The bill amends the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 to redefine the requirements for recognising customary marine title (CMT) and to set aside certain court judgments' interpretations of the test. The changes apply to applications still undecided as at 25 July 2024.
Parliament advanced this bill under urgency (first reading) — moving it through faster than usual, with less time than normal for public submissions.
These are claims MPs made in Parliament’s debate — not verified facts.
This Bill amends the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, the law that sets out how Māori customary interests in the foreshore and seabed (the "takutai moana") are recognised. Its focus is the test for "customary marine title" (CMT) - the strongest form of recognition, which gives an iwi or hapū rights such as a say over certain activities and resource consents in a defined coastal area, though not outright ownership or the ability to stop public access. The Bill tightens the criteria in sections 58 and 59, requiring applicants to show they have held and exclusively used the area continuously from 1840 to the present without substantial interruption. This restores a stricter reading of the threshold and reverses a 2023 Court of Appeal decision (the Re Edwards case) that had made it easier to establish title, affecting coastal iwi, hapū and other marine users.
The change stems from the National-New Zealand First coalition agreement, which committed to amending the 2011 Act so the test reflected what its authors say Parliament originally intended. Supporters argue the courts had drifted from that intent, that a clearer, higher bar restores certainty for everyone with an interest in the coast - including fishers and other users - and that Parliament, not judges, should set the standard. Opponents, including many iwi, legal commentators and the Waitangi Tribunal, argue the Bill breaches Treaty principles of active protection and good faith, was advanced without adequate consultation with Māori, and unfairly raises the burden of proof so high that few groups could ever meet it, undermining rights the 2011 Act was meant to recognise.
See the Parliament.nz ↗ site for the full bill.