Govt going ahead with foreshore and seabed change
The government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change.
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.
Today 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 the 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 to 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, saying 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
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
Cheaper petrol on its way under new system – but will drivers end up paying more?
While Chris Bishop calls it the biggest change to road funding in 50 years, details on how the new system will work remain scarce for now, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Major shift from fuel tax to pay-per-km The government has announced it will scrap fuel excise duty and move all vehicles to a system of road user charges (RUCs), in what transport minister Chris Bishop called 'the biggest change to how we fund our roading network in 50 years'. He said the surge in fuel-efficient, hybrid and full electric vehicles had eroded the longstanding connection between petrol consumption and kilometres driven. Under the new system, charges would be based on distance travelled, vehicle type, time and location. The timeline is still vague: Bishop expects legislation to pass in 2026, with the system 'open for business' by 2027. But a full transition date for light vehicles remains deliberately unannounced, with Bishop explaining the government is 'focused on getting the system right rather than rushing its rollout', reports the Herald's Jamie Ensor. Privatised and digitised Alongside the policy shift comes a sweeping modernisation of the road charging system. Gone will be the paper labels stuck to windscreens, replaced by a fully digital e-RUC system. The NZTA's dual role as both regulator and RUC retailer will be split, with private firms taking over the collection and administration of charges. The idea is that this will drive innovation and reduce compliance costs by allowing the market to offer high-tech solutions, such as integrations with in-car computers. 'Instead of expanding a clunky government system, we will reform the rules to allow the market to deliver innovative, user-friendly services for drivers,' Bishop said. Flexible payment options like monthly billing and post-pay models are being considered, and RUCs could be bundled with tolls and congestion charges in a single bill. As Luke Malpass writes this morning in The Post (paywalled), the new system is being designed with one eye firmly on a future where our most expensive roads are funded with tolls, and ease of payment will be key to getting people to use them. 'Roads have to be paid for somehow,' he notes. A pattern of reform The transport minister's announcement came as a surprise to many, but the move had been clearly signalled for years. National ran on eliminating fuel taxes and the policy was part of the National-Act coalition agreement. Last year the government scrapped the Auckland regional fuel tax and oversaw the imposition of RUCs on electric vehicles, ending a long-standing exemption. These earlier moves laid the groundwork for yesterday's grand shift. As the number of petrol hybrids on the roads climbs – from 12,000 in 2015 to 350,000 today – there's a growing mismatch between fuel tax contributions and actual road usage, Bishop said, adding that lower-income drivers of older cars are effectively subsidising wealthier owners of hybrids and EVs. The missing details While the move has been widely framed as a step toward fairness and future-proofing, many of the key details remain unresolved, writes Stuff's Michael Daly. One key question: how much drivers will pay. Bishop gave no indication as to how much the government is planning to charge different vehicle types under the new system. Currently, light diesel vehicles pay $76 per 1000km, but that figure may not translate directly to petrol vehicles. Owners of small, fuel-efficient cars could be forgiven for worrying they'll end up paying more under a RUC system, regardless of the weight class tiers. There are also concerns about the cost of privatising tax collection. 'The only people who will see any benefit from this scheme are the corporates who take their cut to gather the tax,' said Fleur Fitzsimons of the Public Service Association, whose members include NZTA employees. As the legislation progresses and the 2027 rollout approaches, the government will need to spell out what motorists are actually signing up for – and how much they'll be paying.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Road user charges: AA backs shake-up but wants low admin costs
Photo: RNZ Private companies will need to keep the costs of running the government's new road user charges scheme as low as possible, the AA says. The government is inching closer to replacing petrol tax with electronic road user charges on all light vehicles, in what Transport Minister Chris Bishop calls [ the biggest shake-up of road funding in half a century]. He says it'll be fairer and will be like paying a power bill or Netflix each month and will be in place by 2027. The changes will put an end to the existing two-tier system, where petrol users pay a fuel excise duty of about 70 cents a litre at the pump, while diesel, electric and heavy vehicles pay paper-based road user charges based on distance travelled. However, Labour says the timing of the coalition's transition to a universal road user charges system risks "clobbering" motorists with more costs. AA's policy director Martin Glynn said his organisation is also worried about how much motorists would have to pay under the new scheme. He told Morning Report he was unsure if it would be more expensive. At present the minimum road user charge kicked in once a light vehicle had travelled 1000km. That was $76 and $12-$13 for an administration fee. With private providers being brought in to run the revised scheme they would need to be making money, Glynn said. "We really want to see the administration costs be as low as possible." He agreed with the Minister that with more vehicles becoming more fuel efficient, the current petrol tax penalised those with older vehicles. "It's become more unfair over time and it's going to become more unfair if we don't change." The current system of buying RUCs was "a bit clunky", he said. Those using diesel or a heavy vehicle purchased RUCs online from the NZ Transport Agency or they could go to an agent. Motorists needed to keep an eye on their odometer to ensure they stayed up to date. The other problem was the the RUC came in the mail and needed to be displayed on the dashboard. AA supported Bishop's plan to make the system fully electronic. Annual warrant of fitness checks were the main way to ensure compliance at present. "But it's fair to say it's difficult to enforce being an annual system so there's a fair degree of evasion and avoidance and that's something that will have to be addressed in the transition." Heavy vehicles already have an ERUC, a device in the trucks that monitors kilometres and location.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
The people working for $10 - and less
Even with living wage employment opportunities, some only earn between $8.78 and $10.65 an hour for additional hours worked. Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King New Zealand needs to rethink how the welfare system interacts with tax - and how we approach "punishing" people who are on the benefit, a prominent economist says. Ganesh Ahirao said the marginal tax rates that people were earning when they shifted off income support, or took on more work at middle incomes, were much higher than those paid by higher-income people. He looked at a number of household scenarios to illustrate the point and said even with living wage employment opportunities available, people were only earning between $8.78 and $10.65 an hour for additional hours worked. Someone on a minimum wage would earn even less. The Living Wage is currently set at $27.80 per hour. In one case, a single person whom he referred to as Manaia, with no children, no student loan and paying rent of $415 a week for a one-bedroom flat in Wellington would receive the Jobseeker Support (JS) payment alongside Winter Energy Payment (WEP) and Accommodation Supplement (ASUP) totalling in the hand $592 per week. Six hours' work at the living wage would take income to just over $700 with those supports. "But thereafter, the reduction of JobSeeker - at the gut-punching rate of 70 cents for every extra dollar earned - slows in-the-hand increases to a snail's pace. Consequently, the effective marginal tax rate (EMTR) faced by Manaia soars into 80 percent-plus stratospheric territory," Ahirao said. In another case, a sole parent of two children paying $600 a week would receive the Sole Parent (SP) payment alongside WEP, the Family Tax Credit (FTC) component of Working for Families, and ASUP totalling $1047 per week. With six hours work at the living wage, the person's income would rise to nearly $1200. "But then the reductions in support payments brutally cut in. Firstly, the SP declines by 30 cents for every extra dollar earned and then after 10 hours per week by 70 cents per extra dollar earned. The resulting EMTR of 89.2 percent is pushed to 93.3 percent (after 14 hours per week) as FTC payments begin to decline at 27 cents for every dollar of other income. Another hit (at 24 hours per week) pushes the EMTR to 95 percent, as the ASUP also begins to decline (25 cents for every dollar of other income)," Ahirao said. If the person worked 40 hours a week they would receive $352 more than if they did not work at all. Ahirao said the tax and welfare systems needed to work together. "MSD does benefits and IRD does Working for Families and student loans… they have this separation there that needs opt brought together. "Abatement rates in the welfare system are not seen by the tax system. That's one element. "We also need to think seriously about our perspective on penalising people. It's a punitive-first approach welfare system. There is a belief out there that everyone should work, should be able to go to work and should take up work whenever they can. To a degree that's ok but then it goes to those who don't work are somehow at fault and should be penalised. That is the perspective to get past." He said many people out of work were not jobless by choice. There was little encouragement to work when the benefit was clawed back so quickly, he said. "You take away 70c in the dollar - there's a perspective that if we add on to their part-time income with jobseeker they're going to get too much, it's going to be too generous so we've got to claw it back… do we want to encourage people into the workforce or penalise people for not being in the workforce? "That's the mindset we need to get over before setting any other policies. That's a big shift in our thinking across the whole political spectrum." A universal basic income could be part of the conversation, he said. "I'm comfortable saying you have aright to an adequate income and that involves an obligation to contribute in society, make yourself available for work. You don't go from there to we're going to bash you with a whole lot of sanctions. You tweak the settings to make it as attractive as possible to contribute. A carrot rather than a stick approach." Ministry of Social Development general manager of welfare system and income support Fiona Carter-Giddings said the ministry's priority was getting people into work. "Between June 2024 and June 2025, 86,000 benefits were cancelled because the person found a job. "We're pleased New Zealanders continue to move off benefit and into work, despite challenging economic circumstances. When people are employed they have a higher income and more opportunities to improve their quality of life. "Government financial assistance generally reduces as other income increases, because New Zealand's welfare system targets support to people who need it the most. This is a long-standing principle of social security. "The ideal rate at which support should reduce involves trade-offs between income adequacy, incentives to work, and maintaining appropriate costs to the taxpayer. The welfare system is designed to balance these objectives, and it is an area of ongoing debate." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
