Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2: “Title” and “Commencement.”

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a few thoughts about what this bill should be called, because I know it does amend the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. It doesn’t really tell you what it does, because one of the most pernicious parts of this bill is the fact that there are litigants who have had their day in court, who have presented their evidence, made their legal submissions, paid their bills, and had a decision made in their favour. In fact, they are now to be stripped of the benefits of that litigation retrospectively. The law has been changed not just to make it harder for future litigants but to strip people who have had their day in court and won their case.

If you think about that, I don’t know what kind of Government would do that. I’m surprised, in particular. that New Zealand First is part of that, because they’ve got a pretty good reputation for sticking up for people who have had their day in court and I hope that they’ll look closely at this. Maybe they’re going to change their mind on this at third reading.

I’ve got a little amendment in there and it suggests that this bill should be called the “Retrospective Changing of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Act”, because I think it’s only fair that you call it what it is. It is a perfectly accurate description. It’s not what the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations might like to call it. It’s a shameful day for the rule of law when we let people go to court and win, and then when we don’t like what they’ve won, we take it off them. That is the kind of behaviour you’d expect from somewhere with a weak democracy that doesn’t respect the rule of law. That’s what we’ve got, so let’s call it what it is. I don’t think this amendment can be ruled out of order for being critical because it’s simply descriptive.

Perhaps if you don’t like that—and you could always merge these two together—I’d be happy to quickly slap down another amendment. The other thing that this does, and it’s allied to it, is it takes away rights which have been conferred. These are property rights. These people, these hapū and iwi that have won their cases, have had rights recognised, and when this bill according to the commencement clause comes into force, those rights will be no longer extant. That is to say they will be taken away; or to put it another way: they’ll be confiscated.

They are being deprived, stripped of their rights and we should say that. It should really be called, just like in the old days, just like in the 1860s and 1870s and 1880s, at least the legislation there was called what it was: the Tohunga Suppression Act or the land confiscation Act. Let’s call it: this Act is the “Confiscation of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Act”, because that’s what it does: it confiscates. These are property rights—property rights that the ACT Party says it stands for and then takes them away. No compensation; no worries about that at all. Let’s be a little bit more honest about what we call these bills.

We could, of course, call it the “Hobson’s Pledge Memorial Bill” because that’s really where these politics come from: the politics of attacking Māori simply for looking for the recognition of the rights that they have historically exercised. Rights which may have been interfered with over the years by Governments and local bodies and other people, but rights which have persisted and can be shown to have been extant.

The court—the Court of Appeal but the Supreme Court—has recognised that the way in which those rights are proved is nuanced; it’s not straightforward, but there’s a legal process and it’s robust. That was the deal struck some years ago in 2011, and it’s a deal that this Government is breaking. Maybe we should call it the “Broken Promises (Takutai Moana) Act” as well.

I’d like to thank the member for his suggestions for titles, but I think we’ll stick with the current one which is the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. That is because that is what it does. It does not break any deals; it is set out in its goal to find that balance between enabling Māori to establish customary marine rights and title, while also recognising the wide interests that all New Zealanders have in the marine and coastal space. It seeks not to take away rights—nobody will wake up tomorrow with less ability to enjoy the coastal area or have a connection with it. It is in relation to those cases.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I have two amendments that I’d like to propose in this part of naming and commencement. I think we do, as my colleague’s already outlined, need to address the truth of what this legislation is, which is pure raupatu. My proposal for an amendment to the name is to name it what it is: “Te Pire Raupatu Takutai Moana”. The name is reflective of what it’s going to do, because the thresholds being set and the hoops that our people will need to jump through, effectively, sees the raupatu of our customary Māori rights to the takutai moana.

Further to that, I have an additional name and suggestion, which I think is actually something that is practical. It reflects actually what’s going to happen on the ground. While some in New Zealand will be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the takutai moana and protection of their private property rights, Māori don’t get the same. I propose a name amendment of the “No Entitlement to Compensation for Māori Act”, because, ultimately, our people will not be eligible for compensation for the lost time, for the opportunity cost, for the years of preparation and going through the hearings.

May I bring to the committee the names of the seven groups that are going to be impacted, so that you might get an awareness of the work that they have put into the process thus far. Now, this tāhae legislation is ripping out the opportunity for them to confirm, in concrete, their customary rights to the takutai moana. Let’s go to Wairarapa. Wairarapa had customary marine title (CMT) granted in interim judgment in December 2024. That’s a wonderful win. The carpet is wiped out for them.

Aotea Harbour was largely uncontested for Ngāti Te Wehi and Ngāti Whakamarurangi and Waikato-Tainui, and they shared a CMT granted—there was a shared CMT because, as Māori, we can share, and we are so patient and gracious in the way in which we share our spaces with all New Zealand and ourselves.

Then if we go to the Kāpiti Coast where we have Muaūpoko, we have Ngāti Tamarangi, we have Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai, Te Whānau Tima, Ngāti Apa, and Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga. Again, they went through a hearings process in good faith, jumping through the hoops of the Crown in 2024, and the CMT was granted in June 2025. These are groups that have gone through the hoops of the Government that have been set.

My own people in Whangareitererengaparāoa have completed their hearings. They have been waiting for the outcome and the judgment, and yet they will be impacted by the “No Entitlement to Compensation” legislation that we are seeing coming through the House right now.

The tribes of Whangarei-tererenga-parāoa, Patuharakeke, Ngāti Kahu o Torongare, Te Parawhau, Ngāti Wai, Ngāti Tū, Te Waiariki. All of these groups, as well as other whānau, who have very important rights will have their judgments null and void, so they will not be entitled to any compensation for the loss of time, for the loss of opportunity, and for the sweat and tears that they have put into their hearings.

Let’s go to Ngā Pōtiki. Ngā Pōtiki Ngā Hapū o Te Moutere o Motiti; Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whakahemo; Te Tāwharau o Ngāti Pūkenga; Ngāti He, te uri, te hapū [the kin, the subtribes]. There’s heaps of whānau. Ruapuke Island—we’ve heard about in this Chamber tonight. These are whānau who have gone through the system. They have stood up all of their evidence, they’ve completed their hearings, they’ve combined their efforts. They also have a recognised, shared CMT. See, with this raupatu legislation that’s coming through the House, they will not be able to get entitlement, when any type of CMT that they had is now going to be ripped away from them.

I think that my two names offered, the “Pire Raupatu Takutai Moana” and the “No Entitlement to Compensation to te Iwi Māori,” are fair and reasonable considering the impact that this legislation will have on our people now and moving forward. And may I recommend that commencement is in October 2026. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do support the amendments being proposed by my colleagues about a name that better reflects what this bill does, but I want to speak to the commencement date and, in particular, draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the land march led by Dame Whina Cooper arrived here at Parliament on this day 50 years ago. I also want to mention to the committee and bring to the committee’s attention that this month, on 28 October, 190 years ago, He Whakaputanga was signed by our ancestors across this country—in particular, in Te Tai Tokerau—which continues to reassert our sovereignty. It is commonly known as the declaration of independence 1835.

Those are significant dates, and why I bring those dates to the attention of this committee is on what would normally be a time for us to commemorate, reflect, and also strategise for the moves forward, we are now passing a piece of legislation which grants, after Royal assent, a bill that is going to continue to strip the rights of Māori.

Just another reminder to the members in this committee that today marks the 50-year anniversary since our tupuna Dame Whina Cooper led the march from the Far North here to Wellington. This month also recognises the 190-year commemoration of the signing of the declaration of independence on 28 October. I want those dates to sink in as this bill continues to pass in the committee. When I look towards the commencement of this particular bill, let it be another stain on the record of this committee and the treatment of the Māori people.

Well, I’d like to thank the member for his history lesson. I’ll give him another date, which is it is now coming up to 21 years since the Labour Government, in 2004, passed the foreshore and seabed legislation that took the coastal area for the Crown. This Act that we’re amending at the moment—the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act—was an agreement between the National Party and the Māori Party in 2011, to come up with a process by which Māori could establish their customary rights to the foreshore and seabed area—a significant advance. It was based on a recognition that we were balancing two things: customary rights and, also, the expectation of all New Zealanders living in a modern democracy to have a say and an interest in what goes on in the coastal area that surrounds the entire nation. The entire nation is girt by sea, and all New Zealanders have an interest in what goes on in that coastal area. The Parliament set a high threshold, and that is what this amendment bill is seeking to re-establish, following a couple of court cases that went through. History is interesting, and we’ve all got our observations to make on it.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I appreciate the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations mentioning the anniversary of the Foreshore and Seabed Act because it was one of my very suggestions for what this bill could rightly be called. It has the effect, as colleagues have alluded to, of being a repeat of the tawdry tradition of confiscation in this country that the Foreshore and Seabed Act was in 2004, and so it could rightly be called the “Foreshore and Seabed Act Resurrection Bill”, the “Foreshore and Seabed Act Redux” or “Regurgitation”. The “Zombie Foreshore and Seabed Act” could be an appropriate name for it because it has the effect of being a confiscation.

To speak to two other very solid suggestions, one from Duncan Webb that mentioned confiscation, it could be called the “Marine Confiscation Bill”, and my colleague Hūhana Lyndon used the term raupatu, but there’s one other edition that could be rightly added to that: given the particularly egregious nature of the retrospective cancellation of those hard-fought battles by specific iwi, it should be called the “Retrospective Raupatu Amendment Bill”. That is a particularly nasty part of this bill. I mean, the whole thing’s awful.

One of the things the Minister has set out as the argument for this bill is that it is resuming the intent or clarifying the intent of Parliament, but we have heard over and again from people who were directly involved in the actual creation of that Act in 2011 that this does not correct the intent. In fact, it moves away from the intent of the bill. It certainly moves away from it in so far as it puts the burden of proof on iwi Māori and the onus on iwi Māori, rather than the onus being on the Crown to prove extinguishment, which was clearly articulated by the Minister at the time, Chris Finlayson, in that the onus had to be borne by the Crown to prove extinguishment; not that iwi Māori had to prove customary title.

I suggest another name for the bill could be the “Invention of Imaginary Intent Bill” because the Minister has created an intent from a previous Parliament for which there is no evidence. Speaking of physical evidence, Minister, where is your physical evidence or your Hansard evidence anywhere of the intent of the original bill to be what the Minister has done here? There is no evidence that has been brought to this House in this committee stage or at any stage of the select committee that confirms what the Minister keeps saying: that he’s restoring the intent. It is the invention of an imaginary intent.

This bill is a terrible passage in the history of Crown-Māori relations. It undoes the consensus that was achieved in 2011 across the parties in the House by a much more imaginative and enlightened National-led Government at the time, in coalition with Te Pāti Māori. This Minister’s Government is taking us backwards as a country, taking us back to the worst attitudes towards respectful relations with iwi Māori on the part of the Crown. It is kāwanatanga kūpapa. It is a betrayal of that most vital relationship between iwi Māori, and the Crown. I hope, Minister, that you actually accept some of these titles as being more fitting titles for your nasty piece of legislation.

Tēnā koe e te Chair. E te Minita, ka hāngai tonu aku kōrero ki te tīmatanga rā anō o tēnei o ngā ture, kātahi ko te tapa ingoa ki runga ki a ia.

[To the Minister, my comments will relate to the commencement of this particular legislation, and will then give it a name.]

Just continuing my line of kōrero, and with regard to the naming and commencement, I just want to reflect for the committee and everyone at home that the Crown has apologised for many of the historic breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi but seems incapable of applying it in the same manner today. This is the conundrum for te iwi Māori out there. How can we ever have any faith in a House and a system who apologises one day—gives redress one day—and then the next day does the same thing? What’s your explanation for that, Minister? What have we got to tell the people, the Māori people out there who live all along that coast you mentioned as being girt by the moana? They live there; our people live there. They’ve never seen a Government person there. You know who looks after that place while no one else is there? Us. Yet we get treated like this time and time and time again. Just a “here-we-go-again” story.

Treaty settlements, you guys over there, if you don’t know, they’re only about 1.5 percent of the agreed value of the loss—1.5 percent—and then this House—

Todd Stephenson: Sorry, Mr Chair. We are on title and commencement—

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah, I’m talking about that.

Todd Stephenson: Well, I’m not sure you are.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): OK, OK—point taken. I mean, in the beginning he did speak in Māori and mention title and commencement. This part of the debate is used as a way to summarise a party’s perspective; e hāngai ana ki te taitara me te wātaka [it relates to the title and timeline]—

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Tika, tika tonu; kei te whakarāpopoto ahau i tā te iwi Māori tirohanga. [True, very true; I am summarising the perspective of the Māori people.]

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): E hāngai ana ki te taitara me te wātaka i tīmatahia te ture. [It relates to the title and commencement date of the legislation.]

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Tēnā koe.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Ka pai.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Tēnā koe, e taku rangatira. [Thank you, chief.]

So te iwi Māori are a magnanimous partner, generous to a fault. We should call this the “Here We Go Again Foreshore and Seabed Act”—hey, our people will really get that. It’s been 21 years: 21 years of pushing in courts, 21 years of doing the hard yards. Maybe we should call it the “21 More Years Foreshore and Seabed Act”.

As I think of people who have led the charge—people who have led the charge; they’re our uncles, aunties, kuia, koroua, who pushed and pushed and pushed and, as I said earlier, went and stood in front of a High Court judge, presented all of our evidence and mutunga iho, auare ake, e kore e whai take ngā kōrero a te iwi kāinga [in the end, what’s the use, the statements of the home people will never have an effect].

Ko tēnei mea te raupatu he taonga ka tukuna iho e tēnei Whare, ao te pō, pō te ao.

[This thing known as confiscation is an inheritance bestowed by this House at all times.]

My other name for the bill, Minister, would be the “Raupatu Mutunga Kore Act” [“Never Ending Confiscation Act”]—raupatu mutunga kore [never ending confiscation]. Hanga pērā i tā Moana kōrero mō tana mātai i Te Tāhū o te Ture i roto i tēnei o ngā whenua me tēnei Whare, me tana kī ake, ko tāna rīpoata whakamutunga i tapaina ki te ingoa He Tūkinotanga Mutunga Kore. Me pēhea rā te iwi Māori? Me pēhea rā? Ahakoa o te nui o te kawe o te porotēhi, te porotū, te kawe rānei o ngā tikanga katoa, ngā kōrero katoa ki mua ki te aroaro o ngā kōti, ka hoki mai ki tēnei Whare he tūkino i tētahi rā, he whakapāha i tētahi rā, he tūkino i te rā whai muri mai.

E kore mātou e hinga; e kore mātou e hoki. Ko ahau nō tētahi whakatipuranga nā rātou i whakarite, i āta whakangungu kia tae mai ki te tuku i ēnei kōrero ki a koutou. Kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui e te iwi Māori. Toitū te takutai moana.

[It’s like what Moana said about his review of the Ministry of Justice within this country and this House, and what he said—his final report was titled A Never Ending Abuse. What are the Māori people to do? What are we to do? Despite the scale of protests carried out, or the conveying of all traditional practices and narratives before the courts, coming back to this House it is abuse one day, an apology on another day, and abuse the day after that.

We will never fall; we will never just go home. I, myself, am from a generation who prepared and carefully trained to come here and give these messages to you. Be strong, be brave, be resilient, Māori people. Long live the foreshore and seabed.]

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Kia ora. I’d like to speak to the commencement date. The reason why I bring up the issue of the commencement date is that there is a lack of trust on this side of the House. There is a lack of trust that the machinery of Government is even ready to implement this amendment legislation. There is a lack of trust that this Government will resource the ability for claimants to be able to engage in the new system as it rolls out. Is the court ready for what is coming? The court has already demonstrated the struggle to hear the seven cases that have already gotten this far. I propose, as I did in my earlier kauwhau, October 2026 as a commencement date, to allow the system to catch up—allow the system to catch up—unless I’m missing something.

If the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations can put it on the table—can he put it on the table and tell us that the system is ready, that there’s a budget allocated, that the courts are going to be ready to stand up and hear these seven-plus, plus, plus, because there are grave concerns in terms of the ripples of impact that this legislation will have on Māori but also on an already stretched system as it is. The High Court is not an easy space to go into. The High Court has not been able to host enough of the hearings in a fast enough schedule; hence some of the claimants complain that they’re not going to be heard till 2050. If you think about the seven that have already gone through the process over a number of years and all of their nawes and all of their takes [concerns], they’re going to be full of issues, let alone all the rest of us as claimants who stand in line, waiting for a chance to get to the front of the line to the High Court. There is grave concern that this system is even ready for it.

It would be awesome to see what this Government actually has to tell us that this is going to roll out quickly, because I think the Government needs to allow the officials time. We need to allow the officials time and the court system to catch up, because they’re already significantly behind, it’s already a stretched workforce, and we already know there are budget cuts everywhere. Unless there’s going to be some magical budget that will come out somewhere in the near future, I ain’t seeing it and we ain’t hearing about it. That’s one question.

My proposal is October 2026 to allow the system to prepare itself. One year, I think, is feasible—one year to allow the courts to tell us what is their plan, so they can hear not only the seven areas that have already gone through the process but what’s their catch-up system.

I also want to remind those in the Chamber that there’s a direct negotiations pathway also with the Crown—and that’s been a huge success! No, it hasn’t. Nobody’s bloody been successful in direct negotiations. Put it on the table and tell me who has been successful in direct negotiations with the Crown, because it don’t happen. We have to go through the court. We have to litigate, we have to do our mapping, we’ve got to find our oral traditional history, we’ve got to get the technical researchers, and then we’ve got to prepare our elders to stand and argue their cases before a High Court—a High Court that is not made to hear our evidence. That’s always been an issue. The Waitangi Tribunal is that place that hears our evidence. They’ve got taringa whakarongo. High Court is a completely different beast. That’s why we need to give time. We need to allow for the officials to ready themselves. What does implementation look like?

I want to call back to what the officials told us in the supplementary analysis report, where Te Arawhiti said in their overall analysis—Te Arawhiti considered this reform was unlikely to address the primary concerns that Māori have with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, as identified through the Waitangi Tribunal 2660 inquiry, and any amendments proposed to address the coalition commitments only make it harder under the current law to prove customary marine title. The erosion of the ability of Māori to be able to bring their case to court is going to be a significant burden.

But then the resourcing of the machinery—how much is it: $20 million, $30 million? What’s the budget for this? What’s the burden for the taxpayer of New Zealand? Mr Chair, I want to carry on my kauwhau, thank you very much—kia ora tātou. Because, ultimately, Māori who have to come back into this process are going to be challenging the specific—

Sorry, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, so he can respond to some of the questions.

Thank you. The member did refer to a lot of numbers, and I can assure the member that the Government has received advice and allocated up to $15 million to the rehearing of cases.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title to include “Retrospective Changing of Marine and Coastal Area” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title to include “Confiscation of Marine and Coastal Area” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title to include “(Entrenching Theft of Foreshore and Seabed)” is out of order as being an attempt to criticise the bill.

Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 1 changing the title to include “Seabed and Foreshore Theft” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

The question is that Tākuta Ferris’ tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.