Chris Finlayson: Former Treaty Negotiations Minister on the Supreme Court allowing an appeal regarding customary marine titles

It was a landmark judgement on a more than 20-year court saga surrounding Māori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed. 

The Supreme Court's allowing an Attorney-General appeal against a Court of Appeal judgment, made in October last year.   

It's rejected the judgment as a narrow interpretation of criteria for customary marine titles, and reaffirmed the role of tikanga Māori in guiding decisions.  

Former Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson told Ryan Bridge it's a significant decision that could nullify the need for the Government's amendment bill. 

He says it may have been better to wait for the Supreme Court to deliver its decision before proceeding with legislation.  

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Forcuerre and Seabed update on the court proceedings yesterday. So
this is basically the Government being allowed to appeal a
decision that was made last year by an appeals court.
It's the Supreme Court that's handed out this somewhat of
a win for the government. You'd have to say, it's
all about customary marine title, customary rights to the Foreshaw

(00:20):
and Seabed. Christin Lason is the former Treaty negotiations minister
and attorney generally is with us this morning.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
Good morning, Good morning to you.

Speaker 1 (00:27):
How significant is this?

Speaker 2 (00:30):
I think it's a very significant decision. The Supreme Court
has considered the background to the Marine and Coastal Act
two thousand and eleven and has had a good hard
look at Section fifty eight, which deals with customary marine title,

(00:51):
and has has repaired the problems caused by the Court
of Appeal judgment. So it's a very significant judgment.

Speaker 1 (01:01):
So we still have to wait for the government to
appeal the decision. Right they have been given the right
to appeal the decision, but they haven't said that they
will do that yet. Does this nullify the need for
the government's amendment to the bill?

Speaker 2 (01:14):
I think that's a very good question. Legislation was introduced.
It may have been better to have waited until the
Supreme Court delivered its decision before deciding whether to proceed
was legislation. But I've given a lot of thought to
your questions since I read the judgment yesterday afternoon, and

(01:36):
that I can't see the needs for legislation now.

Speaker 1 (01:39):
So you would stop it because it's from memory past
its first reading. I think it's submissions have been called
from a select committee. You just get rid of the bill,
I mean, because they can appeal it, but then it
could still bounce back again.

Speaker 2 (01:51):
Right, Well, they have appealed it and the Attorney General
was successful in the Supreme Court. But question is, given
that success, given the decision of the Supreme Court, is
legislation clarifying the Court of Appeal decision now necessary? And
I don't think it is right. I think one can
proceed on the basis of the Supreme Court decision without

(02:15):
the need for legislation.

Speaker 1 (02:16):
I guess they don't call it the Supreme Court for nothing,
do they. Chris fin Lason, thank you very much for
your time. The Attorney General and form a treaty negotiations.
Minister For more from Early Edition with Ryan Bridge, listen
live to news talks it'd be from five am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio