The MACA Amendment Bill: Parliament Vs. the Courts, Māori, & the Constitution
The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is being used as a weapon.
By Dr Harpreet Singh | drhsinghnz.substack.com | FB: @DrHSinghNZ
New Zealand’s marine and coastal area has long been a crucible for arguments about ownership, public access, and indigenous rights. In 2011, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act (MACA) replaced the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, declaring the common marine and coastal area “incapable of ownership” while guaranteeing public access. Crucially, MACA created legal pathways for Māori to seek recognition of protected customary rights and customary marine title (CMT) through the courts or Crown engagement.
What the Amendment Bill Changes
The government’s MACA (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill introduces sweeping changes. It tightens the test for exclusive use, requiring iwi and hapū to prove continuous, exclusive occupation since 1840 with the ability to exclude others, an almost impossible standard. Evidence of tikanga will no longer carry decisive weight and becomes secondary to exclusivity. The Bill also applies retrospectively, invalidating court decisions since July 2024 and requiring them to be reheard under the new rules, erasing years of litigation.
Current Stage in Parliament
As of October 2025, the Bill is at the Committee of the Whole House stage. This is the penultimate step before the third reading, meaning the legislation is close to becoming law. The government aims to pass it before the summer adjournment, signalling urgency and determination.
Legislating Away Legal Responsibilities
The Amendment Bill does more than refine definitions. In practice, it legislates away the Crown’s legal responsibilities to provide a meaningful avenue for Māori to have customary interests recognised. By making the evidential bar almost insurmountable and overturning multiple court rulings that had clarified MACA’s tests and affirmed aspects of tikanga-based rights, the Bill erodes the operative effect of Treaty commitments. The Waitangi Tribunal has warned that such moves constitute a gross breach of Te Tiriti, undermining partnership and active protection.
Parliamentary Sovereignty as a Weapon
New Zealand’s constitutional tradition places Parliament at the apex of lawmaking. Yet the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is being used as a weapon, not as a neutral safeguard of democratic rule, but to retroactively invalidate judicial determinations and rewrite the legal tests in ways that diminish Māori rights. Using urgency and retrospective provisions to override court outcomes disturbs the balance between branches of government and raises serious rule of law and separation of powers concerns.
Part of a Wider Treaty Reset
The MACA changes sit alongside a broader programme to redefine Treaty principles and review or remove Treaty clauses across statutes in health, education, water, and local government. The Waitangi Tribunal has found aspects of these policies breach core Treaty principles, reduce Māori access to justice, and risk destabilising settlement frameworks that rely on Treaty clauses embedded in law.
The Stakes for New Zealand
This debate reaches far beyond the foreshore. It strikes at the heart of New Zealand’s constitutional integrity and its founding promise of partnership. By using parliamentary sovereignty as a weapon against judicial rulings and Māori rights, the government is reshaping the balance of power in ways that weaken the separation of powers and erode trust in the rule of law. Legislating away legal responsibilities and overturning multiple court decisions undermines the principle that rights, once recognised, should not be stripped away by political will. These changes are not merely technical; they redefine the relationship between the Crown and Māori and challenge the very idea of bicultural constitutionalism. The question now is whether New Zealand will uphold its commitment to justice and equality, or retreat into a majoritarian model that sidelines indigenous rights and diminishes constitutional safeguards.