
Government Forges Ahead With Foreshore And Seabed Law
The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act.
That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline.
The government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling.
At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans.
On Tuesday, Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless and to pass it before October.
"Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right."
Goldsmith said he was not convinced that last year's Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted.
"We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100 percent of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve."
Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell".
"There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do."
The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest.
More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024, will need to be reconsidered.
That would appear to cover seven cases, involving various iwi from around the country.
"I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand."
Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs.
The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership.
The 2004 law - introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government - provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori.
National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown.
Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption.
The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored.
The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that and said the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Former Attorney-General criticises marine and coastal rights law changes
Former Attorney-General and National MP Chris Finlayson. Photo: Nicola Edmonds A former Attorney-General and National MP has lashed out at the government over its decision to push on with controversial legislation that would make it harder for Māori to get customary marine title. Chris Finlayson is calling the move foolish and "extremely harmful" to race relations. But Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says it will see the law returned to its "original intention" and strike a better balance for the rights of all New Zealanders. The changes to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act would toughen the test for judging whether customary rights should be given. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. A 2023 Court of Appeal ruling , however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that and the government put a pause on any amendments to the law. On Tuesday, Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said after the discussing the ruling, Cabinet felt it still did not achieve the "balance" the government wanted and the test to win customary rights was still too low. His comment were echoed by Luxon who, speaking from Papua New Guinea, said the change would get the legislation back to its "original intention". "We obviously have looked at the Supreme Court decision pretty closely [and] think it's quite broad and able to be interpreted in quite a broad way," he said. "We think the best way to do [that] is actually to get legislation to put it back to its original intent, which struck the right balance." Chris Finlayson disputes that, and told RNZ the Supreme Court had already expressed "very well" what Parliament's intention back in 2010 was. "These amendments do not restore the original intention of Parliament. They undermine them. Let there be no doubt about that at all," he said. Finlayson was Attorney-General at the time the legislation was enacted in law in 2011, which replaced the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act . "What they are doing by these foolish amendments is destroying the settlement that the National Party and the Māori Party reached in 2010." Finlayson said there was no justification for the move, which he said was "extremely harmful" to race relations in New Zealand. "Tangata whenua have a few wins in court, and it's ripped away from them by the government, which changes goal posts 15 years later. "I am very, very saddened by what they have done, and I think it's a very bad day for race relations in New Zealand. "I just can't believe that they're as foolish as they appear to be," he said. Labour Party Māori Crown-Relations spokesperson Peeni Henare said the changes would restrict the ability of Māori to test their rights in court. "In 2011, the National Party made much of their commitment to Māori 'having their day in court' and this proposed change takes that away again." Henare said the law, as it stands today, does not give Māori ownership rights like control over public access. "This action by the government does nothing to strengthen the Māori-Crown relationship, despite them saying they value iwi Māori. "The government needs to be straight up and admit they don't care about Māori. Their actions don't match their words," he said. The amendments prompted fierce backlash from iwi last year, including Ngāpuhi who walked out of an Iwi Chairs Forum meeting with the Prime Minister in protest of the legislation. It also drew the ire of Northland iwi Ngāti Wai , who said at the time they would not accept the Crown "exercising an authority we do not believe they possess". In September last year, The Waitangi Tribunal found the changes were characterised by a "blind adherence" to pre-existing political commitments at the expense of Māori. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.


Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
Overseas investment reforms may create more uncertainty, law firms warn
The coalition Government's overhaul of the overseas investment regime could create more uncertainty for investors, law firms have warned. Associate Finance Minister and Act leader David Seymour is overseeing a suite of changes to the Overseas Investment Act, aimed at streamlining the existing system and bringing more foreign investment into the country.


Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
Making heated tobacco products cheaper than cigarettes is no scandal
Opinion: The Government's decision to introduce a lower excise rate for heated tobacco products (HTPs) has been widely framed as 'giving tax breaks to tobacco companies'. It's a provocative line – and politically potent – but it doesn't help us have an honest, evidence-informed discussion about how to reduce smoking harm, particularly for the most disadvantaged New Zealanders, or how to deal with conflicts of interest. Let's be clear: this isn't a corporate subsidy, so long as the reduced tax is passed on with cheaper products. It's an excise adjustment applied to a class of tobacco products that heat rather than burn tobacco. (Like vaping products, HTPs are marketed as smoke-free alternatives to cigarettes, but are not the same thing.) Combustion is what makes smoking lethal. Cigarettes burn at over 800C, releasing thousands of toxic compounds. Heated tobacco products operate at much lower temperatures and don't produce smoke – just an aerosol – with far fewer harmful constituents. That distinction matters. The multinational tobacco company Philip Morris does hold a monopoly over HTPs in New Zealand. That's not ideal, but it doesn't mean the tax policy exists for Philip Morris International. The intention is to make a less harmful product more affordable than cigarettes – a principle long accepted in tobacco harm reduction, and already applied to vaping. Unfortunately, it appears Philip Morris International hasn't yet passed on the tax savings to the small number of HTP users in New Zealand – this is the real scandal. In addition, the apparent impact of PMI on government policy is tough to ignore, and contrary to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which seeks to protect government policy from tobacco industry influence. New Zealand has rightly taxed cigarettes heavily to deter use. But excise taxes are also regressive. The remaining people who smoke – fewer than 7 percent of adults – are disproportionately Māori, Pasifika, low-income, and more likely to experience mental health distress. The associate minister of health, Casey Costello, justified the excise differential by citing relative harm reduction and the growing inequity of uniform excise. Her reasoning deserves more attention than it has been given. Critics argue there's insufficient evidence that HTPs help people quit, but the UK Office for Health Improvement and Disabilities, the UK Committee on Toxicity, and the US Food and Drug Administration all acknowledge HTPs reduce exposure to toxicants compared with cigarettes. That doesn't make them harmless – but being less harmful than smoking is enough to warrant a differential tax. The example of Japan is instructive. There, HTPs make up over 30 percent of tobacco sales. Though vaping is banned, cigarette consumption has plummeted by 40 percent in some markets. Surveys suggest many smokers switched completely to HTPs. Youth uptake has been minimal. No policy is perfect, but that's a shift in the right direction. What's really at stake here? Not a tax break for big tobacco – but increasing the options for people who smoke and want to quit, and whether we believe in a response to nicotine products based on their comparative risks to human health as a foundation for public health policy. A more productive debate would ask: • Are they less harmful than cigarettes, and do they help smokers quit? • Are tax savings being passed on to consumers? • Are HTPs being promoted responsibly? • Will there be an independent evaluation of their impact on smoking rates? In a country that leads the world with its Smokefree 2025 goal, we should be asking how to accelerate the decline in smoking, not defending a one-size-fits-all excise regime that's increasingly disconnected from the realities of risk, behaviour, and equity. If HTPs can help some people switch, pricing them appropriately is not a scandal. It's a good policy – provided it's transparent, monitored, and grounded in evidence, and the tax savings are passed on to consumers.