Sitting date: 21 October 2025

MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) (CUSTOMARY MARINE TITLE) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move that the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member have a legislative statement, or—

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes. I present a legislative statement on this—

CLERK: On the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, indeed I do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: This third reading represents the final stages of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you say, "I move".

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I can do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. That would be helpful.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Now you can carry on.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The third reading represents the final stages of this bill, and members will be well aware of the long backstory to this legislation. The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act was enacted by the National-led Government in 2011 following significant consultation and widespread dissatisfaction with Labour's earlier Foreshore and Seabed Act. The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act includes a clear expression from Parliament of the circumstances under which customary marine title (CMT) will be granted.

Now, what is customary marine title? It recognises a form of title over the coastal area, our beaches and coastal parts, including offshore seas, and some arguments have been made out to several miles offshore. With the customary marine title comes valuable rights—in particular, the ability to grant consents or not grant resource consents for certain activities, but also ownership of minerals, excluding the nationalised ones such as gold and silver, but also a whole host of other minerals and potential other things.

Now, the Act sets a test that must be met for customary marine title to be recognised. The current wording of section 58 of the Act plainly states that in addition to holding the specified area in accordance with tikanga, the applicant groups need to have had exclusive use and occupation from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption. Now, that was in the legislation.

As I noted in my speech in the first reading, this was intended to be an exacting test designed to balance the range of interests and ensure title is recognised only where applicants have maintained very strong interests. So our starting proposition is that all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—have an interest in what happens in the coastal area and usually expect to have a say in things like resource consents. That is why a high hurdle was put in the legislation before moving away from that basic proposition.

The Government's view is that the courts have interpreted the requirements for the test for customary marine title in a way that has materially reduced their intended effect, to the point where it was necessary to take action to ensure the Act operates as originally intended. Last year's Supreme Court judgment in Re Edwards confirmed that the earlier judgments, particularly in the Court of Appeal, did not apply the test in line with Parliament's intent. However, the Supreme Court's own interpretation of the test has since been applied in the lower courts, with no apparent change to the outcomes, resulting in extensive awards of customary marine title, including the entire coast from Kāpiti to Manawatū and in southern Wairarapa.

During readings of this Act in the House back in 2011, the Hon Chris Finlayson and the Hon Tariana Turia both emphasised the Act was intended to recognise customary marine title in specific parts of the coastline. No mention was made of the entire coastlines.

Customary marine title comes, as I said, with significant rights like the permission right, which enables customary marine title holders to give or decline permission for some resource consents. The Act is clear that customary marine title is a form of property right. Customary marine title holders cannot exclude the public as conventional property owners can, but holders do have a strong say in the kinds of activities that can occur in an area where customary marine title is held.

The Act has mechanisms to ensure that public interest infrastructure can proceed in CMT areas without permission if necessary, but many smaller-scale activities and structures will require permission from CMT holders—people wanting to erect jetties or renew their resource consents for jetties, for instance, or people wanting to create new aquaculture businesses that would employ locals. So the balance struck in 2011 was that such recognition would require a high threshold, and that's what was intended. The bill clarifies the wording of the current test and provides additional guidance to decision makers in interpreting and applying the test.

Key elements include more tightly defining what "exclusive use and occupation" means, requiring decision makers to base any influences on a firm basis of physical evidence, not just cultural associations in that second part of the test, and thirdly, placing the burden of proof more squarely on applicants to demonstrate that they meet both legs of the test.

In terms of retrospectivity, the bill will alter and override decisions of the courts made after 24 July 2024, the date I announced the Government's policy. Retrospective provisions in legislation are reserved for exceptional circumstances and these are exceptional. The current approach to the test by the courts is damaging to the takutai moana process as a whole. If the bill has prospective effect only, it would be unfair to those applicants who, by way of scheduling, would be subject to a stricter restored test, while others retain awards under what Parliament regards as an incorrect interpretation of the legislation. This necessitates the broadest possible application of the amendments to the bill and the test is—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Everyone that is on the speaking list is going to get a chance to have a speech. I can understand that there will be some interjections here, but I'm just asking people to just tone it down a level, please.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The test, as amended by the bill, will apply to all undecided applications from 25 July 2024. As I've said previously, the Government recognised the impact this has had on affected applicants and has provided $15 million to support costs for re-hearings. I recognise that this will be very disappointing to groups who have been through the process. Now, this is not something that we've done lightly, but there is a long way to go and much of our coastline still to be considered, and we believe, as a Government, that it's important to get that right.

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act sets a carefully judged regime that strikes a delicate balance between interests—public, private, and tangata whenua. The sole purpose of these amendments is to ensure that that balance continues to be struck and is an enduring one. There are many outstanding applications to the Act waiting to be determined. Iwi, hapū, and whānau have been waiting a long time for these matters to be resolved. Once the test is corrected by this bill, the Government looks forward to making steady progress in resolving their applications. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): In a week where this House lamented the loss of Jim Bolger and his legacy about correcting injustices and wrongs of the past, I can't help but think about the last time I caught up with Jim Bolger at the airport, when he talked about what he knew of his experience with Ngāpuhi and the Ngāpuhi settlement, but, more importantly, about the reason why he felt it was important that this House continue to correct the injustices of the past. I can't help but think about him on this occasion. The third reading of this bill continues a long legacy of this House, over many, many years, of treating Māori as second-class citizens. It's continuing to ignore their historic, their customary, and, indeed, their property rights to many of the spaces that Mr Goldsmith has just outlined in his speech.

Now, on a slightly happier note for myself, I want to acknowledge that yesterday was the birthday of my baby girl. Happy birthday, Mariah. Why I mention her is that her middle name is Te Aweawe o Te Rangi, which honours my ancestor from Ōtamatea, who has whakapapa, mana, and customary title to the Kaipara. There's a reason why our people do this, there's a reason why our people give names like that, there's a reason why we continue to honour the memory of our ancestors: so that these things are never lost in time. In saying happy birthday to my baby, I'm now saying thank you for carrying on the legacy of your tupuna.

I sat here and listened to the Minister not just in his third reading speech but in the progress of this bill now, which has taken over a year. I thought, we could go toe to toe on quotes by the Hon Christopher Finlayson, we could go toe to toe on quotes around Treaty settlements and this particular matter that are in the Hansard and quoted in this House. But I thought, no, what I'm going to do is continue to grow that record and evidence for our people to continue to show our customary title to te takutai moana. I want to start by acknowledging, first, I come from a proud tribe called Te Aupōuri, and our ancestor is Tumatahina. Tumatahina is famed for saving his people by ushering them along the takutai moana, leading them to safety to the place they now call home today. That is an unbroken link of our ancestor Tumatahina and Te Aupōuri in the Far North. I want to raise, in particular, our ancestor Tumatahina, and acknowledge and bring to the attention of the House my matua, the Hon Shane Jones, also a descendant of Tumatahina, and let it serve as a reminder to my matua Shane Jones and the coalition agreement that saw this particular bill enter this House.

Next, I want to acknowledge I am a descendant of Tarutaru and Ruapounamu, which makes me a descendant of Te Rarawa. For those in this House who know where Te Rarawa is, you'll be familiar with where the Ninety Mile Beach is. You will be familiar with many of the other places south of the Ninety Mile Beach, where Te Rarawa calls home. We have an arrangement there to look after the Ninety Mile Beach on behalf of all New Zealanders, which was agreed on by this House. Yet, for whatever reason, this Government continues to say co-governance, co-management, or working alongside Māori, is not the thing to do, and would rather score political points instead of underscoring the good frameworks that are already in place that allow management of places like the marine and takutai moana—in this instance, the Ninety Mile Beach.

My next whakapapa comes from Ngāti Ōkiwa, Ngāti Kahu, which is my mother's people in the Whangaroa Harbour. We continue to live there, we continue to harvest seafood there, we continue to look after that place when councils have forgotten that place for a long, long time. Then, when it becomes fashionable to have a bach by the beach, the councils all of a sudden remember and then try to price us out of paradise. Guess what? We're still there. I want that to reaffirm my whakapapa and my heritage to my Ngāti Kahu whānau.

My grandmother is a Davis, and that's how I'm related to the Hon Kelvin Davis. I come from another place, called Waikare, which makes me a descendant of Te Kapotai. You can tell by the name Waikare that it's right by the ocean, and we continue to live there, and I want to reassert on the Hansard this evening my ongoing whakapapa, my ongoing heritage, and my ongoing customary title to Te Kapotai, to Waikare, and to my people in the upper inlets of the Bay of Islands.

I've already spoken to my whakapapa to Ngāti Whātua, the Kaipara Harbour, and how my people continue to hold their customary title at the Kaipara Harbour, starting at Ōtamatea, heading out to the West Coast.

Then I come down to my next whakapapa link. I'm a descendant of Te Whakatōhea, of te whānau Pāpuni, the tupuna Pāpuni, Ngāti Rua. For those of you who have ever journeyed around the coast, you'll come to a beautiful spot called Omarumutu, which I call home. That is where my people continue to live, that is where my people continue to practise their customary title and their mana and their whakapapa to our home, at Omarumutu. I want to acknowledge my Whakatōhea whakapapa.

Next, I'm a descendant of Te Mauparaoa, which makes me a descendant of Ngāti Kahungunu. Many people in this House know Ngāti Kahungunu, generally related to the area of the Hawke's Bay, but more specifically, for me, it's to the northern part of what we now call the Hawke's Bay region, to a small community just north of Nūhaka, which is where my tupuna Te Mauparaoa comes from. That's why I claim to be of Ngāti Kahungunu descent and why I continue to live and work alongside my whānau in that area, to continue to show this Government and to show everybody in that district that the descendants of Te Mauparaoa and the descendants of Ngāti Kahungunu continue to hold customary title, mana, and whakapapa to that region.

Finally, I am a descendant of Rongowhakaata, and for those in the House that will know Rongowhakaata, it is in and around the Gisborne district. I am the descendant of two sisters that were taken after Ngāpuhi went south; their names are Wahinekino and Hauora. That gives me my whakapapa to Rongowhakaata, and I want to acknowledge Rongowhakaata, who continue to show how Rongowhakaata cares for its environment, for its region, and, in particular, for a beautiful part of the coast that many of us New Zealanders call home. They continue to show their mana and their whakapapa to a part of New Zealand which links them inextricably, and there is no law or no legislation that can be passed in this House that will extinguish that, despite the efforts of this particular bill trying to do that.

The Minister, during the committee of the whole House, spoke about some of the whakapapa of this bill and he mentioned the Labour Party. In 2004, I was at university in Auckland and marched across the bridge against what the then Labour Party were doing. One of the traits of a good politician, and indeed a good person, is that they recognise when they do wrong and they apologise for that. They work hard to make sure that they can fix those injustices of the past, and when we became Government in 2017, it was one of the first things the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern did, in recognising that what Labour had done in 2004 was wrong and unjust. She publicly apologised for that particular matter, and we continue to work on our relationship to build that bridge again and build that relationship with the Māori people.

I hope that this Minister and this Government recognise, some time in the near future, the wrongs of this bill, and may find it in themselves to come back and apologise not just to the people of this House and of this Parliament but to the Māori people right around the country. It makes me sad that we are here doing this particular bill. I thought Mr Finlayson described the purpose of this bill quite well over the past few days, and I hope that what he has said continues to echo in the ears of New Zealanders right around this country as we look towards protecting our beautiful foreshore and seabed.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I wish to speak to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. Is it an accident that the second reading of this bill was held on the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Waitangi Tribunal? A committee of the whole House happened on the anniversary of the 1975 Land March—and here we are, reading the third reading, on the week that Jim Bolger will be laid in his grave.

I wish to recount a brief story about Jim Bolger. A gentleman called Sam Hunt got on an Air New Zealand flight—the great New Zealand poet Sam Hunt, I mean—and he found that he was sat beside Jim and Joan Bolger. They were on the way to an Anzac celebration. They talked about the futility of war together, and Hunt said to Bolger, "Do you know the poem 'The Gunner's Lament'?", and Jim Bolger said he did not know the poem. Sam Hunt, being a great poet, remembers other people's poems well. There's a poem by James K Baxter:

A Māori gunner lay dying

On a battlefield north of Saigon,

And he turned to his pākehā cobber,

"I reckon I've had it, man!

"And if I could fly like a bird

To my old granny's whare

A truck and a winch couldn't drag

Me back to the Army.

"A new cap and a coat and a well-paid job

Looked better than shovelling metal,

And they told me that Te Rauparaha

Would have fought in the Vietnam battle.

"On my night of leave the town swung round

Like a bucket full of eels.

The girls liked the uniform

And I liked the girls.

"Like a bullock to the abattoirs

In the name of liberty

They flew me with a hangover

Across the Tasman Sea,

"And what I found in Vietnam

Was mud and blood and fire,

With the Yanks and the Reds taking turns

At murdering the poor.

"And I could see the reason for it

In a Viet Cong's blazing eyes -

We fought for the crops of kūmara,

They are fighting for the rice.

"So go tell my sweetheart

To find another boy

To cuddle her and marry her

And laugh when the bugles blow,

"And tell my youngest brother

He can have my shotgun

To fire at ducks on the old lagoon,

But never to aim at a man,

"And tell my granny to wear black

And carry the willow leaf,

Because the kid she kept from the cold

Has eaten the dead man's loaf.

"And go tell Keith Holyoake

Sitting in Wellington,

However long he scrubs his hands

He'll never get them clean."

Sam Hunt turned to Jim and Joan Bolger, and both of them had tears streaming down their faces because they are people of empathy, and they understood the meaning of that poem and its context of our colonial history.

No good can come from a bill of this character. It is a bill that explicitly leads into those worst mindsets of colonisation that, at every turn, Māori are cut against and undermined and undone. And for all the efforts of this Chamber and this House to make amends for those cruel histories of colonisations, this bill forces the Crown back into a position of dishonourability. I said in the first reading that if the patterns of colonisation are still present, then how can we say we are in a post-colonial era? That classic pattern was confiscation followed by exploitation—confiscation followed by exploitation.

The Minister acknowledged in the Committee of the whole House that he was concerned about the impact on the fishing industry of recognising customary rights. The Minister is more concerned with giving away seabed rights to Aussie miners and bottom trawlers than with recognising the customary rights of indigenous New Zealanders. As such, this legislation has—and I said this in the first speech—a treasonous character, because its first service is not to New Zealanders. Its first service is to offshore corporate interests in regard to seabed mining off the Taranaki coast being but one example, and it is also unconstitutional, because it does not protect the tino rangatiratanga of iwi Māori to their lands, forests, fisheries, and oceans.

Let's be clear: customary rights, native title, or Aboriginal title is a thing—as Debbie Ngarewa-Packer pointed out in her questions to the Minister today—that pre-dates Te Tiriti. It is a thing that is recognised in other colonised lands that don't have treaties, such as Australia, and it was recognised from even the earliest days of Government in this country. Even that awful legislation from 1865 acknowledges that "Every title to and interest in customary land shall be determined according to the ancient customs and usages of the Maori people, as far as the same can be ascertained. … 'Customary land' means land which, being vested in the Crown, is held by Maoris"—sic; this is what they say—"or the descendants of Maoris under the customs and usages of the Maori people".

These provisions can be traced back to the Native Lands Act of 1865. That awful piece of legislation still acknowledged that it provided that land that is held by Māori in accordance with tikanga Māori shall have the status of Māori customary land, and the burden of proof, as per the original Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA Act), should fall on those trying to prove extinguishment. This reverses the burden of proof. The practical effect of this bill shifts the burden of proof onto Māori. Section 106(3) of the MACA Act states that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, non-extinguishment of customary interest will be assumed. That is, the default is that Māori have customary rights. The new section 106(2) now stipulates that applicants must prove that they have exclusive use and occupation over the land since the applicable period, without substantial interruption. Since "substantial interruption" can include an extinguishment of title, the new section 106(2), in effect, mandates that the applicants prove that their customary interests have never been extinguished so as to amount to a substantial interruption. Therefore, the practical effect of this amendment is that non-extinguishment is no longer presumed and is something applicants must now prove.

That is a fundamental injustice, an undoing of even the most basic principles of common law—let alone tikanga Māori, let alone the obvious fact of history that Māori had been here for hundreds and hundreds of years and used the marine coastal environment. This is a cruel injustice, and it is founded on a tissue of myths that, somehow, the Minister's bill restores the intent of the original Act. I've just outlined that, in new section 106, it clearly does not, because it shifts the burden of proof back onto Māori to prove the most ludicrous and obvious thing: that they have customary use of the marine and coastal environment.

No good can come of it. There's no decent future for us as a country if we keep doing shitty legislation like this. It's nasty. It's the worst kind of rubbish that has come before this House, and it will be undone by a future Government, and we will have to stand up and apologise, Minister, for this nasty piece of legislation to somehow try and restore the honour of the Crown that you are disdaining.

Get thee hence, Satan—this is the worst pettiness and nastiness.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just be careful not to get personal.

STEVE ABEL: A personal attack on Satan, I'm sure, is allowed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, no—I just don't want to see a particular member referred to in that way.

STEVE ABEL: Let me be clear about what I'm saying with that—the origin of the idea. Just as when Jesus spoke to Peter and said, "Get thee hence, Satan", he wasn't accusing Peter of being Satan. He was saying the idea that he carried had its origin in the devil's mindset. Kia ora.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to talk on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. ACT, along with our coalition partners, will be supporting this amendment bill tonight. I think the Minister has clearly articulated why the Government has put this forward. As he said, in 2011 there was an exacting test to establish customary marine title, and we all accept that there is such a thing. That has, unfortunately, been undermined by a number of court decisions, including, obviously, the Edwards decision. So we will be supporting this because it does restore what Parliament intended, it does restore an exacting test, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill third reading. This bill fulfils a specific coalition agreement between New Zealand First and National. The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act replaced the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and sought to provide clarity and certainty around how customary marine titles are determined.

My leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has been a champion of equal citizenship and protecting the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders in the marine and coastal area of New Zealand. As a party, we are committed to one law for all and that every New Zealander is treated equally regardless of race, religion, or background. The differential here is—

Shanan Halbert: Hobson's Pledge.

Tākuta Ferris: Constitutional rights.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: —as we are hearing the scaremongering and the third-rate sloganeering of what is occurring here, the point that we have reached is that this is not removing the rights for Māori. Māori, like any New Zealander, have the opportunity to enjoy their coastline and enjoy the benefits. I think we go back to when the first claims were lodged under this Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, that every single centimetre of our coastline was subject to a claim. And that is the point that this legislation needed to be clarified, and that is exactly what this piece of law is clarifying.

We see the rights of Māori still continuing to be protected under the initial interests of this legislation. That is what this legislation brought in place. It revoked the foreshore and seabed legislation and bought in an opportunity where the Māori Party at the time recognised there would be discrete, limited numbers of claims. The Prime Minister of the time, John Key, made it very clear that there would be very limited numbers of successful claims because of the need to prove uninterrupted title for the duration since 1840.

And this is the point that we're here to make—

Hon Willie Jackson: You don't even know what you're talking about.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: This is the point that we're here to make, that the heckling is irrelevant to the point that we're trying to clarify in law. The intention of the legislation needed to be upheld. This piece of legislation is clarifying the intention of the original legislation, and, therefore, New Zealand First commends the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E te iwi whakarongo mai. Number one, no Government in history has ever had the right or authority to extinguish the Tiriti-based rights of Māori—this is literally why Treaty settlements exist—number two, no contemporary Government possesses any form of right or authority to extinguish the Tiriti-based rights of Māori; and, number three, no future Government will ever possess any form of right or authority to extinguish any Tiriti-based Māori rights. This is because Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a fully binding legal treaty in law, with full current legal effect internationally and domestically. It is a treaty binding two countries in a legal constitutional framework called Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It's pretty simple—

Hon Casey Costello: Well read—you're reading it well.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: —and the simple truth is that it will never go away—that's all right; I wrote it, too.

This means that what this Government is doing now guarantees that the fight for Te Tiriti justice only deepens from this point on, and continues on into the next generations. They've set the playing field for generations to come, condemning our children, our tamariki, to needless, endless, perpetual fighting, with costly court cases, societal disharmony, and time-, energy-, and money-wasting on a staggering scale. Well done, Government—well done.

You know, there's a big long list of our country's desperate needs that the money could have been better spent on, like homelessness, poverty, or the cost of living. I tell you, everybody out there, that honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a cheaper option for the country in the long run, and who shoulders the burden? Who shoulders the burden here? Whānau, hapū, and iwi shoulder the burden here—the financial burden, the time and energy burden, and the people burden.

Many of our kaumātua who marched in 2004 are no longer with us, and after 21 years, we're being sent back to the beginning. After 21 years, the struggle continues, and it must, Minister—and it must. It must because this is the ultimate dismissal of rangatiratanga, this is the ultimate dismissal of mana motuhake, and this is the ultimate dismissal of the Māori constitutional right.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Nō reira, e te iwi Māori, do not despair. Do not despair—we've seen it all before, and there's nothing new here. We've fought it before, we'll fight it again, and here we go—and don't worry. When we get rid of this one-term Government, we'll repeal this legislation back to 2003—2003.

Our mana—mana whenua, mana moana, tino rangatiratanga, and mana motuhake—are unextinguishable. They are untouchable. They are for ever—they are for ever.

Governments continue to lie, deny, obscure, obfuscate, and deliberately confuse to keep the public from seeing, knowing, and truly understanding the truth of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that is that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is good for everyone. It provides rights and protections for every person in Aotearoa. Equally as important as it providing rights and protections for te taiao—the environment—of Aotearoa,

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

on the land and the sea, and the silver lining, everybody, for all of the peoples of Aotearoa is that the tide of understanding is rising. The tide of understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is rising. It's rising in our young people in this country. It's rising in our youth, it's rising in our children, and as it rises—and it will continue to rise, generation after generation—the old, pale, stale, deeply held racist views of Te Tiriti o Waitangi will set like the sun. They'll set like the sun, and a new era of Te Tiriti celebration will emerge.

So to everyone in Aotearoa out there, I say mānawatia Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We do not support the bill.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. We've been told by the Minister that this is a carefully judged, balanced bill. Yet Māori did not ask for the marine and coastal area, takutai moana legislation, nor the foreshore and seabed legislation that was before it. Māori have been here yesterday, we're here today, and we will be here tomorrow. We are intergenerational. We participated in a legislative process, going to court to seek recognition of our rights that we've always held, and now we have a Government that has completely changed the playing field again. How is this fair? Where is the justice? Why can Māori not hold property rights like any other New Zealander? At what point did Māori have their rights to the takutai moana, the foreshore and seabed, extinguished by the Crown? At what point and how did that happen?

That has been a question in this House that I placed before the Minister during the committee of the whole House: tell us when and how did Māori rights to the foreshore and seabed become magically extinguished. E kore e riro: it has not been lost. But what we have is a counterfeit kāwanatanga, changing the rules again; an illegitimate use of kāwanatanga as per what the Waitangi Tribunal has already declared, and this massive hara that ripples through to te ao Māori. Right now, people are burning the bill on the coastline, affirming that they are there now and they will be there tomorrow because we are not going anywhere. And Tākuta is right, for it just raises another generation of Māori with issues. Māori got issues. As we get treated poorly,

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Dishonourable Kāwanatanga wherever we look. So at what point will Kāwanatanga finally meet us in the middle and look to build a Kāwanatanga that will finally honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

We have gone too far in this journey. We have just come through and seen a massive support for Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We see massive community turn-out and support, and yet we have a Kāwanatanga that seems to be missing the memo. You're missing the memo of community coming together for positivity and celebrating those things which are uniquely New Zealand, and that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the tuakana, He Whakaputanga, 28 October 1835. Nau mai, haere mai. You can google it. It's next week. We're going to be remembering it.

As I reflect on the strength that we gain as members of the Opposition, knowing that we have people burning the bill in

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Ahiparapara, in Waipapakauri, in Hokianga ki te tonga, Hokianga ki te hauāuru, Whangaroa, Taipā Ngāti Kahu. As we come down the coast to

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

out to

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Bay of Plenty. They are all saying, "We are here, respect us, come to the table with us, and let's talk about honouring our unextinguished mana takutai moana. E kore e riro. E kore e riro. [It has not been lost. It has not been lost.]"

Because that's the thing: you change the goal posts because the courts start endorsing us. The courts started recognising the fact that we had tribes and whānau who actually went through the honourable Crown process, the rules set by the Crown, and then they came out the other side,

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

and that retrospective element of this legislation is demeaning. It demeans the effort of years of claimant preparation. And, yes, when the marine and coastal legislation came in in 2011, we all lodged claims because we're affirming that we've never been anywhere and we're not going anywhere today or tomorrow either. So we acknowledge the fight at home. We are merely vessels here for today and we will be apologising in the future when we

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

this terrible wrecking ball of legislation that is destroying Crown-Māori relations right now. There will be apologies and we will be here to watch, and my mokopuna will be there to watch you as well.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is Parliament, not the courts, that makes the laws of this land, and this bill makes clearer what "exclusive use and occupation" means, and it strengthens the requirement for physical evidence of exclusive use. It delivers on a coalition agreement commitment with New Zealand First, and I commend it to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This bill is not, as the Government insists, a tidy clarification of an old law; it is an incredibly blunt instrument that tears at the very foundation of justice, up-ends our court processes, and undermines a hard-fought relationship between te iwi Māori and the Crown. We are told that it will restore Parliament's original intention, but in truth, it rewrites that intention, it narrows it, and it applies new rules retrospectively, overturning the work of the courts and reopening wounds.

I'm going to lay out the three key reasons that I'm opposed to it. Those three are that it rewrites the legal test for customary title to make it virtually impossible. Secondly, it applies the rules retrospectively, undermining the rule of law and basic fairness in New Zealand. Thirdly, it damages the Crown-Māori relationship.

But before going into those, I would like to talk about the truth, the deal—what was actually done. The reality is that Casey Costello was a spokesperson for Hobson's Pledge, a group that is on the record, clear for being fundamentally opposed to indigenous rights. And so, lo and behold, in the coalition agreement—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just remember that this is actually a Government bill and the coalition was referred to, but we're not going to start pointing to individual members of the House.

Hon Casey Costello: Point of order, Madam Speaker. My reputation has been impugned in that. I have never been opposed to indigenous rights. I have never been accused of being—and the reference is that somehow I'm racist in the rhetoric that was just being displayed and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Willie Jackson: Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I just wanted to ask—just a moment, Mr Jackson. I will check. I don't think that the member referred to Ms Costello as being racist; she mentioned Hobson's Pledge.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No, I did not, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment. One moment. Hold everything. The member did not call the Hon Casey Costello a racist.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No, I did not, and I would just like to highlight that the regulatory impact statement to this bill refers to the coalition agreement, which includes this legislation to take away customary rights, so that was mentioned as one of the key reasons that this decision was taken by the Government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's fine to refer to the Government. We've just got to be careful when we're getting testy here that we don't start referring to individuals.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I think it's important that New Zealanders know that the reason this legislation is before the House today is it was part of a coalition deal. That happened well before any of the court judgments came out in the past year. It was a deal done as a dirty deal that legislated away Māori customary rights to gain power, and I want that on the record.

The first point I would like to cover off is the fact that this rewrites the legal test. The first and most fundamental flaw in this legislation is that this bill raises the bar to make it absolutely impossible for iwi and hapū to meet the requirements and that was the intent of this legislation. It insists that evidence of exclusive use and occupation that is continuous and physical and manifested since 1840. In fact, what it does is take away spiritual-, cultural-, and tikanga-based connections, the very relationships that the 2011 Act passed under National was designed to recognise.

Under this new regime, a whānau's ability to control access to their rohe moana must be proven through continuous physical activity, as if tikanga can only exist when measured in footprints and fishing nets. That narrow material test is not what this Parliament agreed to in 2011. The original Act balanced evidence of physical use with tikanga, oral histories, and the reality of colonisation's disruptions.

The substantial interruption I referred to, under the current law, occasional authorised public activity did not automatically break customary occupation, but under this bill, any other use, authorised or not, can destroy a claim. This, effectively, means that even when we maintained ongoing connection, any intrusion by others, no matter how brief, no matter what, it counts as an interruption. That is not legal clarity; that is legal sabotage.

Together, these provisions rewrite the test so even the most tenacious kaitiaki will struggle to meet it. This Government has set the test, defined the evidence, and judges the outcome, and then congratulates itself on its fairness.

The second point I'd like to make is the retrospectivity of this legislation. I would hang my head in shame if I passed this as a Minister of Justice. The second fatal flaw is its retrospective reach. It applies the new test back to 24 July 2024, meaning that any case heard before the New Zealand courts can be reopened. Court decisions made in good faith, applying the law as it stood, will be swept aside with this legislation.

Cabinet was explicitly warned by officials not to proceed in this way. That advice was ignored and, as a result, up to seven cases may now need to be reheard, affecting more than 280 kilometres of coastline and consuming millions of dollars in costs. Officials gave clear advice that reopening cases would undermine confidence in the legal process and inflict further costs on all parties, and they were right.

These are the hapū and iwi who have spent years gathering evidence, appearing in court, and trusting that the Crown would respect judicial outcomes. To now turn around and tell them that their success will be set aside because Parliament has changed its mind because of a coalition deal is betrayal. As one claimant told reporters, this change feels like mocking the judicial system, and that's because it is. No responsible Government should legislate backwards. Retrospective lawmaking offends one of the oldest principles in our common law, that people should know what the law is when they act.

The irony is rich. A Government that preaches certainty and stability is delivering exactly the opposite—years more litigation, confusion for developers, and a flood of re-hearings. The retrospective causes should have been removed at the Justice Committee, but instead, this Government has doubled down, insisting on political power to reach past. It is absolutely constitutionally reckless.

The third point I would touch on—and perhaps the most serious consequence—is the damage this bill does to the Māori-Crown relationship and to New Zealand's social fabric, which this Government doesn't seem to care about. The Waitangi Tribunal has been clear on what it says this bill does—a gross breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. Its urgent inquiry found that the challenges would significantly endanger the Crown-Māori relationship and undermine decades of slow progress towards partnership and mutual respect.

We should listen, because we have been here before. In 2004, the Foreshore and Seabed Act caused huge upheaval within New Zealand. Tens of thousands of people protested, political parties fractured, and trust between Māori and the Crown was broken. The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 was designed precisely to heal that rupture. It guaranteed a public process while creating a fair pathway for customary recognition. It was a careful balance that was forged through years of negotiation, goodwill, and compromise. Now this Government is breaking that balance.

Māori leaders have described this bill as worse than the Foreshore and Seabed Act because it goes further, not only blocking new claims but reopening those that were already won. Former Attorney-General Chris Finlayson—again, hardly a left-wing radical—warned that this legislation would be extremely harmful to race relations and it will rip away the good work that was done. His words carry the weight of experience. We know from our history that when the Crown chooses to legislate over Māori rights instead of negotiating with iwi, the result is always the same: division, litigation, and mistrust.

I would go on, but I would like to conclude that this bill is a huge error of judgment—legally, morally, and politically. Just like pay equity, this Government is rewriting the rules, moving the goal posts, and punishing those who have acted in good faith. It tells iwi and hapū that when they succeed in the courts, Parliament will simply legislate over their rights. It reopens those wounds, it breaches the Treaty of Waitangi, and it invites years of fresh division.

All of it—every clause—would have been avoided if this Government had listened to its own officials, to the Waitangi Tribunal, to the judiciary, and even to its own former Attorney-General. Chris Finlayson's warning should ring in every National MP's ears. These amendments, "do not restore the law. They undermine it. They are extremely harmful to race relations."

When their own senior architect says the Government is dismantling the very framework he built, that should give you cause to pause. This bill will not bring certainty; it will bring more litigation. One day, perhaps, not long from now, National will look back on this vote and realise it has made a grave mistake that it will live to regret, because history does have a long memory. When Governments choose expedience over fairness, politics over partnership, and division over dialogue, history remembers. I do not commend this bill to the House.

NANCY LU (National): The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill restores to clarify to the Act that ensures Parliament's original intent is followed. The amendments align the recognition of the customary marine titles more closely with tikanga and address concerns addressed by the courts. The bill is also part of the agreement of the coalition Government and agreed to and supported by all Government parties. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call. I call Cushla Tangaere-Manuel.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I just reflected on a picture of my father signing the Ngāti Porou Takutai Moana deed in good faith. Pictures of him, my uncle, Dr Mahuika, my pakeke, my kuia, my aunties, and my cousins, who would just be so disgusted that I'm here to defend it tonight.

I want to acknowledge Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, who covers the eastern seaboard of the North Island.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Hoi anō rā, I think the best way for me to address this bill is as a wīwī Nāti, as Ngāti Porou being the first and only iwi to have our own takutai moana bill. When these kaupapa kōrero started, one of my uncles, Eru Paenga, stood up at our marae at Rākaitemania in Te Horo and he said, "My God, for 77 years, I thought the beach was mine." So began a journey of 20-plus years of justifying our kaitiakitanga of our takutai moana—20-plus years of justifying a whakapapa that we know. At 1150, Nukutere landed in Rangitukia. In 1350, followed by Horouta.

Then we populated and lived on and went about our business as kaitiaki of our Ngāti Porou, waited until these ridiculous claims before we actually had to prove that only Māori populated and were resident and did any business before 1840. Well, we knew it was before 1100, and here we were, in good faith, negotiating, according to the laws of this House and the laws of this land, and the result, as I said, was a takutai moana bill.

Now, after 20-plus years—and here we thought we had an agreement binding by the laws of this land—here we are. The self-proclaimed party of property rights, trampling all over the rights guaranteed to us, even though they were our rights before the courts were even established in this land. But we came to the party as good partners and as good kaitiaki and tangata whenua to find something that met the interests of the public and the interest of kaitiaki. For goodness' sake, we're not talking about Oriental Bay; we're talking about Hicks Bay. We're talking about Tokomaru Bay and bays throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and Aotearoa that you have no evidence, Mr Goldsmith, of public being denied access—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Ngāti Porou is excluded.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Oh, don't you tell me about Ngāti Porou. We all know you wanted to be Ngāti Porou, but anyway, we're talking about Takutai Moana, which this Government have no evidence that public have been denied access to. And as I said, the party of property rights, trampling on legal agreements. [Change of Speaker] Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. Kotahi mai. We're not talking about a shift in goal posts; we're talking about changing the whole game.

And guess what? The Minister is an expert on Ngāti Porou. Ngāti Porou did it once, and we're ready for you again. You can keep changing the rules. You can keep shifting the goal posts. We're here for it because our kaitiakitanga is forever. Your reign as Government is for one more year, so don't get too comfortable.

Hoi anō rā, though my tipuna and some of my cousins who are still here fought the good fight in good faith, the trust is zero. This is not just a disgrace for your relationship with Māori; it's a disgrace for your relationship with New Zealand. This is not the New Zealand we want to be.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

My mana stretches from the hinterland to beyond the shore, and so shall it be.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to speak about the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to restore the clarity to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, it seeks to protect property rights that foster legal clarity, and it seeks to reduce legal disputes and ambiguity. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): You know, there's been so much great kōrero tonight, I feel I can't add a lot, but I see the Minister for Māori Development over there and he must be very embarrassed about this bill tonight. In fact, he should be ashamed of the bill, and he should be ashamed of himself. He thinks it's a big joke, but he is the Minister for the Waitangi Tribunal, so I want to read this, because maybe he has not communicated to the bloke who's not interested in Māori rights sitting by him. This what the tribunal says, for these two fools over here: "The Crown failed to consult with Māori during the development of [this kaupapa]".

But more importantly—see these two; you can see, the whole House, these two over here not interested at all as they walk over Māori rights—"The Crown has breached the principle of tino rangatiratanga by exercising kāwanatanga over Māori rights and interests in te takutai moana without providing any evidence for one of its key justifications—namely, that the public's rights and interests require further protection beyond what is already provided by the Act. The Crown also failed to inform itself of Māori interests." A total breach of Māori rights—and these two over here, not even interested in the kaupapa. You've got a Minister for Māori Development who should hang his bloody head in shame, because we have heard the kōrero tonight, and what we know here is that this Government will attack Māori rights at every opportunity that it can—at every opportunity that it can.

You see, their former mentor, Chris Finlayson, has said: "These amendments do not restore the original intention of Parliament. They undermine them."—they undermine them. This is the former Attorney-General, and interesting enough, in this morning's paper, we heard more comments from Mr Finlayson when he said that what nobody disputes is that the changes to the foreshore and seabed original Act make it harder for iwi and hapū—make it harder for iwi and hapū. In terms of what the Government is doing, is they are undermining the work of Chris Finlayson.

We are asking, in te ao Māori: why is this continuing? Why is this happening everywhere? The tribunal has given its decision, but when you look around at all the quotes, it just goes on and on. When Finlayson says, "These amendments do not restore the original intention of Parliament. They undermine them.", there's no doubt about that at all. What they are doing with these foolish amendments is destroying the settlement that the National Party and the Māori Party reached in 2010. They are not interested in the agreement. In terms of the Treaty principles, the tribunal recommends that: "the Crown halt its current efforts to amend the Takutai Moana Act; the Crown make a genuine effort for meaningful engagement with Māori; and the focus of this engagement should be on the perceived issues of permissions for resource consents, rather than interrupting the process of awarding customary marine title."

I ask tonight: why does the Government feel the need to intervene with the law? You know, and I look at what Cushla Tangaere-Manuel was saying: our people, they trust the law; they go through the process—our kaumātua work through the process; they chuck everything at this; they come and win at court level—then Government changes the rules. Government changes the rules. Why does Government feel this need to continually attack kaupapa Māori? Reuben Taipari says it's worse, actually, because it's blatant. What they did in 2004 was a negative reaction. Twenty years later, we've shown that that's never been the case. We've never stopped access to the foreshore. Aperahama Edwards, who was so furious that he stood up in the gallery here and insulted the National Government, said that this is tantamount to a raupatu or confiscation. It goes on and on. These people are hurting. As Hūhana has said, they're burning; they're burning this law out on the beaches—they're burning them on the beaches.

Steve Abel: Burn the bill!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, they're burning the bill. And it cites, as quoted, this is so mean-spirited. But even more so, we had the New Zealand Law Society, who talked about "aspects of the intended changes affecting te Tiriti o Waitangi Treaty of Waitangi (Treaty) relationships, the rule of law, access to justice, and other constitutional issues including breaches of fundamental rights. The Law Society does not support the proposed changes and recommends they do not proceed."

I want to ask tonight: when does this stop? When does this Government stop attacking Māori? That's the question that our people are asking. Constantly, the attacks are coming, whether it's section 7AA, whether it's the Treaty of Waitangi, whether it's the tribunal. When do the attacks stop, Mr Goldsmith? When are you going to say, "No, actually, we respect the rule of law—we respect the rule of law." Your former mentor has disowned you. He has disowned the National Party.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: No, he's come to us.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I know—he's not that far, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer; he's not that far. But your former mentor is so disgusted with what the party is doing that he is saying that you are scared of the future. You are scared of Māori asserting themselves in this world, and you have learned nothing, Mr Goldsmith, nothing, because Mr Potaka has been able to teach you nothing. Obviously, he has not been able to pass on the value of the Waitangi Tribunal—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can I encourage Hon Willie Jackson to direct his comments to the Speaker. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, yeah, thank you, Mr Speaker. I was just saying how ignorant—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I did hear you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, no—I'll take that back again, I suppose. But the reality is, we have an attack on Māori rights that has been clearly exhibited tonight by this side of the House, and we ask the question: when will it stop? When will the attacks stop on Māori and on kaupapa Māori initiatives? From the time Peeni Henare stood up tonight and talked about his whakapapa and talked about how he has been affected, how we have been affected, all the way through to Hūhana Lyndon, Tākuta Ferris, all the way to Cushla Tangaere-Manuel. We had Ginny Andersen speaking about the connections in terms of Hobson's Pledge in this House; coalition deals done on the basis of extinguishing Māori rights—on the basis of extinguishing Māori rights. We had a New Zealand First former Hobson's Pledge leader actually expressing and rolling out her clear concerns that Māori rights had to be extinguished, and that's been expressed tonight, too.

So in wrapping this kōrero up tonight, we ask the question: what next? What is the next kaupapa that will be attacked by this Government and by this Minister over here who refuses to accept the words of his predecessor, who has said that the National Party just don't like Māori getting too big. That's what he said. "They just don't like Māori getting too many rights."—that's what he said. He is disgusted with this party. He's got a Minister of Māori Affairs who is having no influence on the Minister of Justice. We ask tonight, and we say to our people out there, that the fight will continue. The fight will continue in terms of this type of kaupapa, in terms of Treaty rights, in terms of what's going to be happening over the next few weeks. This side will continue to respond and expose the other side for what they are doing.

This is the most racist policy—I'm talking about policy here; this is the most racist policy that this Government has supported probably in—what, the last two weeks? And the reality is that they exceed themselves week by week. So I want to say tonight that this has been a great exhibition from our side of the House. I'm proud of the way we've stood up. I hope that our people can see and hear that this is an Opposition who will whakakotahi for the kaupapa—whakakotahi for the kaupapa. And the kaupapa will be to fight this Government on every issue where they attack Māori, which is coming weekly, which is coming fortnightly. I say again to the Minister of Justice over there and the Minister of Māori Affairs: hang your heads in shame, and we will continue with the fight. Kia ora tātou.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the last speaker on this third reading of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill, I don't want to drag it out, but I do want to just put on record that Ngāti Porou has got a carve-out from this Act and their takutai moana is not going to be affected by this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

© Scoop Media