferred to the private sector.
Risk retained by the Crown.
Long-term payment obligations.
Maintenance standards.
Public access.
Project performance.
ACT’s Road Policy
Roads remain central to ACT’s transport position.
The party argues that roads are essential for:
Freight.
Commuting.
Construction.
Farming.
Tourism.
Emergency response.
Regional access.
Public transport.
Economic productivity.
ACT generally supports major road construction where there is demonstrated demand and a credible funding mechanism.
Its disagreement with governments has often been less about which roads are desirable and more about how projects are planned, financed and delivered.
Toll Roads
ACT’s most detailed toll-road policy was released before the 2023 election.
The policy proposed:
Thirty-year regional infrastructure plans.
Identification of roads the Government could afford to build.
Private investment in additional roads.
Private design, construction and operation.
Toll collection over a defined period.
Eventual transfer of the asset back to the Crown.
ACT argued that this model would allow communities to choose between waiting for a publicly funded road or receiving a new toll road sooner. (act.org.nz)
The proposal remains relevant because it aligns with ACT’s current support for PPPs, user pays and tolling concessions.
However, it should be identified as a 2023 election policy until ACT confirms its final form for 2026.
Questions About Tolling
A larger toll-road network would raise questions about:
Whether a free alternative route must remain.
How toll rates would be regulated.
Whether charges could rise over time.
Who would carry demand risk.
Whether commercial vehicles would pay more.
Whether public transport would be exempt.
How privacy would be protected.
Whether overseas investors could own concessions.
What happens if a private road operator fails.
How contracts would be disclosed.
Whether projects would have proceeded without tolling.
ACT’s position is that people should have the option of paying for earlier access to improved roads.
Critics may argue that tolling can create a two-tier transport system or place greater costs on people who have limited travel alternatives.
Electronic Road Pricing and Road-User Charges
ACT supports shifting road funding away from petrol excise and toward electronic road-user charges.
The party argues that petrol excise is increasingly unfair and outdated because:
Diesel vehicles already pay RUC.
Electric vehicles pay RUC.
Fuel-efficient petrol vehicles contribute less per kilometre.
Petrol purchased for boats, machinery and off-road use can include road tax.
Fuel consumption is becoming a less reliable measure of road use.
The coalition Government has begun the process of moving approximately 3.5 million light vehicles toward electronic RUC based on distance and vehicle weight.
Transport Minister Chris Bishop has described the transition as the largest change to road funding in around 50 years. (beehive.govt.nz)
ACT has presented this as a coalition commitment it helped secure.
Cameron Luxton has also argued that removing petrol excise would end the situation where people pay road tax on fuel used in boats, lawnmowers, farm machinery and other off-road equipment. (act.org.nz)
Potential Benefits of Electronic RUC
A fleet-wide RUC system could:
Charge more directly for road use.
Treat different fuel types consistently.
Provide more stable road revenue.
Allow digital payment.
Reduce the need for paper RUC labels.
Support flexible payment options.
Make road funding less dependent on petrol consumption.
Unresolved Questions
The final system will need to address:
Privacy.
Data collection.
Administrative fees.
Payment in advance or arrears.
Vehicle weight.
Electric vehicles.
Commercial fleets.
Rural travel.
Foreign and rental vehicles.
Fraud and enforcement.
Private service providers.
Whether charges vary according to location or time.
Whether road pricing and RUC could overlap.
ACT’s final 2026 position should explain how far it would take electronic road pricing beyond the current coalition programme.
Time-of-Use Charging and Congestion Pricing
ACT has supported electronic road pricing as a way to manage congestion and fund infrastructure.
The party argues that road space is limited and that travel demand can be managed more efficiently by charging more at congested times and locations.
ACT supported government work on time-of-use charging through the coalition programme.
The enabling legislation allows councils and NZTA to propose charging schemes, subject to consultation and central-government approval.
No nationwide charge is automatically created by the legislation.
Individual schemes would still need to define:
The charging area.
Operating hours.
Vehicle classes.
Exemptions.
Enforcement.
Revenue use.
Privacy protections.
Available transport alternatives.
ACT’s general position is that revenue should be connected to improved transport outcomes rather than disappearing into general government spending.
Important questions remain about fairness.
People who cannot change their work hours, work from home or use public transport may have fewer options to avoid a charge.
The effectiveness of congestion pricing will depend partly on whether people have practical alternatives and whether the revenue is visibly reinvested in the affected network.
Road Maintenance and Asset Management
ACT argues that governments and councils often prioritise new announcements while failing to maintain existing infrastructure adequately.
The party supports:
Better long-term asset information.
Published maintenance plans.
Whole-of-life project costing.
Stronger performance measures.
Greater accountability for asset condition.
Competition in maintenance delivery.
Practical rather than overdesigned solutions.
The National Infrastructure Plan’s emphasis on asset management closely aligns with ACT’s position.
New Zealand has historically spent a high proportion of national income on infrastructure while achieving comparatively weak asset-management and delivery outcomes.
ACT argues that better information and incentives may improve results without requiring every problem to be solved through additional taxation.
Temporary Traffic Management
ACT has supported reducing the cost and disruption associated with temporary traffic management.
From 1 July 2026, councils seeking national transport funding are expected to use a more risk-based approach rather than applying the same level of cones, closures and traffic-management equipment to every worksite.
ACT says NZTA reduced temporary traffic-management spending by approximately $46 million in the previous financial year while maintaining worksite safety. (act.org.nz)
The policy reflects a wider ACT principle: regulation should be proportionate to actual risk.
The practical test will be whether reduced temporary traffic-management costs are achieved without increasing danger to:
Road workers.
Drivers.
Cyclists.
Pedestrians.
Residents.
Contractors.
Speed Limits and Road Safety
ACT campaigned against what it described as blanket speed-limit reductions.
The National–ACT coalition agreement included a commitment to reverse selected reductions imposed under the previous Government.
A new speed-limit rule requires specified roads reduced since 2020 to return to their former limits, while introducing variable lower limits around schools during arrival and departure times.
ACT argues that lower speeds should be targeted at locations where they are justified by risk rather than broadly applied across entire networks.
Cameron Luxton has described travel time as an economic and quality-of-life issue and welcomed the restoration of higher limits on selected roads. (act.org.nz)
Supporters argue the policy restores common sense and recognises the cost of slower travel.
Critics argue that higher speeds increase crash severity and that safety should receive greater weight than small journey-time savings.
The Government’s approach attempts to distinguish between:
Urban arterial roads.
Local streets.
High-standard state highways.
School areas.
Roads with significant safety risks.
Road-safety performance under the revised settings will be an important measure of the policy.
Auckland Transport Governance
ACT strongly supported returning greater transport authority to elected Auckland Council representatives.
The Government’s reform transfers most policy, planning, road-control and capital-delivery responsibilities from Auckland Transport to Auckland Council.
Auckland Transport will remain as a smaller organisation focused largely on delivering public-transport services.
The legislation also creates a regional transport committee and strengthens local-board involvement in some local decisions. (beehive.govt.nz)
ACT argues that Auckland Transport accumulated too much decision-making authority without sufficient democratic accountability.
Cameron Luxton has criticised decisions involving:
Speed-limit reductions.
Speed humps.
Parking removal.
Cycleways.
Local road design.
The timing of transport infrastructure relative to housing growth.
ACT’s position is that voters should be able to identify and remove the elected representatives responsible for transport decisions. (act.org.nz)
Potential Benefits
The reform may provide:
Clearer democratic accountability.
Better alignment with housing and land-use planning.
Greater local-board involvement.
Stronger central-local coordination.
A unified long-term transport plan.
Potential Risks
The transition may also create:
Institutional disruption.
Duplication.
Loss of specialist capability.
Political interference in technical decisions.
Confusion over responsibility.
Another costly reorganisation.
Pressure for local decisions that conflict with regional network needs.
ACT’s page should recognise both the democratic case for reform and the importance of retaining professional transport planning.
Local Government and Infrastructure
ACT’s transport and infrastructure policy is closely connected to its local-government position.
The party argues councils should focus on core services such as:
Roads.
Water.
Waste.
Local public facilities.
Consenting.
Essential infrastructure.
ACT is critical of councils using rates for activities it considers outside those core responsibilities.
The party also supports:
Stronger ratepayer accountability.
Reducing duplication between council structures.
Long-term regional planning.
Infrastructure financing outside council balance sheets.
Clearer links between growth and infrastructure funding.
Limiting voting authority to elected representatives.
Cameron Luxton has promoted reforms preventing unelected appointees from exercising voting rights on council committees, presenting this as a question of democratic accountability. (act.org.nz)
These reforms extend beyond transport but affect who makes decisions about roads, public transport, urban development and infrastructure spending.
Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act
ACT supports greater use of special-purpose vehicles to fund infrastructure associated with new development.
Under this model:
Infrastructure is built to enable a development.
A special-purpose entity raises the finance.
The debt sits outside the council’s main balance sheet.
Properties benefiting from the infrastructure pay a dedicated levy.
Simon Court has led work to reform the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act so it can be used more flexibly for growth infrastructure.
The objective is to allow development to fund more of the infrastructure it requires without forcing existing ratepayers to carry the entire cost or requiring councils to exceed debt limits. (beehive.govt.nz)
Potential advantages include:
Infrastructure being delivered earlier.
Reduced council debt pressure.
Clearer links between beneficiaries and costs.
Greater private investment.
New housing development.
Potential risks include:
Long-term levies on property owners.
Complex financing structures.
Higher private borrowing costs.
Limited public understanding.
Infrastructure demand being overestimated.
Financial risk if development is slower than expected.
Resource Management Act Reform
ACT considers the Resource Management Act one of the largest barriers to housing and infrastructure development.
The party argues that the planning system has:
Increased consenting time.
Increased project cost.
Created uncertainty.
Restricted housing supply.
Delayed energy development.
Allowed excessive litigation.
Produced weak environmental outcomes despite complex rules.
ACT supports replacing the RMA with a system based more strongly on:
Property rights.
Clear environmental limits.
Compensation where regulation removes value.
Faster decisions.
Reduced duplication.
Greater certainty about what can be built.
Stronger protection against activities that harm another person’s property.
Simon Court has been directly involved in the Government’s RMA replacement programme as Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
The Government intends to enact the new planning system during 2026, with implementation following from 2027. (act.org.nz)
Transport relevance is substantial.
Planning law affects:
Road designations.
Rail corridors.
Public-transport infrastructure.
Ports.
Airports.
Energy generation.
Housing near transport.
Quarrying and construction materials.
Environmental mitigation.
Project appeals.
Land acquisition and development.
The success of ACT’s approach will depend on whether the replacement system reduces delay without weakening legitimate environmental protection, property rights or community participation.
Housing and Transport Infrastructure
ACT argues that housing growth should be coordinated with infrastructure capacity.
The party has criticised planning rules that require councils to zone very large numbers of properties without demonstrating whether roads, water, public transport and community infrastructure can support that development.
David Seymour has argued that roads, pipes and other network infrastructure operate as natural monopolies and therefore require coordination even within a market-led housing system. (act.org.nz)
ACT’s preferred model attempts to combine:
More permissive land-use rules.
Property rights.
Developer and beneficiary funding.
Long-term infrastructure plans.
Reduced council debt constraints.
Faster consenting.
Clear environmental standards.
The challenge is preventing housing from being built long before the transport infrastructure required to support it.
Public Transport
ACT’s transport programme is less focused on direct public-transport expansion than Labour or the Green Party.
The party generally approaches public transport through:
Competition.
Contract performance.
Fare enforcement.
Local accountability.
Efficient infrastructure.
Private-sector delivery.
User choice.
Integration with urban growth.
ACT does not argue that public transport has no role.
Its support for Auckland’s integrated 30-year transport plan and the retention of Auckland Transport as a public-transport delivery agency indicates that it accepts a continuing public role in planning and funding mass passenger services.
However, ACT is more likely to question:
Universal fare subsidies.
Direct public operation.
Poor-performing routes.
Weak fare enforcement.
Large projects without credible demand.
Procurement that limits competition.
Spending it considers symbolic or politically motivated.
ACT MP Parmjeet Parmar has called for stronger enforcement against fare evasion and antisocial behaviour on Auckland public transport, arguing that fare dodging undermines revenue and passenger safety. (act.org.nz)
ACT has not yet released a detailed 2026 public-transport funding or fare policy.
Rail
ACT has not published a comprehensive current passenger and freight rail policy.
The party’s wider philosophy suggests rail projects would be judged according to:
Passenger or freight demand.
Economic value.
Available alternatives.
Capital cost.
Operating subsidies.
Private-sector involvement.
Integration with other transport.
Whether users or beneficiaries can contribute directly.
Earlier ACT commentary has been sceptical of large passenger-rail proposals it considers poorly costed or politically symbolic.
However, that should not be treated as opposition to all rail.
Rail can align with ACT’s infrastructure approach where it:
Carries substantial freight.
Relieves constrained road corridors.
Serves demonstrated passenger demand.
Attracts private investment.
Has a credible operating model.
Provides resilience.
ACT’s 2026 manifesto should clarify its position on:
KiwiRail.
Metropolitan rail.
Regional passenger services.
Rail-enabled Cook Strait ferries.
Freight investment.
Public subsidies.
Private rail proposals.
The long-term rail network.
Aviation and Maritime Transport
ACT has not yet released detailed standalone aviation or maritime policies for the 2026 election.
Its broader principles would likely bring attention to:
Regulatory approval.
Competition.
Private airport and port investment.
Regional commercial viability.
Workforce shortages.
Infrastructure consenting.
User charging.
Safety regulation.
Removing outdated rules.
Any formal policy should address:
Regional aviation.
Airport infrastructure.
Civil aviation certification.
Port investment.
Coastal shipping.
Maritime training.
Cook Strait resilience.
Emergency supply chains.
Competition and market concentration.
The absence of a detailed current position should be recorded rather than filled through assumption.
Clean Car Policy and Transport Emissions
ACT opposed Labour’s Clean Car Discount and supported its repeal after the 2023 election.
The party argued that the scheme transferred costs from people buying petrol and diesel vehicles to purchasers of electric vehicles and that many farmers, tradespeople and larger families had no practical electric alternative.
ACT generally prefers using the Emissions Trading Scheme to price carbon rather than introducing transport-specific subsidies or penalties. (act.org.nz)
ACT also opposed the Clean Car Standard in earlier election cycles.
The party’s final 2026 position should clarify whether it would:
Repeal the remaining standard.
Amend vehicle-efficiency targets.
Retain current rules.
Introduce alternative emissions policy.
Provide any support for electric charging infrastructure.
Address heavy transport, aviation and maritime emissions.
Rely primarily on the Emissions Trading Scheme.
ACT’s approach emphasises technology choice and market pricing rather than government-selected vehicle technologies.
Critics may argue that the Emissions Trading Scheme alone does not address infrastructure barriers, vehicle availability or the slow turnover of the national fleet.
Budget 2026 and ACT’s Wider Economic Programme
ACT supported Budget 2026 as part of the coalition Government.
The party’s own Budget commentary focused more heavily on spending discipline, deregulation, RMA reform, housing infrastructure and government efficiency than on individual transport projects.
ACT highlighted:
$294 million for planning-system reform.
$400 million supporting housing growth and council infrastructure.
Savings used to fund new priorities.
A broader commitment to limiting debt and avoiding large tax increases. (act.org.nz)
This reflects ACT’s wider infrastructure argument.
The party does not assess infrastructure only according to how much money is allocated. It focuses on:
Whether the project is necessary.
Whether it is affordable.
Who benefits.
Who pays.
Whether private finance is available.
Whether the asset will be maintained.
Whether regulation increases costs.
Whether government can demonstrate value.
ACT’s Transport and Infrastructure Record in Government
ACT claims influence over several coalition developments.
These include:
Repeal of the Clean Car Discount.
Reversal of selected speed-limit reductions.
Progress toward electronic road-user charges.
Time-of-use charging legislation.
The refreshed PPP framework.
Market-led infrastructure proposal guidance.
City and Regional Deals.
Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act reform.
The National Infrastructure Plan.
RMA replacement.
Auckland transport-governance reform.
Risk-based temporary traffic management.
Local-government accountability changes.
Greater use of private-sector infrastructure models.
Not all of these are solely ACT policies.
They have been developed through a coalition involving National and New Zealand First and delivered by ministers from multiple parties.
The relevant political question is how much further ACT would seek to move if it held greater influence after the 2026 election.
What Has Been Announced During the Current Election Cycle?
ACT’s main current transport and infrastructure announcements and positions include:
The rural school-bus Open Seat Rule.
Continued support for a 30-year infrastructure framework.
Support for the Government’s response to the National Infrastructure Plan.
Promotion of City and Regional Deals.
Continued advocacy for public-private partnerships.
Infrastructure funding through special-purpose vehicles and beneficiary levies.
Stronger asset-management and spending discipline.
Continued support for fleet-wide electronic RUC.
Support for selected speed-limit reversals.
Support for Auckland transport-governance reform.
Continued RMA replacement.
Risk-based temporary traffic management.
A wider programme of reducing government and regulatory costs.
The Open Seat Rule is the clearest new ACT transport election promise released specifically during 2026.
Several other positions are continuations of earlier ACT policy or coalition reforms already under way.
What Is Still Unclear Ahead of the Election?
ACT still needs to publish detailed 2026 policy on:
Its complete transport investment programme.
Which major road projects it would prioritise.
The final version of its toll-road policy.
Whether public transport would receive toll exemptions.
The final design of fleet-wide RUC.
The extent of electronic road pricing.
Public-transport funding.
Public-transport fares.
Passenger rail.
Freight rail.
Cook Strait ferries.
Aviation.
Coastal shipping.
Transport emissions.
Electric-vehicle infrastructure.
Local-government transport funding.
Road safety.
The Ministry of Education school-bus contracting model.
Procurement and competition.
How infrastructure decisions would remain democratically accountable under longer-term agreements.
Transport 2026 Interview with Cameron Luxton
Kiwi Coaches has completed a Transport 2026 discussion with ACT transport spokesperson Cameron Luxton.
The interview covered:
Congestion charging.
Road-user charges.
Public-private partnerships.
Infrastructure planning.
Bus lanes.
Transport procurement.
Market concentration.
Small and mid-sized businesses.
Regulation and compliance.
Road safety.
Energy supply.
WorkSafe.
Auckland transport governance.
Local-government decision-making.
The future of the transport workforce.
The discussion reinforced ACT’s emphasis on:
User-pays funding.
Competition.
Removing unnecessary regulation.
Private capital.
Long-term planning.
Practical local accountability.
Treating congestion as a pricing and capacity problem.
Interview statements should remain clearly distinguished from formal ACT manifesto commitments.
Where ACT publishes matching policy, the relevant sections of this page will be updated.
Transport Spokespeople: Current and Historical
Cameron Luxton
Cameron Luxton is ACT’s current spokesperson for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government.
He should be treated as the party’s principal contact for general transport policy.
Simon Court
Simon Court is ACT’s infrastructure spokesperson and Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Infrastructure and RMA Reform.
His background as a civil and environmental engineer makes him particularly relevant to:
Infrastructure delivery.
PPPs.
Financing.
Planning reform.
Energy.
Asset management.
Andrew Hoggard
Andrew Hoggard announced ACT’s 2026 Open Seat Rule for rural school buses.
His involvement reflects the connection between school transport, rural policy and education.
Previous Transport Leadership
Simon Court previously held ACT’s Transport portfolio and fronted its detailed 2023 road, tolling and infrastructure-finance policies.
Those earlier policies remain relevant historical context, but Cameron Luxton is the current formal transport spokesperson.
Frequently Asked Questions – ACT Transport Policy
Who is ACT’s transport spokesperson?
Cameron Luxton is ACT’s spokesperson for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government.
Who is ACT’s infrastructure spokesperson?
Simon Court is ACT’s Infrastructure spokesperson and Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Infrastructure and RMA Reform.
Who leads ACT?
David Seymour is ACT leader, MP for Epsom, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Regulation.
What is ACT’s confirmed 2026 transport policy?
ACT has announced an Open Seat Rule allowing rural children to use spare seats on existing school buses, regardless of whether they attend the nearest eligible school.
Does ACT support toll roads?
Yes. ACT supports tolling and private finance where these can bring forward road construction. Its most detailed toll-road framework was released in 2023 and requires reconfirmation for 2026.
Does ACT support road-user charges?
Yes. ACT supports replacing petrol excise with electronic RUC so road users pay more directly according to distance and vehicle characteristics.
Does ACT support congestion charging?
Yes in principle. ACT supports electronic road pricing and time-of-use charging, particularly where revenue is connected with transport improvements.
Does ACT support public-private partnerships?
Yes. ACT supports PPPs where they provide better whole-of-life value, stronger risk management and earlier infrastructure delivery.
What are City and Regional Deals?
They are long-term agreements between central government and regions covering infrastructure, housing, growth and funding priorities.
What is ACT’s position on the Resource Management Act?
ACT supports replacing the RMA with a simpler system based more strongly on property rights, clear environmental limits and faster infrastructure decisions.
Does ACT support public transport?
ACT accepts an ongoing role for public transport but places greater emphasis on competition, contract performance, fare enforcement, local accountability and value for money than on universal subsidies.
What is ACT’s rail policy?
ACT has not yet released a comprehensive current policy covering passenger rail, freight rail and KiwiRail.
What is ACT’s position on speed limits?
ACT opposed blanket reductions and secured a coalition commitment to restore selected limits while retaining targeted lower and variable speeds where risk justifies them.
What is ACT’s position on electric vehicles?
ACT opposed the Clean Car Discount and generally prefers technology-neutral market pricing through the Emissions Trading Scheme. Its complete 2026 vehicle-emissions policy has not yet been released.
What is the Open Seat Rule?
It would allow a child living along an existing rural school-bus route to use an available seat even if the child does not attend the nearest eligible school.
Has ACT released its complete 2026 transport manifesto?
No. ACT has announced the Open Seat Rule and has a clear infrastructure and funding direction, but a complete updated transport manifesto is still required.
Contact and Interview Status
Transport 2026 has completed an initial interview with Cameron Luxton.
ACT will be invited to:
Review this factual record.
Correct any errors or omissions.
Confirm which 2023 transport policies remain current.
Provide the full operational design of the Open Seat Rule.
Release its updated tolling and road-pricing policy.
Clarify its public-transport and rail positions.
Explain its transport-emissions policy.
Identify its major road and infrastructure priorities.
Explain how electronic RUC would operate.
Clarify its policies for aviation and maritime transport.
Provide current costings and implementation dates.
Any attributable response or formal policy document will be incorporated into a future update.
Related Transport 2026 Pages
Transport 2026: New Zealand’s Transport Outlook
The main overview page for Kiwi Coaches’ Transport 2026 project, bringing together election context, industry pressures, infrastructure issues, and the key transport debates shaping New Zealand ahead of the 2026 General Election.
https://www.kiwicoaches.co.nz/transport-2026-nz-transport-outlook
Transport 2026 News
The live news, commentary, and analysis page for the Transport 2026 project, covering fuel prices, transport politics, infrastructure developments, operator issues, and wider election-related transport stories.
https://www.kiwicoaches.co.nz/transport-2026-news
Transport 2026: Infrastructure Tracker
A factual tracker of major transport and infrastructure projects across New Zealand, helping separate what is funded, under way, delayed, proposed, or politically announced ahead of the election.
https://www.kiwicoaches.co.nz/transport-2026-infrastructure-tracker
The Opportunity Party – Transport Policy 2026
A Kiwi Coaches overview of The Opportunity Party’s current transport direction, including free public transport, long-term infrastructure planning, electrification, energy, and practical transport-system reform.
https://www.kiwicoaches.co.nz/the-opportunity-party-2026-transport
Green Party – Transport Policy 2026
A summary of the Green Party’s current transport direction, including public transport, rail, active modes, emissions reduction, and the party’s wider approach to mobility and access.
https://www.kiwicoaches.co.nz/green-party-transport-2026
National Party – Transport Policy 2026
An overview of National’s current transport and infrastructure direction, including delivery priorities, major projects, economic growth, and the government’s broader transport approach.
https://www.kiwicoaches.co.nz/national-party-transport-2026
New Zealand First – Transport Policy 2026
A Kiwi Coaches profile of New Zealand First’s transport direction, with attention to regional access, practical delivery, accountability, and current transport-relevant leadership.
https://www.kiwicoaches.co.nz/nz-first-transport-2026
Labour Party – Transport Policy 2026
Kiwi Coaches’ current overview of Labour’s transport position, including public transport, infrastructure funding, rail, integrated planning, and the party’s likely transport priorities heading into the 2026 election.
https://www.kiwicoaches.co.nz/labour-party-2026-transport
Te Pāti Māori – Transport Policy 2026
A page exploring Te Pāti Māori’s transport relevance through the lenses of access, regional fairness, infrastructure, whānau wellbeing, and community outcomes.
https://www.kiwicoaches.co.nz/te-pati-maori-transport-2026