Sitting date: 8 Oct 2025
MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) (CUSTOMARY MARINE TITLE) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I present a legislative statement on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill.

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

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

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act was established in 2011 as a regime for managing interests in the foreshore and seabed that carefully balanced the recognition of Māori groups' customary rights with the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders. One way customary interests are recognised under the Act is through the award of a customary marine title (CMT). CMT comes with valuable rights. These include the ownership of non-Crown minerals, involvement in planning, and the ability to permit or decline certain resource consent applications. CMT also provides holders with the right to be engaged with when new significant infrastructure is proposed.

These rights were included in the 2011 legislation on the basis that the test for CMT was exacting and recognised CMT only where customary interests have been maintained with sufficient strength right through to the present day. However, in 2023, the Court of Appeal interpreted the CMT test in a way that significantly reduced the need for continuity and exclusivity in the scope of what can constitute a substantial interruption. I respect the role of the courts as one decisionmaker under this regime and the challenge in interpreting the CMT test in the context of the wider Act, but for this regime to work as Parliament intended, a rigorous test for CMT needs to be maintained. The Government believes that the Act was, and is, a strong affirmation of Parliament's role to achieve fairness for all those that have interest in coastal areas.

The Justice Committee reported the bill back in December of last year, and I will discuss the committee's work in a moment, but as members will be aware, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment, also in December last year, directly relevant to the test for customary marine title, in a case called Re Edwards. The sensible thing to do in these unusual circumstances was to take time to carefully consider the Supreme Court judgment and its implications for the bill, and that is what we have done. Let me say it is a helpful judgment. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Government was right to have concerns about how the 2023 Court of Appeal Re Edwards decision approached the customary marine title test.

As the Supreme Court noted, the Act aims to balance a wide range of interests in the common marine and coastal area. However, that does not mean that the Supreme Court judgment substantially fixed the difficulty with the previous court decisions or restored the balance of interests. Following the Supreme Court's December judgment, the High Court issued a decision that has made extensive findings of CMT, illustrating that the Supreme Court's test has not altered the approach of the courts in practice. Parliament, clearly, did not intend CMT would be available at that scale, so to resolve Parliament's intent, legislative clarification is still required.

The bill provides the necessary clarification because it goes further than the Supreme Court in crucial ways, including more tightly defining what "exclusive use and occupation" means, requiring the courts to base any inferences on firm physical evidence, not on cultural association alone, and placing the burden of proof more squarely on applicants. As members will be aware, the Supreme Court has recently issued a second judgment in Re Edwards. That judgment has limited relevance for the bill although it does raise some broader issues about the beds of navigable rivers, which the Government is still considering.

I will now return back to the work of the Justice Committee. I wish to thank the chairperson, James Meager, and members of the committee for their efforts, including hearing a large number of submissions under demanding time frames. It was good to see that submissions came from a wide range of submitters, including current CMT applicants, other groups, and members of the public. I would like to extend my thanks to those who participated and made valuable contributions in that select committee process. The Justice Committee's report proposes mainly clarifications around technical drafting amendments, and I am glad to see that the committee confirmed the substance of the bill. The most notable amendment proposed by the committee responds to a theme of submissions. It relates to how the bill's amendments prevail over other law. The scope of this overriding-effect provision has been confirmed in the committee's proposed amendments to refer to the purpose of the Treaty sections of the principal Act and relevant judgments. This is shown in the proposed new section 9B(3).

Part 2 of the bill outlines the specific aspects of the law that are to be altered by the bill and the parts of court judgments that are being expressly altered or overwritten. The committee has not proposed any changes to this part of the bill. However, as I've said, the courts have issued further decisions since the bill was introduced, so this part will need to be updated. To do so, I intend to table an Amendment Paper during the upcoming committee of the whole House phase. I acknowledge that some submitters raised concerns about the retrospective elements of the bill in new Schedule 1AA. The schedule provides that CMT decisions after the date of the announcement of this policy—that is, from 25 July 2024—will be on the basis of the amended test, and any CMT decisions made in the interim period between the policy announcements and enactment will be overturned by clause 4 of the new schedule and reheard under the amended test.

This will require rehearing seven cases, including four where customary marine title has already been recognised. In the Government's view, retrospectively applying the amendment test is necessary to have as many applicants as possible decided under a test that appropriately captures Parliament's original intent. Recognising the impact this will have for the affected applicants, the Government has approved $15 million to help meet their rehearing costs.

In conclusion, now the bill has been reported back and Ministers have considered the Supreme Court judgment, the Government intends to progress the bill to enactment without delay. A further adjustment will be required before third reading. To do so, I will introduce an amendment paper on the bill at the committee of the whole House stage. The Amendment Paper is required to address the court's judgments issued since the bill was introduced, clarify that changes to the CMT tests do not apply to Ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou, as their bespoke legislation is based on prior agreements with the Crown, and address one outstanding issue about the kinds of activities that can cause substantial interruption of CMT. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to put on the record that we oppose this bill, and we do so in light of the Minister's words just now.

We can't look at this particular bill in isolation. The Minister has made it very clear, and this Government have made it very clear, about their willingness and their policy to exploit the minerals of Te Takutai Moana, and the Minister has just confirmed that. This is simply easing the way—even more so for this Government—to just ram through their policy and run ahead with what they see fit.

Yesterday in the House, the member Mr Ferris asked a very good question of the Minister, and that was: what does he say to the private land owners who own parcels of land all around this country that actually deny access to the beach? The Minister's flippant comment—I'm hoping it was flippant, but it certainly wasn't well received—he said, "Get on a boat. Jump on a boat and you can go around and access it by the ocean." Now, Mr McCallum, who's in the House, is the member for Northland and knows many of those parcels of land across Te Tai Tokerau where those land owners—the majority of them Pākehā, non-Māori—stop access to the beach.

Hon Member: Not everyone—not everyone.

Hon PEENI HENARE: They do, and I know where that is. If anyone knows where Waimahana is in the Far North, when you get to the ridge before you look down to the left on Waimahana, have a look to the right. There's a place called Paradise Bay, where you can't get to. The Minister says, "Jump on a boat.", so I'm going to encourage all of my whanaunga. According to the Minister, get on your waka, go and visit those parcels of beaches and Takutai Moana, right across Te Tai Tokerau, and express your views to the land owners there and say, "It's OK" because the Minister said, "Jump on your waka.". That's what we're going to do.

I'm really upset that the way the Minister in his speech just now characterised that it wasn't the intention of this House at the passing of this bill in 2011. Christopher Finlayson, a man who is well respected right across this House, and, indeed, across the country—the Minister already spoke to the bespoke legislation with Ngāti Porou—Minister Finlayson did that work. Minister Finlayson—former Minister Finlayson, sorry—was very clear to this Government that what they're doing to this bill is abhorrent, and it actually isn't what he did when he passed this bill in 2011. I want to remind the House that that bill was carefully negotiated between the Māori Party and the National Party of the day. Mr Finlayson is very clear that what this Government is doing is wrong.

Now, the Government's just spoken to something that I know, in this House, we seldom use. One of those kaupapa is retrospective legislation. It is one of those avenues where we warned members of the House—long before my time here, and I'm sure into the future—that you use the reach of retrospective legislation very rarely. In only very few circumstances has that happened. I've been here in the House when that has been used before. Now we're saying not only are we going to change the rules while everyone's playing the game but we're going to push you all back to the start line. Why does this sound familiar to our people in the House here? That's what they did on pay equity—it's the same thing. We're going to change the law, and we're going to push everyone back to the start, just because of a case where a judge and the court actually found in favour of customary title.

For anybody who has been through the process of proving either customary title or any kaupapa through a settlement, the burden of proof rests with the iwi, rests with the hapū, rests with the whānau, rests with the claimants. I can say to this House that that burden of proof is extremely high, and it takes years and years for that evidence to be built and for that case to be brought in front of the court. Once it gets to the court, the court made a decision, and this Government is saying, "Oh, no, that's not good enough; we're going to change the law. We're going to go back to what is actually intended.". Well, the person who passed the bill was clear on what was intended when he passed that bill.

Now we have a change from this Government. Well, we're not surprised—we're not surprised. We've got a number of Treaty settlements coming up in this House, and we want to remind the whānau out there that this particular bill doesn't sit in isolation from all of those that are currently pushing their bills through this House. We're going to remind this Government of that, because often, on those bills, we stand in this House, and we talk about unity across the House. Well, right now, that's clearly not happening.

Labour opposes this bill, for the matters of retrospectivity, for the matters that the Minister has raised about their push and their policy to exploit the minerals at the Government's will. We also oppose it because, what we know about this particular bill is that, when the Minister introduced it last year—one year ago—he said it was going to be passed quickly. Then he learnt a solid lesson—that you actually have to talk to the people who it affects the most. It has taken a year, and we're back here. Now the Minister is saying that it's going to pass again, it will still pass before Christmas, a year after it was first introduced in this House.

Now, usually in this House we're slating the Government for the fact that they truncate all of the process on important bills that matter to New Zealanders. What we have here is that the Minister learnt his lesson. He introduced the bill this time last year, and then went "Oh, heck, I might have bitten off more than I can chew.". Now we're back here a year later and, guess what! What I heard from the Minister in his second reading speech—nothing has changed. To all of those people that submitted—and it's very clear, some very powerful people submitted; legal experts, those who are in the know, iwi, and others who have gone through this journey, who submitted on this bill—it's very clear to them that the Government is still not prepared to listen, and it's still not prepared to alter its view on this particular matter.

We are really disappointed that his particular bill continues to strip away rights, and what we're asking for on this side of the House in the Labour Party is—actually, we have a right to prove that case in court, and, once we did, guess what! The rules have changed again. All of those whānau out there—all of those hapū, all of those iwi who have been through this process—will know just how hard this is going to be from here on out because of this bill. It is unjust and it is unfair—it is grossly unfair that the Government, at the will of their policies—at the will, dare I say it, of many of their backers—push a bill like this through the House simply because they are unhappy with a judgment from the court.

Now, I recognise that Parliament can make legislation. It is the job of the courts to interpret it. But what I don't, and I can't stand for is when this Government and this Parliament stands up and says, "Oh, we're not happy with the court, so we're going to change it.". We've got to ask ourselves, are there other pieces of legislation that the Government might look at simply because they don't agree with a judgment from the court?

Todd Stephenson: That's the role of Parliament.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Yeah, it is, and that's why we've got to respect that. The member on the other side of the House said, "That's the role of Parliament." I just said that. This bill was passed in 2011 by a man well respected in this House, who actually negotiated a very good bill, and this Government is now changing it simply because they're not happy with what the courts have said. Now, that member, I know for a fact, has never been to the court to prove a customary title. I know for a fact he hasn't. Well, guess what! You're looking at somebody who has—you're looking at a tribe and a person who has been through that process. That member can chirp all he wants—and I look forward to hearing what he has to say when it comes to his party's call on this bill, because I can tell that member that when the ACT Party get up in this House and talk about Treaty settlement bills, we're all going to sit here and go: "Two-faced.". Because that's what that is—that's what that is.

That member knows that this House can make law, but this Government has proven, time and time again, they've blurred the lines between the courts and this House. They continue to do it, and they do it again on this bill. That member sits there and shakes his head, but he is incorrect when he thinks we are the ultimate lawmaker here. Yes, we are—however, the courts have the opportunity to define that. Why? Because people take their case to the court. That member doesn't know what he's talking about.

Just in the final minute, we want to be very clear: we've heard the amendments that the Minister has offered for the committee of the whole House. We're going to offer some amendments, and I can guarantee we're going to prosecute those matters when it comes to the committee of the whole House. It is clear that this Government haven't heard from those who have submitted—they've clearly just listened to them and done nothing about it. Maumau tāima—waste of time—and they wonder why the public out there have no confidence and no faith in what this Government is doing. Once again, we've got a Government who thinks they know best—they know best—they know better than the legal profession, they know better than the courts, and they know better than those who have had customary title, and we'll, once again, show this Government where it's at.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I visited a thing called the Anaweka waka in Golden Bay about a year ago. It is quite a profound thing to see, directly, in person. It is a 700-year-old sailing waka found on a beach at the top of the South Island. It's a moving experience; to see what we all know is the history of these lands, that the tupuna of tangata whenua Māori sailed that vast ocean of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, to arrive here in these lands. And for most of the last thousand years, they have circumnavigated and sailed and gone through the harbours, and the inlets, and up and down the estuaries, and they have built their homes and their rohe, and they have interacted with the takutai moana—the marine coastal environment. It is a simple fact of history. I have seen the timber waka that is 700 years old, and yet, we seem to be here questioning whether Māori have customary use of the marine coastal environment. How ludicrous. What a preposterous thing to be contending. That is the starting point for how ridiculous it is to find ourselves in this situation. And yet, there was effective confiscation of that marine coastal environment.

If we as a Parliament, as a nation, believe in the intention of settlement, to recognise a wrong and make amends for it, then the highest principle should surely be justice. We know why justice is important, because of rapprochement, because of the establishment and the resumption of harmonious relations. Anyone who thinks there can be a cohesion, or a lasting contentment, in our nation, for any of us, without upholding and making good on the dignity and the intent of that founding agreement— Te Tiriti o Waitangi—is a fool, frankly.

This bill is the most anti-Treaty act of this Government. Far worse than the Treaty principles bill, only because it will pass; it will affect confiscation. Where Seymour failed to clumsily rewrite our founding agreement, this bill undoes a settled pathway for rapprochement, for settlement, and, therefore, it is fundamentally an anti-New Zealand bill.

The 2011 correction of the confiscation of the foreshore and seabed that was affected by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, was achieved by agreement across the House. There was an agreement that a wrong was done. Labour realised the error of their approach and a markedly more visionary National Government than this one before us—in coalition with Te Pāti Māori—brought a mechanism for recognition of Māori customary rights to the takutai moana. The restoration of the rights of Māori to go to court—a basic common-law right. Even the ACT Party at the time thought it was a travesty that that right had ever been removed. But this bill retrospectively cancels that right for all the claimants who've already been or are in the process of going to court. Basically, Māori went to court, won in court, and the Government went, "Oh, hang on a minute, we can't have that. We'd better fix it and undo it." That's what this bill does. It sets the bar so high as to dissuade any other iwi from wasting their time and money on that court process. It rips up that cross-party agreement and, frankly, it stabs Māori in the back once again. It exists in that long and tawdry tradition of Crown betrayals of iwi, Māori, and it is as such a restoration of the raupatu of 2004.

It is anti-New Zealand because if our objective is rapprochement, harmonious relations, this commits a treachery against that founding relationship. It has a constitutionally treasonous character because it betrays the intent of the mutual agreement which formerly brought the nation of New Zealand into existence. An agreement between two sovereign entities, the rangatiratanga of te iwi Māori and the British Crown.

This bill is in the tradition of traitorous Crown betrayals of Māori and that founding agreement, the very tradition we are trying to correct through the settlement process. This is exactly the laws that we apologise for when we do the settlements. It renders those present day settlements as a true duplicity. The Government gives back a little of what was stolen with one hand and steals even more with the other. That is what this bill today does. It is kaupapa kāwanatanga. It is perfidious Albion. Duplicitous Britain. Perfidious Albion refers to acts of diplomatic sleights, duplicity, treachery, and infidelity with respect to promises made or alliances formed with other nation states. The promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to uphold tino rangatiratanga and the sovereignty of Māori, is broken by this bill. The alliance formed in the founding of our nation through that agreement is betrayed by this bill. It is perfidious Albion, the character of constitutional treason. The Minister resurrects the darkest tradition of Crown betrayal, evokes the tradition of colonial theft, and should we be surprised, because that particular Minister believes colonisation was a good thing for iwi Māori, so surely doing more colonisations would be good in his estimations? Well, this bill does that, and he is deeply wrong in that.

The view of this bill is from a Government that proportionally has a property rights ideology, in so much as it believes they can manage the commons, the rivers, the lakes, the aquifers, the oceans, the atmosphere through private property rights. Yet they don't uphold the first property rights of this country—Māori customary rights—and they're diminishing those rights across the vast acreage of the marine coastal environment today. They don't really believe in property rights. They believe in the right to accumulation of capital of those who would exploit nature. In fact, as with the environment, they see protecting the commons and upholding Māori customary rights and Treaty rights as a barrier to the commercial exploitation of the environment. As the Minister has said as much in his recent statements on opposing tikanga components of law because they were a barrier to business, justifying opposing the logical plurality of our legal system, upholding both tikanga and common law is consistent with the Treaty.

Every legal system is bespoke, of course. Every country has its own sets of laws and established jurisprudence. The idea that Parliament intent is being restored by this is absolute garbage, and if you have any doubt, you could simply ask the author of the original Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. He's still alive, he's still around. He's speaking at the Waitangi Tribunal commemorations right now. Is there any accident that this bill comes before the House on the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal? I would love to say it was an accident. Mr Christopher Finlayson, who wrote this bill, the former Attorney-General, put it plainly, "these amendments do not restore the original intent of Parliament, they undermine them". Let there be no doubt about that at all.

I marched across the Auckland Harbour Bridge in 2004 against the Foreshore and Seabed Act. My parliamentary forebears stood with an "Honour Te Tiriti" banner. On these steps, in 2004, as the throng of the hīkoi arrived and that banner said, "Honour the Treaty". This Green caucus here stood on the steps again where that massive hīkoi met us at Parliament last year with the same message of honour the Treaty. We stand for the principle of rapprochement. We stand for upholding that founding agreement for the good of all New Zealanders. This wretched bill will be the first bill on the repeal list of things that we will do to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi when there is a change of Government in one year's time.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. There's been a lot of kind of rhetoric across the House this morning. I see things slightly differently, as you might imagine. In 2011, there was a test established for marine customary title. Basically, the Government's position is that the Court of Appeal got that wrong. What we want to make sure is that, actually, the intention of this House is restored. In fact, the Supreme Court agreed that the Court of Appeal got that wrong. So what we are simply doing is making sure it's very clear what the customary title test should be. That's why I commend this bill to the House. [Interruption]

A disturbance took place in the gallery, and a member of the public was removed.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. The Justice Committee—and I acknowledge the chair, the Hon James Meager—received and considered submissions from 6,692 interested groups and individuals and heard oral evidence from 69 submitters. Customary marine title was established under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 and it replaced that very controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

A customary marine title cannot be sold, and public access is maintained. The test for the customary marine title is primarily contained in clause 58(1) of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act and has two limbs. It provides that, "Customary marine title exist in a specified area of the common marine and coastal area if the applicant group— (a) holds the specified area in accordance with tikanga; and (b) has, … [either] (i) exclusively used and occupied … [the area] from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption; or (ii) has received it, at any time after 1840, through a customary transfer in accordance with subsection (3)."

In 2023, the Court of Appeal interpreted provisions of the Act about the requirements for recognising customary marine title which materially reduced the threshold of the continuous exclusive use. New Zealand First believes the court's interpretation fails to give effect to the intended requirement that applicants for customary marine title must prove they have exclusively used and occupied the area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption.

This bill aims to reduce the ambiguity of the test for customary marine title. It will amend the 2011 Act to provide much more clarity and certainty around how customary marine titles are determined, particularly in response to recent legal judgments re Edwards that have created some confusion, some ambiguity about Parliament's original intent.

This bill fulfils a coalition agreement between New Zealand First and National. We believe these changes address New Zealand First's focus on the sovereignty of Parliament and on fairness and transparency in legal processes. It'll balance the natural expectations of all New Zealanders to have an interest in what occurs in the coastal marine space, balancing that with Māori customary marine title which grants their own valuable rights.

My colleague the Hon Shane Jones has stated that recent court decisions have made the test for customary marine title too easy, and that rights creep—rights creep—could enable iwi to obstruct critical development projects such as ports. Rights creep that threatens the economy—seeking to restore that higher threshold for customary marine title being granted. This amendment bill aims to restore the original, higher test for customary marine title set in 2011. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Tākuta Ferris. [Interruption] No, Tākuta Ferris is—

Tākuta Ferris: Are you going to take the next one?

Hūhana Lyndon: Yeah, I'll take the next one.

Tākuta Ferris: All right.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga):

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

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

I've just been at the celebration of 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal. This is being talked about, but I'm going to take this time to just set the record straight for our whānau at home, because this is a take [subject] that has to land at home. E te whānau, you have to get up and make sure that this thing doesn't go anywhere.

In 2004, there was an Act by a Parliament led by the Helen Clark - Labour - led Government. They enacted a piece of legislation that they were warned not to—the courts told them not to, the UN told them not to, their Treaty partner told them not to. They just arrogantly bowled ahead and did it and they confiscated, without authority, 336,000 square kilometres of Māori land. The test that had to be proven was: was there legislation that had actively extinguished that Māori right before 2004, and the answer was no, there was not. So the right in Te Tiriti o Waitangi was still there when they passed the legislation. That's number one.

That led to the rise of Te Pāti Māori. Why? Tariana Turia left the Labour Party because the voice of the Māori seat that she held wasn't recognised. Its independence was stifled; its voice was ignored. She left to assert the independence of those seats. Why? So that we could protect these things. That's part two.

The biggest contemporary theft, confiscation, of land, Te Tiriti o Waitangi rights land, happened in 2004, whānau—not 1904, not 1804; 2004. The Māori Party came about and they had to fight that battle for seven more years until they got into Government with the Key-led National Government and agreed to a middle ground, which wasn't a fix or an addressing of the 2004 debacle; it was a band-aid for it, all the while knowing it would continue on into the future as it has.

In 2017, things happen; there are cases that go through. We get to this Government, the Luxon-led National Government, and they don't like the band-aid that was put on in 2011; they're ripping it off—ripping it off and taking everything with it, e te whānau. This is for the public of New Zealand, OK, because if you listen here to what these guys are saying, they're not even telling you half the story. They're a waste of time; they're not in the debate.

So here we go. The takutai moana Act was a band-aid, OK, and the removal—[Minister Goldsmith enters Chamber] Oh, kia ora. Kia ora, Minister—grab a seat, have a listen. So the band-aid is being pulled off. There are about six or seven other iwi and hapū that have got across the threshold that—although they say it wasn't good enough, they set it, and Māori did the work, like we have for 21 years, to prove it. We're proving a right that we didn't have to prove, because it was there in 2004 and an arrogant Government took it away. That's all this is, and here we are having to deal with it again. Well, good luck. Good luck with all of the tribunal. Good luck with all of the legal precedent that's already there. Good luck with your courts, because they are pushing back on you. You will not succeed.

So, Ngāti Kere, my hapū, from the puku of Kahungunu, one of those hapū that achieved the customary title, and now he wants to take it away. My iwi, of Ngāti Raukawa ki Te Tonga; one of those iwi that achieved that right—he wants to take it away. All right; they're ready. Kei te pai. It's all wasting your time, public. It's all wasting your money, wasting your time, wasting everybody's everything.

I'm going to finish by saying this—these are the words, actually, to the public: who would you rather have look after the interests of the coast, Māori or the liberal corporates over there? Think about that. This is what Justin Tipa, the chairman of Ngāi Tahu, had to say: "Let's be clear: this is not about 'recognising the legitimate rights of all New Zealanders'. This is about removing the legitimate rights of Māori." We do not support the bill at all.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of te rōpū Kākāriki, and in support of my colleague Steve Abel, we absolutely oppose this legislation, because, like a thief in the night, this Government comes through with this legislation that will raupatu—the biggest raupatu that Maori will suffer—to our mana takutai moana. Because what was the issue? What was the problem that this Government is seeking to change and improve? There was no need. Māori have been here mai rā anō. We are intergenerational. We were here yesterday, we're here today, and we'll be here tomorrow. Our tūpuna, our people have paddled, have harvested, and have lived on these waters for generations. And yet we have a Kāwanatanga that is turning its back on the very Māori-Crown relationships that have been tenuous for the last two years—now tearing it up. You're tearing up Māori-Crown relations.

We should be celebrating today 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal, Oriini Kaipara coming into the House. We should be celebrating, but instead we're here fighting against the legislation that is the biggest raupatu against te iwi Māori in the history of Aotearoa, because this is an uncaring Government. This Government cares more about the property rights of Pākehā than the Māori. Why can't Māori have property rights? Why can't Māori have some customary rights to our takutai moana? When my rangatira from Ngātiwai yells at this House and affirms that we did not cede our sovereignty,

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

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

We will not stop fighting this Government that continues to hamahama us, as te iwi Māori who have been here mai rā anō.

That is the crime. That is the shame. That is the mahi apo, the greed of this Government that turns its back on its customary partners here, who signed to te Tiriti o Waitangi in good faith. At no time did our tūpuna who signed te Tiriti think that we would be left pōhara, that we would be left destitute, that we would lose our mana takutai moana, because we signed it in good faith. We have a Government that is stripping Māori rights. Our communities are exhausted. It's been two years of submissions. It's been two years of waving a flag, of hīkoi, protests. Our kaimahi are going to strike again: on 23 October, we will stand to whakamana te Tiriti; on 28 October, its tuakana, He Whakaputanga.

This Government has no care for te iwi Māori. Our rights are intergenerational, and this Government seeks to raupatu, to confiscate those rights that are intergenerational for our people. I cried this morning at Te Herenga Waka as we stood and we looked at the 50 years of delivery, of listening and hearing our people in the Waitangi Tribunal—those judges, those kaiwhakawā, those legal counsel who have supported us—for their ability to bring truth, truth to Aotearoa, that a record would show, that there is research that affirms, the raupatu that has happened on the whenua.

Now we have a raupatu on the papa moana. How dare you? How dare you do this to our people at such a time when we are already at risk? We are trying to put food on the table. Our people don't know that this legislation is back. We're just trying to survive. We're just trying to be claimants in a process that was not designed for us. The claimant burden of having to go back to the courts again. Do you even understand the 18 weeks of hearings that the tribes of Whangārei had to stand, prepare our elders, get our research, do all of the bling and mapping—all of these thresholds set by the Crown? We met the rule of law, we presented our evidence, and we're waiting for a judgment. And now you're saying, "Oh, no, Māori, no, sorry to the hapū of Whangārei—you've got to go back and do it again."

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

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

No way—no way will te iwi Māori stand for this. And you have torn up any Māori-Crown relationship that we will have moving forward.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This amendment bill is important in order to provide clarity on Parliament's original intent. It is the Parliament of New Zealand that sets the laws of this land, and this inserts a statutory declaration that overturns the court's reasoning and ensures the intent of this House is clear. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

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

I stand before this House after observing an interaction, just before, that makes me quite sad. I come from a school of thought where I believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not only the past of this country but, most of all, it is our future, that together, all peoples in this country can come together. More than that, I believe that, at this particular time, no matter who you are, where you are in this beautiful country of ours, you want to be a part of a country that is about kotahitanga, about inclusion, that is about a way forward, and it's about coming together to address the challenges that are in front of us, whether they are short term, medium term, or long term.

But I come back to the point that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is our future. but sadly, that is not what I see before us today. Can I acknowledge our rangatira from Ngātiwai, who stood up because this kaupapa is sensitive. It brings the grief of decades, of hundreds of years of trauma that people in this country have faced. It takes us backwards. It takes us backwards to a part of this history that we don't want to go back to. In my own party, we have that black mark, we have that history. Motatau hē. We acknowledge that. But this is not the way forward.

In addition to that, last night, together, we all celebrated, in the Legislative Council Chamber, 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal—50 years, some would say 50 years of progress, some would say 50 years of protest. Maybe it's all of those things. But even to have this reading on the Order Paper this year, as we celebrate 50 years, Minister, this is cynical. It is cynical, and under your Government, you continue to kick Māori down. This does not make us a stronger country. This does not progress our people—our New Zealand people—and it does not progress Māori alike. This is a cynical move, absolutely cynical.

My second point is to the Government member that put an allegation forward against a member of this House that she incited protest from the gallery, from one of rangatira from Ngātiwai. That is unfair, and that is not true, and that is an example of this Government being out of touch, not understanding the kaupapa in front of us. But again, the backbench is reflective of their leadership, and that leadership is cynical. It is cynical, it is mean-spirited, and it continues the punch-down of our indigenous people in this country. Every opportunity that I have in this House, I will remind Government members of the bad choices that they have made for our country and for Māori alike: repealing Te Aka Whai Ora, taking us backwards on Māori wards, removing Te Tiriti from legislation. I also challenge the members of the Education and Workforce Committee, who are doing that under our vocational training legislation and under the tertiary education strategy.

Time and time again, I think that this Government might take a step back and think, "Oh, times are challenging for us." New Zealand has question marks about the direction that they're taking our country. The actions that they take are more divisive than ever. But then, they do something else, then they do another thing, and so the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill is just another example. Radio New Zealand, under this headline, when reported, "characterised by a blind adherence to pre-existing political commitments at the expense"—at the expense—"of whānau, hapū, and iwi." Not at the expense of every other New Zealander that lives in our wonderful country, at the expense of whānau, hapū, and iwi.

And that's because this, clearly, is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It's a dismissal of official advice from the Waitangi Tribunal and the important steps not taken in the development process. That's resulted in the Crown breaching the principle of good government. I truly believe we all come to this place to represent people, to represent everyone, and when we do get to become Government, that we lead this country in a way forward, and this is simply taking us backwards.

Not to consult adequately with tangata whenua, with mana whenua, with iwi, hapū, and whānau, to push that through, that is not modern-day practice, and that's exactly what the Government has done. And this Minister in the House today, he has not consulted adequately with Māori. That, in itself, is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The breach there is the principle of tino rangatiratanga by exercising kāwanatanga over Māori rights and interests in the takutai moana without providing any evidence—any evidence—for one of its key justifications. Namely that the public rights and interests require further protection beyond what is already provided by the Act. The Crown also failed to inform itself of Māori interests. The Crown failed to inform itself of what the Māori interests are.

Now, I hope that Governments moving forward think about what's best for our country, how they will close the gap of the division that we experienced. And this cynical move is not the direction that people in Aotearoa are looking for. They want unity, they want kotahitanga, they want access, they want fairness, and they want equality.

This is a terrible, terrible sleight on this Parliament, that we are moving this piece of legislation before the House as we celebrate 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal. I do not commend this bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to stand in support of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. As has been traversed by the Minister in charge and some of my colleagues already, the bill is amending the test for recognising customary marine titles, noting the decision of the Court of Appeal last year. We're setting it in a place where we can seek some clarity around the intention of the legislation so that we can make it crystal clear. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I listened to the ACT Party contribution on this bill, such as it was—the minute or so that it took—and I was aghast because the ACT Party's promoting a bill that says that we shouldn't take or impair property rights without proper compensation. I want to recognise that customary and marine title is, essentially, a property right. Yet, the ACT Party, for all of its pro-property rhetoric, doesn't believe in protecting the property rights for Māori that are enshrined in customary title.

I want to say one other thing before I get into any detail: this bill does not create property rights. The Minister, Paul Goldsmith, in one of his speeches said this legislation creates and confers property rights, and that's not true. What it does is it recognises existing rights. These rights by definition have existed since time immemorial. This is not a concept that is at all foreign to New Zealand or English law. The idea of having customary rights which have been created by the behaviours of people across generations is something that crosses many cultures. It's not unique to Māori.

As Steve Abel said so articulately, the fact of the matter is that Māori have for generations been people of the sea. They have navigated our coastline, they have harvested kai from the estuaries and coasts around us, and they have done that across generations. Yet, what we are seeing now is a confiscation. It is a limiting of that. Once again, this Government is by inches encroaching and taking away rights.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Have you forgotten Helen Clark?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The Minister protests, but he doth protest too much, because he knows as much as anyone that the bill as it stood, the original piece of legislation, was carefully crafted, and it makes it very clear that, to establish customary title, the burden is high—that, in fact, you have to show that, across generations since 1840, you have exercised those rights, because customary rights can be lost through a failure to use them. They must have been held in a substantially uninterrupted way, and that is the test that was presented to the courts. The Court of Appeal took one view, but the Attorney-General appealed and the Supreme Court actually took it back—took it back. Yet, the Government presses on with this bill, stripping property rights from Māori.

What is worse is that there was an agreement that this House reached with Māori to recognise coastal and marine rights, and Māori in good faith embarked on the process to do that. As Peeni Henare said, the process is arduous. Finding the history, the maps, the oral records, and presenting that in a form which can prove—because the onus is on Māori to prove—is onerous. But they did it, and yet this Government is going to strip away conferred rights, rights that the court has actually already recognised. They are going to strip away that retrospectively, and that is a constitutionally abhorrent thing to do. There is no reason for it, no reason other than keeping their crony mates happy so that they can get the consent they want to exploit coastal areas, whether it be for sandmining, for fishing, for wind farming—for whatever it might be.

No, they don't want to go through a proper consents process. They don't want to have to engage with Māori. They don't want to have to act in a way which is consistent with property rights. They want to trammel them, and that is why we won't support this bill. It's a terrible bill, and I can't believe Jenny Marcroft, who usually is so sensible on things affecting Māori, spoke in support of it, either. It's a shameful bill, and it's a dark day when we don't protect property rights.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I'm grateful for the opportunity to be able to express my thoughts in this second reading of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. I think I need to just—as I've done before when we have members of this House going beyond, to a great extent, what we're trying to achieve here. Let's just bring it back to what the main—if we sift through—objective of this bill is.

If we can just go back to 2004 when a destructive, damning bill was passed, by the Labour Government back then, called the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, here we go!

RIMA NAKHLE: Yes, I do know, Mr Duncan Webb. I do know, because, yes, I wasn't here back then, but I actually do my research because I love this country. I wasn't born here, but I love it, and I love the people that are in this country as well. So, yes, I do know. And I do know because I've had members, elders, of Māoridom talk to me about what happened back then in 2004 and how it broke their hearts. So, yes, I know from that extent, Mr Duncan Webb.

So what happened was this damning, destructive bill was passed. Along comes a guy named John Key with the National Party—and the Māori Party; we worked together in 2011 to pass the Marine and Coastal Area Act. What's happened since then is a court judgment has decided to go way above and beyond what the intention of this House was when we were restoring things in 2011; they went above and beyond what the intention was.

What we're doing here is we're going back—we're going back—we're not rewinding; we're going back to what this House intended before this court decision was made. It is wrong. It is, actually, cynical. When we're talking about cynical—someone from the other side of the House spoke about cynicism—it's cynicism to work people up into a frenzy when they're not saying what the actual truth is. We're restoring what Parliament's intent was when we were fixing up the brokenness of Māori, thanks to the 2004 bill that was passed under that Labour Government back then. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m. (Thursday)

© Scoop Media