Latest news with #ChrisFinlayson
RNZ News
5 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Marine and coastal rights law changes not justifiable, former United Future leader says
Peter Dunne, was leader of United Future in 2011 and voted in favour of the original Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King Former MPs who supported the National government's foreshore and seabed legislation back in 2011 are lambasting the coalition's move to make it harder for Māori to get customary rights. The government will amend the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act to toughen the customary rights test. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the changes would restore Parliament's "original intent" for the law, after a 2023 Court of Appeal ruling made it easier for groups to win customary title. A Supreme Court ruling overturning that decision meant the government paused introducing the changes last December. But, on Tuesday, it announced it would push ahead with amending the law saying the Supreme Court decision was still "able to be interpreted in quite a broad way". The changes will mean those seeking title will need to prove they have had continuous exclusive use and ownership of the area since 1840. Former Attorney-General and National MP Chris Finlayson has condemned the move calling it foolish and saying it would "undermine" Parliament's original intention and be "extremely harmful" to race relations. There is a similar sentiment from Peter Dunne, who was leader of United Future in 2011 and voted in favour of the law. He told RNZ the original legislation was designed to sort out the public's access to the foreshore and seabed while also recognising customary rights of Māori, if they could prove a "continuous connection" to it. Proving that connection, Dunne said, was already "quite a high test". "It was set out to be relatively high for quite a specific purpose; to make sure that the claims that were being made were genuine and well founded and not frivolous or opportunistic... it was generally accepted there needed to be a high bar." The Supreme Court had already made the law's original intent clear and he did not know why the government wanted to make it "clear times two". "It seems to me that that's almost a way of saying 'we want to make it tougher than was originally intended' and I don't think that's correct or justifiable." The Marine and Coastal Area Act replaced the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 , which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership, provoked widespread protest, and led to the formation of the Māori Party - now Te Pāti Māori. Dunne said the Supreme Court decision was definitive and if he were still in government he would lobby the government to "let sleeping dogs lie". "Uphold the spirit of the 2011 legislation [because] I don't think this issue, which has caused such controversy over the last nearly 30 years, needs to be reopened and all those old wounds brought to the surface again," he said. "It's time to now to move on, let the situation resolve itself according to that legislation, and do so without further provocation." Tau Henare was a member of the National Party at the time, and speaking at the bill's first reading, said the difference between the Marine Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act and its predecessor the Foreshore and Seabed Act, was access to the judiciary. "Everybody has a right, it does not matter whether they are black, white, red, or green; it does not matter, everybody has an absolute right to go to court to find out whether they are right or whether they are wrong." "This is about human rights, and that is what that whole debacle was about. Fifty thousand people were outside the front door of this place," he said at the time. Speaking to RNZ on Wednesday, Henare said Chris Finlayson was "absolutely right" and there was not "one person" in caucus who had any experience with "Treaty Jurisdiction Prudence". "It's a play for the dumb red neck vote. It shows how backward National have slipped. Be glad to see them go," he said. The law change is expected to pass before October. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Newsroom
6 days ago
- Politics
- Newsroom
Former Attorney-General criticises Marine and Coastal Areas Act changes
This story first appeared on RNZ and is republished with permission 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'.
RNZ News
6 days ago
- Politics
- 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.
Scoop
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
On National's Bid To Steal Future Elections
Article – Gordon Campbell Other countries are expanding the ability of their citizens to vote. In Britain (from which New Zealand has long taken its constitutional cues) the franchise is being extended to 16-year-olds. In this country, were headed in the opposite direction. Other countries are expanding the ability of their citizens to vote. In Britain (from which New Zealand has long taken its constitutional cues) the franchise is being extended to 16-year-olds. In this country, we're headed in the opposite direction. The Luxon government is taking steps to make it significantly more difficult for people to cast a vote, and prisoners will lose their right to vote altogether. No valid reasons are being given for these changes. Formerly, we were world leaders in the ease of voting. People could register and vote on Election Day. But once the new legislation is passed, voters will need to have enrolled some 13 days prior to Election Day. At the 2023 election, 110,000 people registered and voted on Election Day. This was a 46% increase of same-day turnout at the prior election. During the two weeks before election day, 454,000 people registered to vote. Given those numbers, the changes being made by the coalition government will inevitably have a significant impact on the election result. No doubt, same day registration has put added pressure on the Electoral Commission to process the votes accurately, and on time. Any human error is one too many. Yet as the Auditor General's report on the 2023 election noted, 'The relatively small number of errors did not affect the overall outcome.' In the one electorate where a journalist had queried the calculations, the Auditor-General further noted, the subsequent Electoral Commission revision 'did not change the candidate or party vote outcomes.' So, at the last election, despite the sharply increased influx of votes close to election day, only minor errors occurred and these had no impact on any of the results. Yet rather than fund the Commission to be better able to process this welcome late rush of ballots, the Luxon government is choosing instead to stop latecomers from being able to vote at all. It is hard to see this as anything other than a bid by the coalition parties to skew the 2026 election results to their own benefit. When more hurdles are put in front of voters, the young and Māori stand to be disproportionately affected. No doubt it is a sheer co-incidence that those groups are statistically more likely to vote for the centre-left and/or for Te Pāti Māori. Voting in prison In addition, a National-led government will once again deny all prisoners the right to vote. Under successive Labour governments, prisoners could vote if they were serving sentences of less than three years. In 2010, the Key government abolished that right, after ignoring a critical report by the-then Attorney General Chris Finlayson on the steps being proposed. Finlayson indicated that a blanket ban on prisoner voting would be inconsistent with section 12 of our Bill of Rights legislation. In fact, [Finlayson] argued, the supposed objective of the Bill – to deter serious offending – was 'not rationally linked' to the Bill's own provisions to impose a blanket ban on prisoner voting. Reason being, serious offenders are already banned from voting by the existing law. As for everyone else : ' It is questionable that every person sentenced to any period of punishment is a serious offender. People who are not serious offenders will be disenfranchised…' The blanket ban, Finlayson concluded, cannot be justified. Having pointed out the irrationality of denying all prisoners the vote, Finlayson then went further, to show how unjust even the existing provisions could play out in practice: The avowed purpose of the Bill is to deter serious offending. Yet as Finlayson pointed out, under its provisions someone sentenced to home detention would still be able to vote, but someone sentenced to jail for the very same offence would be disenfranchised. Moreover, a serious violent offender sentenced to two and half years in jail would not lose their right to vote if their sentence fell – purely by chance – into the period between elections. Yet by the same token, someone sentenced to a week in jail for not paying their parking fines would lose their right to vote, if they were unlucky enough to be sentenced at the wrong point in the electoral cycle. 'Justice, to state the obvious, should not be reduced to such games of chance.' This shabby episode is about to be played out again. This time around, a critical report by the current Attorney-General, Judith Collins is also being ignored. Similar violations of human rights will recur. To be clear: for people in jail, the sentence they are serving is the punishment for their offence. Tacking on punitive extras like losing their right to vote is petty and vengeful, and will do nothing to aid the re-integration of prisoners back into society on their release. In other respects, the Bill being proposed by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith repeats some of the same anomalies identified 15 years ago by Chris Finlayson. People on home detention will still be able to vote but those in jail will not, even if they have committed the same offence. Thankfully, those on remand will still be allowed to vote. Not many people in prison do vote. Only 84 prisoners nationwide voted in the 2023 general election, out of circa 5,000 who were eligible to vote, and 41% of those voters identified as Maori. (Part of the overall low turnout can be attributed to the cumbersome process of enrolling and casting a special vote.) Although it is a very small cohort, the high proportion of Māori among the bloc of imprisoned voters merits further research into the rehabilitative role – for some offenders at least – of cultural identity and voter participation. To repeat: the changes being proposed look highly dubious. Instead of expanding the franchise and encouraging more people to vote, steps are being taken to limit participation, and by measures likely to penalise the current government's political opponents. Footnote One: Should 16-year-olds get the vote? Of course. They will inherit the effects of government actions and inactions, especially on climate change. There is a myth about young people not being interested in politics. In reality, the deeper problem is that politicians routinely fail to engage with the problems – climate change, high rents, too few jobs etc – that matter to them. As a percentage of those aged 18-24 eligible to vote, just over two thirds do so. Yet that participation rate has been improving, arguably as a result of last minute, Election Day registration. That conclusion is backed up by this chart – which shows that 74% of enrolled 18 to 24-year-olds voted in 2023. That turnout was higher than for every age band of enrolled voters between 30 and 45. Meaning : young people turned up on polling day, enrolled, and voted right then and there. National now wants to stop them from being able to do so. Surely, we should be trying to make it easier for the young to get enrolled, and vote. Instead, those in power are doing the reverse. As for the obvious fairness issues involved in allowing 16-year-olds to vote…No doubt, having civics lessons while 16 to 18-year-olds are still in school could be a significant help in fostering the habit of voting. Yet on those statistics cited above, the problem of non-voting by enrolled voters only really begins to kick in between 25-29, and gets worse thereafter until advanced middle age. This suggests that 20-somethings learn pretty quickly that their voices are being habitually ignored by those in power, so why bother keeping up the charade? Now.. and thanks entirely to this government, any initially disinterested/disillusioned voters who have second thoughts and engage with party politics only at the very last minute will no longer be able to enrol on Election Day. Smoking is a habit The tax break for Big Tobacco (now being extended from one to three years by New Zealand First Minister Casey Costello) is being estimated to cost about $300 million. Initially, NZF had promised that this tax break would be for only a one year trial, and be subject to research as to whether more people were actually switching from harmful nicotine to the monopoly line of heated tobacco products being sold by Philip Morris. This ' trial' and related tax giveaway has now been extended until 2027 at least. Meanwhile, as Labour's Ayesha Verrall has pointed out, the public health system – which could have made far better use of that $300 million giveaway– staggers on while under-funded, under-staffed, and under-paid. When it suits, changes get fast tracked. Not this time. For Big Tobacco, exceptions and foot dragging are the rule. Rastafarians at least, are upfront about the addictive nature of their herb of choice. Here's King Still, deejaying on top of a rhythm laid down by Clancy Eccles and the Dynamites:
Scoop
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
On National's Bid To Steal Future Elections
Other countries are expanding the ability of their citizens to vote. In Britain (from which New Zealand has long taken its constitutional cues) the franchise is being extended to 16-year-olds. In this country, we're headed in the opposite direction. The Luxon government is taking steps to make it significantly more difficult for people to cast a vote, and prisoners will lose their right to vote altogether. No valid reasons are being given for these changes. Formerly, we were world leaders in the ease of voting. People could register and vote on Election Day. But once the new legislation is passed, voters will need to have enrolled some 13 days prior to Election Day. At the 2023 election, 110,000 people registered and voted on Election Day. This was a 46% increase of same-day turnout at the prior election. During the two weeks before election day, 454,000 people registered to vote. Given those numbers, the changes being made by the coalition government will inevitably have a significant impact on the election result. No doubt, same day registration has put added pressure on the Electoral Commission to process the votes accurately, and on time. Any human error is one too many. Yet as the Auditor General's report on the 2023 election noted, 'The relatively small number of errors did not affect the overall outcome.' In the one electorate where a journalist had queried the calculations, the Auditor-General further noted, the subsequent Electoral Commission revision 'did not change the candidate or party vote outcomes.' So, at the last election, despite the sharply increased influx of votes close to election day, only minor errors occurred and these had no impact on any of the results. Yet rather than fund the Commission to be better able to process this welcome late rush of ballots, the Luxon government is choosing instead to stop latecomers from being able to vote at all. It is hard to see this as anything other than a bid by the coalition parties to skew the 2026 election results to their own benefit. When more hurdles are put in front of voters, the young and Māori stand to be disproportionately affected. No doubt it is a sheer co-incidence that those groups are statistically more likely to vote for the centre-left and/or for Te Pāti Māori. Voting in prison In addition, a National-led government will once again deny all prisoners the right to vote. Under successive Labour governments, prisoners could vote if they were serving sentences of less than three years. In 2010, the Key government abolished that right, after ignoring a critical report by the-then Attorney General Chris Finlayson on the steps being proposed. Finlayson indicated that a blanket ban on prisoner voting would be inconsistent with section 12 of our Bill of Rights legislation. In fact, [Finlayson] argued, the supposed objective of the Bill – to deter serious offending – was 'not rationally linked' to the Bill's own provisions to impose a blanket ban on prisoner voting. Reason being, serious offenders are already banned from voting by the existing law. As for everyone else : ' It is questionable that every person sentenced to any period of punishment is a serious offender. People who are not serious offenders will be disenfranchised…' The blanket ban, Finlayson concluded, cannot be justified. Having pointed out the irrationality of denying all prisoners the vote, Finlayson then went further, to show how unjust even the existing provisions could play out in practice: The avowed purpose of the Bill is to deter serious offending. Yet as Finlayson pointed out, under its provisions someone sentenced to home detention would still be able to vote, but someone sentenced to jail for the very same offence would be disenfranchised. Moreover, a serious violent offender sentenced to two and half years in jail would not lose their right to vote if their sentence fell – purely by chance – into the period between elections. Yet by the same token, someone sentenced to a week in jail for not paying their parking fines would lose their right to vote, if they were unlucky enough to be sentenced at the wrong point in the electoral cycle. 'Justice, to state the obvious, should not be reduced to such games of chance.' This shabby episode is about to be played out again. This time around, a critical report by the current Attorney-General, Judith Collins is also being ignored. Similar violations of human rights will recur. To be clear: for people in jail, the sentence they are serving is the punishment for their offence. Tacking on punitive extras like losing their right to vote is petty and vengeful, and will do nothing to aid the re-integration of prisoners back into society on their release. In other respects, the Bill being proposed by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith repeats some of the same anomalies identified 15 years ago by Chris Finlayson. People on home detention will still be able to vote but those in jail will not, even if they have committed the same offence. Thankfully, those on remand will still be allowed to vote. Not many people in prison do vote. Only 84 prisoners nationwide voted in the 2023 general election, out of circa 5,000 who were eligible to vote, and 41% of those voters identified as Maori. (Part of the overall low turnout can be attributed to the cumbersome process of enrolling and casting a special vote.) Although it is a very small cohort, the high proportion of Māori among the bloc of imprisoned voters merits further research into the rehabilitative role - for some offenders at least - of cultural identity and voter participation. To repeat: the changes being proposed look highly dubious. Instead of expanding the franchise and encouraging more people to vote, steps are being taken to limit participation, and by measures likely to penalise the current government's political opponents. Footnote One: Should 16-year-olds get the vote? Of course. They will inherit the effects of government actions and inactions, especially on climate change. There is a myth about young people not being interested in politics. In reality, the deeper problem is that politicians routinely fail to engage with the problems – climate change, high rents, too few jobs etc – that matter to them. As a percentage of those aged 18-24 eligible to vote, just over two thirds do so. Yet that participation rate has been improving, arguably as a result of last minute, Election Day registration. That conclusion is backed up by this chart – which shows that 74% of enrolled 18 to 24-year-olds voted in 2023. That turnout was higher than for every age band of enrolled voters between 30 and 45. Meaning : young people turned up on polling day, enrolled, and voted right then and there. National now wants to stop them from being able to do so. Surely, we should be trying to make it easier for the young to get enrolled, and vote. Instead, those in power are doing the reverse. As for the obvious fairness issues involved in allowing 16-year-olds to doubt, having civics lessons while 16 to 18-year-olds are still in school could be a significant help in fostering the habit of voting. Yet on those statistics cited above, the problem of non-voting by enrolled voters only really begins to kick in between 25-29, and gets worse thereafter until advanced middle age. This suggests that 20-somethings learn pretty quickly that their voices are being habitually ignored by those in power, so why bother keeping up the charade? Now.. and thanks entirely to this government, any initially disinterested/disillusioned voters who have second thoughts and engage with party politics only at the very last minute will no longer be able to enrol on Election Day. Smoking is a habit The tax break for Big Tobacco (now being extended from one to three years by New Zealand First Minister Casey Costello) is being estimated to cost about $300 million. Initially, NZF had promised that this tax break would be for only a one year trial, and be subject to research as to whether more people were actually switching from harmful nicotine to the monopoly line of heated tobacco products being sold by Philip Morris. This ' trial' and related tax giveaway has now been extended until 2027 at least. Meanwhile, as Labour's Ayesha Verrall has pointed out, the public health system – which could have made far better use of that $300 million giveaway– staggers on while under-funded, under-staffed, and under-paid. When it suits, changes get fast tracked. Not this time. For Big Tobacco, exceptions and foot dragging are the rule. Rastafarians at least, are upfront about the addictive nature of their herb of choice. Here's King Still, deejaying on top of a rhythm laid down by Clancy Eccles and the Dynamites:
