Treaty lawyer and former Mana Party candidate Annette Sykes discusses the amendments to the Marine and Coastal Areas Act, and Te Tai Tonga MP Tākuta Ferris shares how it will impact his electorate and his first year in Parliament.
A treaty lawyer says the government's decision to amend the Marine and Coastal Area Act is a step backwards into colonialism.
In July, the government confirmed plans to make it harder for Māori to make customary claims on coastlines, but denied it would reopen the Foreshore and Seabed debate.
At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said those seeking Customary Marine Title would again need to prove they have had continuous exclusive use and ownership of the area since 1840.
The move to amend section 58 of the Marine and Coastal Area Act was set out in the National-New Zealand First coalition agreement, "to make clear Parliament's original intent".
Speaking to Mata with Mihingarangi Forbes, treaty lawyer and former Mana Party candidate Annette Sykes said "exclusive use" to her meant operating within the paradigms of manaakitanga.
"It's a shared obligation to care for a particular place in accordance with your values. Because of the value of manaakitanga, it's actually inclusive of those relationships that are located in that place so it's not unusual for many hapū, for example, who live near harbours or estuary waters to share that space to enable them to sustain their way of life."
The primary obligation was to sustain that environment for future generations, she said.
"Under the current proposal before Parliament, which was introduced under haste and without consultation with Māori, it's now suggesting that if a fisher person has come into that space that somehow interrupts the nature of the relationship."
Sykes said the proposal was trying to create a hegemony and put in place values that would undermine those who wanted to protect their access to scarce resources.
"They are changing the test to enable, what some people predict, there would be no customary titles able to be issued in light of this standard that they have increased to. What they've also done, this is I think the most unconstitutional part of the proposal, is that under common law, if you're going to take away someone's rights, if you're going to extinguish those rights, you have to do it with their full, free and informed consent.
"And where you do it, you have to actually pay them compensation. In this piece of legislation, they're also taking out the obligation to pay compensation where they are taking people's wealth away."
Sykes said that particular matter was causing "major outrage" amongst Māori.
"We've gone back to a position before the Foreshore and Seabed Act, in my view."
Pākehā law being given "superiority" was what really worried Sykes, saying it denied and diminished Māori rights and was a "step backwards into colonialism".
Sykes said if that was the way the government wanted to go, it was going the right way about it by imposing such matter without the participation of Māori.
A judgment by the Court of Appeal last year found groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and situations where the law itself had preventing them from doing so could be ignored.
Goldsmith said the government disagreed with the Court of Appeal's ruling, saying it had "materially reduced the threshold".
He said the government would introduce legislation to overturn the decision, "to ensure the wider public has confidence these tests are interpreted and applied consistently".
Photo: Te Māngai Pāho
Photo: NZ On Air
