About the Author

Avatar photo

Dr Muriel Newman

Judicial Activism

Print Friendly and PDF
Posted on

Following the terror attack in London earlier this month when two people were stabbed by an Islamic terrorist who’d recently been released from jail, the UK government has announced emergency legislation will be introduced to scrap the automatic early release of such prisoners.

While the automatic release process prevented oversight by the Parole Board, the offender was considered such a serious risk to the public that he was being shadowed around the clock by two armed police officers. According to Scotland Yard, this was part of a proactive counter-terrorism surveillance operation.

The terrorist was shot dead within 60 seconds of stabbing the two bystanders outside of the shop where he is alleged to have stolen a knife. One victim with minor injuries was discharged from hospital soon after the attack, while the other victim’s condition was said to no longer be life-threatening.

The two victims of a similar attack last November were not so lucky. They were killed near London Bridge by another terrorist on early-release from jail. In that case the offender was half-way through a 16-year sentence for terrorism offences.

At the present time in the UK, 74 offenders who were jailed on terrorism charges are out on parole, while a further 224 convicted terrorists remain in prison.

The Government is hoping to rush their proposed Counter-Terrorism Bill through Parliament before February 28, to prevent any further terrorists from being released. The Bill would end their automatic early release without the oversight of the Parole Board and increase maximum sentences.

The ideology of some offenders is regarded as so extreme, that in the interests of national security, it’s believed they should remain in prison indefinitely. As a result of changes to prioritise public safety over the ‘civil liberties’ of prisoners, Prime Minister Boris Johnson is considering suspending parts of the  European Convention on Human Rights.

In the past, legal challenges to such Government actions by human rights groups would almost certainly have ended up in the Supreme Court. But, as this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, British journalist Melanie Phillips explains, change is now underway following the appointment of the 63-year-old Scottish Judge Lord Robert Reed as the UK’s new Chief Justice:

“Are we seeing a crack developing in the hitherto impregnable human rights dogma which has helped emasculate Britain’s defences against terrorism?

“The human rights lobby has consistently and largely successfully fought attempts over the years to strengthen the law against terrorism. It has found a receptive audience in Britain’s judicial establishment, for which the Human Rights Convention has the status of sacred doctrine.

“Yet now, activists are reportedly reluctant to commit to pushing the all-too predictable legal challenges to whatever counter-terrorism legislation the government brings forward.”

Melanie says this is due to the Courts becoming more conservative and explains, “This is partly because of the retirement of the radical president of the Supreme Court, Baroness Hale, and her replacement by a more traditional judge.

“But it’s also because the higher judiciary is deeply sensitive to the need to retain public trust in the rule of law. And it has understood, not least from the general election result and the preceding uproar over parliament’s attempt to stop Brexit which was aided by the courts, that the public has had it up to here with an activist judiciary which is viewed as having helped undermine not just public security but democracy itself.”

In light of this change in the direction of the UK Courts, it’s interesting to reflect on the situation in New Zealand since we too recently changed our Chief Justice.

The former head of our Judiciary, Dame Sian Elias, retired last March on her 70th birthday – the compulsory retirement age for New Zealand judges. She had been appointed to the role by the former National Party Prime Minister Jenny Shipley in 1999 and was considered a highly controversial selection.

With numerous calls for her resignation over the years as a result of her ‘judicial activism’, there were high hopes that her replacement Dame Helen Winkelmann would avoid that trap.

Not so, it seems. Appointed by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, it appears the new Chief Justice’s views are consistent with the Labour Party’s commitment not only to gender and ethnic diversity, but also to strengthening racial privilege.

In an address delivered last October, the new Chief Justice explained:

“The judiciary’s claim to legitimacy rests in large part upon its ability to provide equal treatment before the law… If a judge is seen to favour one party over another for reasons unconnected to the merits of the case, then the public will lose confidence in that judge. But if the judiciary as a whole is seen to act in a manner that favours one sector of society over another, then the judiciary will lose its legitimacy.”

She then outlined her commitment to more women judges and more Maori judges – having already backed the appointment of the former head of the Waitangi Tribunal Sir Joe Williams to the Supreme Court. Her goal, she indicated, is to ‘re-educate’ judges and reform the whole justice system by introducing ‘tikanga’ Maori into the law.

The Chief Justice does not appear to understand that by forcing the whole country to adopt the cultural extremism promoted by radical separatists, she is undermining the Rule of Law and with it the foundational concept of equality before the law, which she states is essential for giving the judiciary its legitimacy.

So while many were hoping that our new Chief Justice may usher in a more conservative approach to the law, that now seems unlikely.

Meanwhile, the fallout from Dame Sian’s radicalism continues.

In 2005, the Herald wrote, “At the peak of disgruntlement about Elias last year, senior Government members were heard to talk of the need to ‘Sian-proof’ legislation. That means leaving as few ambiguities and loose ends in legislation before Parliament as possible in order to leave no room for later judicial activism, the usually pejorative term to describe development of new principles of law by judges to justify their decisions.”

The Herald described “the Government’s horror at the Court of Appeal’s foreshore and seabed judgment, led by Elias. The decision of June 2003 allowed for the possibility that the Maori Land Court could issue freehold title over the foreshore and seabed. Addressing the consequent legal uncertainties and upheavals in Maoridom dominated the political agenda for the next 18 months.”

Without a doubt Sian Elias’ Ngati Apa judgement was unprecedented judicial activism. By overturning a settled 1963 Court of Appeal ruling in the 90 Mile Beach case – that the Crown owned the foreshore and seabed under common law – in favour of finding that customary title might still exist, Sian Elias opened the floodgates to Maori claims for the coast.

Hundreds poured in to the Maori Land Court, leaving the Labour Government apprehensive that her decision could lead to the privatisation of New Zealand’s entire coastline. This forced them to legislate.

But the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act led to a fracturing of Labour as MP Tariana Turia left to set up the Maori Party.

Under their influence, National later repealed Labour’s law, passing the controversial 2011 Marine and Coastal Area Act.

The fact that this Act resulted in almost 600 claims to the coast – over 200 in the High Court with the balance to be determined by the Minister of Treaty Negotiations – demonstrates the disastrous impact that the Chief Justice’s reinterpretation of the law has had on this country.

Again, as the Herald noted, the suspicion with which the judiciary and Sian Elias were regarded in some parliamentary quarters was because their activism made them “more likely to deliver decisions of the foreshore ilk – with a devil-may-care attitude to its consequences.”

And that’s the problem – the public are left to pick up the pieces.

So here we are, almost 20 years later, facing multiple tribal claims for the country’s entire coastline.

Last year the Attorney-General reviewed each of the 200 High Court applications for the coast and came to an initial view that the existence of overlapping claims meant that applicants could not meet the ‘exclusive use and occupation’ test in the law: “To the extent that there is any overlap with any other application, the Attorney-General says such overlap is inconsistent with the applicants’ claims to exclusive use and occupation of the application area without substantial interruption since 1840.”

As a result the Attorney-General came under attack from claimants attempting to restrict his role to that of an observer in the claims process rather than representing the public interest. 

This challenge to the role of Attorney-General became a matter for a pre-trial hearing late last year. Fortunately a member of the public, worried about the consequences for the entire claims process if the Attorney-General was sidelined, mounted a defence – in the public interest.  

The QC engaged to defend the Attorney-General’s role was the former Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, who had represented the public interest in 2016 in the only coastal claim to have been determined by the High Court.

Chris Finlayson explained to the Court that it was Parliament’s intention for the Attorney-General to stand up for the public interest the High Court process – as noted by Judge Churchman:

“Mr Finlayson referred to the adversarial structure of proceedings in the New Zealand Court system and submitted that, for a proper hearing to occur, cases generally needed to be opposed. He noted that, in relation to many applications under the Act, there may be no individual person or entity for whom the interests at stake from success of a particular application would amount to enough to justify the costs of formal intervention, particularly where interested parties, who are not applicants, do not have the benefit of funding from the Crown. He suggested that this was an example of where the Attorney-General could and should fullfil this role by considering every application and, where necessary, challenging evidence and offering a contradictory argument where one would not otherwise be offered to the Court.”  

The Judge found against the claimants, with no restrictions imposed on the Attorney-General.

Later this year, the first of the claims are scheduled to be heard in the High Court. In August it is the Edwards claim for a stretch of Bay of Plenty coastline south of Opotiki and out to the edge of the Territorial Sea. And in November it is the Clarkson claim in the Southern Hawkes Bay for the coast from Whangaehu to Cape Turnagain.

In light of the fact that it became evident early in the claims process that with many taxpayer-funded lawyers arguing in favour of awarding control of the coastline to tribal claimants, and few – if any – voices opposed, the Landowners Coalition registered as an Interested Party in the claims to help oppose them in the public interest. The Coalition is now working with the law firm of former MP Stephen Franks. They intend hiring a QC  to challenge these first two claims on the basis that the judicial determination of the meaning of “exclusive use and occupation” decided in these claims will likely have a precedent effect on all others.

They will maintain that “exclusive” means what it says, and does not mean “shared” use and occupation, which is what the overlapping claimants will argue – especially in the first Edwards case, where there are more than 20 overlapping claims.

If you would like to support the Landowners Coalition to help ensure the public’s voice in the High Court claims process is as strong as possible, please click HERE.

The Landowners Coalition is also working with locals in the claimed areas who understand only too clearly the opportunistic nature of the claims that have been lodged.

If you or anyone you know has information that would help refute the claims in the Edwards or Clarkson cases that the applicants have used and occupied the claimed areas “exclusively and continuously since 1840”, then please contact us on claims@nzcpr.com


*Do you support or oppose the introduction of Maori ‘tikanga’ in the law?


*Poll comments are posted below.


*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.


Click to view x 120


ONE PEOPLE ONE NATION NO DECISIONS MADE ON RACE ! Until this changes then every year this will be known as “PROTEST DAY ” !! Andrew
down the apartheid way Peter
racist legislation is the end of democracy. Bruce
Really appreciate all the research and intelligent, thought provoking articles… Thank you Janette
Maori are a minority of 15% of the NZ population. Why a they allowed to create racism and apartheid Angela
We do not need this primitivism in our society. I am heartily sick of the Maori culture. Is this H. Winkelmann mad? These activist judges are harming our country. Monica
Yeah, right! Let’s chuck out thousands of years of western civilisation. Why? Because these stone-age primitives know so much more %u2026 Right! Rob
We have enough problems now Ross
Do Away with the Maori Seats. We are all suppose to be New Zealanders. Every body in New Zealand is an Emigrant. We don’t need Tikanga in our Law’s. Richard
Just ridiculous! Jim
Heaven help us all. No. No. No. Paloma
Totally oppose this outrageous suggestion. All it will achieve is division nation wide with this continuation of appeasing the maoris. Another blatant act of racist politics being driven by the maoris revealing their never ending drive to isolate the majority of the population from areas of the country, carefully selected by their advocates. We are having to endure a pool of weak minded politicians who are doing nothing to stop, but in fact encourage racism, clearly reflected by their actions. Time for the majority of the population to send a very clear message to them is long overdue. The opportunity presents itself this year!! David
No it is divisive waffle, re-interpreted to suit activists. Dictionary says tikanga “Maori concepts, Maori ways of doing things” these do not apply to all NZ’s. Cultural themes can be reflected in law but only by changing the law for ALL and with full due process, care and time. Lisa
It is very simple: ONE LAW FOR ALL Peter
NO NO & NO !! We must have one law for everyone. Andrew
what is wrong with our system of law that allows the rights of the majority of New Zealanders to be suspended to that of the so called indigeous early settlers with dark skins david
We are all one, not divided tribes! Roger
Maori are not the original tribe of NZ, what about a fair go for the descendants of the Moriori who still exist. You might as well say all non Maori taxpayers should demand there tax payments be made for non Maori participation. Brian
money grabbing Edward
They can stick their hocus-pocus where the sun don’t shine Steve
There should be one law for New Zealand. James
I thought we were all Kiwis with one voice or should be! Colleen
OPPOSE !!! It has become quite clear whereto this ship is sailing. I said it before : Politicians on all sides of the political spectrum has appeased these ‘tribal leaders’ or better– radical activists playing the cultural race card at every turn. Nobody should be surprised that COMRADE Jacinda has appointed that sort of person to further undermine what is left of a balanced judicative. One step more in the direction of totalitarianism. Michael
It would take us back to the dark ages. Victor
It is alarming that there is even a possibility that our laws could be hijacked by Maori activists. This is another example of apartheid tendencies of those activists and must be opposed at every stage so that there is never a chance of one law for Maori and another for every other NZer Kerry
This is just more nonsense and enhances the view that we must have binding referenda as the law of the country to give WE THE PEOPLE control over all these dangerous legal decisions. Ronmac
There is meant to be one law for all in NZ. The law is too often an ass, as is the judiciary – and they are getting worse. Surely with human rights there are social obligations. High time the pandering to the vocal, left-wing minority stopped. Gary
we need only one form of law in NZ and that is a law that is available to everyone and treats everyone equally and fairly. we do not need a .special set of laws for Moari anymore than we need a special law for all Irish decendants. Frank
One country with equal rights for each person peter
Liberal judges and left wing liberals like Geoffrey Palmer and Robin Cooke have already turned NZ into a neo-apartheid state., Tom
It is not for the Judges to amend the Law, that is reserved for Parliament John
We must get back to “one law for all” or this country is doomed. Janet
I oppose it particularly because the word implies that it is the right way ie, the Maori way, to do things Terry
Its just another con. Ronmac
One law equally for all New Zealanders Alan
We will never move forward to the future if we are a divided nation. We have paid a too bigger price already. martin
No such thing – Just an opportunity for a minority of tribal elite to control policy and law. Bruce C
We wont be asked and they wont listen to our Opposition. Politicians simply do not care that they are racially dividing the country. Maori nonsense does not belong in the law or Government. Sam
One country; one people; one law Sarah
I’ve said it before, maori culture is light years behind European culture. Don’t drag us down to their level. They need to rise up to our level of life. But not all of their culture is bad or outdated, it really needed to be updated, fast. Peter
The coast should be shared by everyone as we should ALL be New Zealanders and not racial. Margaret
Apartheid by choice? Why do they spend a future of equal opportunities looking back in anger? God defend New Zealand from itself. Bruce
one law for all new zealanders maurice
It’s called apartheid – literally, ‘separateness’ [on the basis of ethnicity]. So much for the principle of equality before the law. Barend
Maori expansionism. Ian
More surreptitious undermining of the status quo – which is what makes New Zealand what it is. Ross
This is once again separatism creeping up on us. I am waiting for the call for NZ’s name to be permanently changed to Aotearoa even though that word has no national meaning whatsoever. People coming home have been asking me where to live and I always tell them Queensland (Our family should have gone them some time ago when we had the chance but chickened out.) This country is heading down a very bad path !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Alan
No Tikanga, no Sharia…one law for ALL. P
Definitely not. Mary
I think this is a dangerous backward step to take. Mary
Judicial Activism should be used to preserve law but not to make law! Jim
As I am one of those who do not know and understand what the Maori ‘tikanga’ is how can it be made or read into law. How will it affect the average New Zealander? Will it cause disadvantage to the other 85% of the population who are NOT Maori Peter
One country, one people! Elizabeth
Hobsons Pledge: We are now one people with a common law. That’s why the Chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi. To end tribalism, & live in harmony. Nearly 200yrs on, tribalism is more powerful than ever, & the DISGUSTING political parties who have been in charge since the introduction of the Waitangi Tribunal which is being used to drive a wedge between descendants of Maori, & the rest of the population, are ensuring that the Tribalism remains. National are PUBLICLY expounding their eagerness to work with the racist MAORI PARTY again. Wake up; time for a NEW beginning:- Vote New Conservative A.G.R.
That would be ridiculous. You can’t force everyone to believe in the primitive beliefs of a developing race. You will end up with a large portion of the population pretending to believe in what they regard as crap. Liz
the rule of law must prevail otherwise all is lost to all. alan
Tikanga is yet another of these fluid words the Maori coin but never, ever define. As a result they can ascribe meanings to that word to suit whatever is in accord with their current agenda, whim or fancy. Introducing tikanga to law is not only a racist measure, it serves to confuse the issue and render it wide open to endless amendments to further Maori aims. Ron
Definitely oppose ! Why? Get and read a copy of DIVIDING A NATION, The Return To Tikanga. 2019 Don
As far as the Maori is concerned, I for one would never trust them, and also today they are still killing their kids, they are the lowest of the low, they believe everyone else owns them a free ride in life., Don
The Law should always be above Trabalism !! Pierre
Tribalism at its worst. A backward step. Merv
I don’t know what tikanga means but it obviously points to racial separatism (apartheid). One law for all. Jenny
The Whole purpose of The Treaty of Waitangi was to rid the Colony of various fiefdoms and tribal laws, to bring every person to account under one reliable British Sovereign law, not only to deliver fairness but to protect the civilized new settlers from the lawless native majority who at that time were inclined to tribal rule by ruthless violence.. Sanitized socialist repackaging does not render maori law as in any way legitimate, only the law of civilized English Dominion was recognized in the Treaty and anything else invalidates the Treaty, which may supply the answer, banish the Treaty as voided. Richard
No way. The law should be equal for all. Graeme
I lost friends over my opposition to the 1981 tour. Where are Trevor and John now. Where is their opposition to the Maori separatist calls? Peter
More racist propaganda Gareth
One law for all New Zealand let’s get rid of all this tribal nonsense and let’s change this government asap Peter
One Nation, Many People, Equal Rights Doug
Another example of racist based law. There should be one law for everyone Warren
I reject any legislation such as this that smacks of racism . Tony
The Treaty of Waitangi makes us ALL Citizens of NZ and thus equal. Prior to the Europeans colonising NZ, history tells us Maori Tikanga produced a “might is right” society. Although not all is equal now, at least we have made, and are making an effort. Gang behaviour is an excellent example of “Tikanga” in operation! Peter
Our society is divided by racism because people in the government are promoting it by constantly labelling everyone as Maori or not maori. This foolishness should be opposed. Charlie
there is no place for racism in our laws Bud
The Treaty bestowed all the rights of British citizenship on Maori, nowhere did it suggest that anything other than British law would prevail once Maori had ceded sovereignty to the British Crown. Phil
I thought we were an integrated/one people. Here we have Labour trying to divide us UP. Labour OUT NOW…. Carl
would offer nothing tangible to any law Barry
For gods sake ,what next from Maori.A mongrel breed of people mostly representing crime,welfare abuse,child abuse and bludging.Ardern is their champion so what that make her.Just a dumb ass Don
Enough is enough and we are now a multi racial country, isn’t it time we recognised it and made the same law for everyone . when will someone have the guts to come out and say that brutality is fed into Maori children from the time they are able to walk with some of this kapahaka we call culture, it is time it was recognised Ann
No way we love NZ how it is Ivan
The law needs to be independent of race David
More Nonsense Les
Just another example of reverse racism. Les
The Maori way of doing things has hugely disadvantaged most Maori. Forcing this on everyone else will have similar outcomes to socialism and in the words of Winston Churchill shared misery. Richard
No, never would I support Maori tikanga into our laws as I believe in equality for all, one law for all people James
It would be disastrous and quite undemocratic – should we also be introducing facets of Asian and other ethnic laws ?? The idea is ludicrous. Rusell
No No No As Hobson said when the treaty was signed “WE ARE NOW ONE PEOPLE” That must always be the basis of our law in this country Rob
The split of justice along racial divide. What make one race so special they need their own laws jeff
Who are beating and killing their own children or family members. One child a month dead and how many others injured and not being reported . Time all the facts are and the ethnicity are revealed. Wendy
If we are to have a united nation of ‘Kiwi’s’ we cannot continue to introduce division by providing Maori with seperate ways of doing things. Maurice
Judges must be neutral and non-aligned. That is the elemental substance of justice – which is so non-apparent in so many of those charged with the upholding of judicial principles in today’s courts. Jim
Absolutely ridiculous. Maori need to take responsibility for themselves as individuals and stop blaming everyone else for their behaviour. Stop abuse, drinking, drug taking and care for their partner and children. Valerie
It’s just a continuation of the PC nonsense we as a country have been putting up with for years, and will have to continue putting up with if no opposition party has the guts to say “NO”. Richard
Maoris can get stuffed Graham
We have almost 1000 years of development of our law with all its checks and balances…surely we would not be stupid enough to throw it over for a tribal based system?! Roger
We already have laws for all kiwis, we do not need any more for the minority that think that they should rule our country(NEW ZEALAND) William
One law for all. Brett
absolutely oppose. Henry
yes oppose of course, enough part maori rubbish already in all social systems including the laws of the lan. for heaven sake all people wakeup to what part maori radicals are slowly achieving god forbid yet again. James
Leave the bloody Maoris out of any cases where there is them and us and as for changing laws that bind us all together I find this most offensive. Ken
Are there any full-blooded Maori in New Zealand. Do they really despise their pakeha blood that much? NZ one law for everyone no matter what their. bloodline is. Kath
getting sick of all this Maori stuff being pushed now a days and nobody has the gumstion to say no more so the gravy train rolls on when will this all end private land looks under threat now don’t ever give them control we will all be a third world country living in caves Russell
Absolutely opposed to such a law. NZ must have only ONE law for ALL NZer’s regardless of race. End of story Carolyn
Another nail in the coffin of democracy and good law making if this is imposed. Murray
We have reached this present ridiculous state through appeasement by successive governments of all political persuasions. The aim being to ‘kick the ball down the road’ so that the ultimate rebellion by the voters will not occur on their government’s watch. If you appoint activist judges you should not be surprised when you get activist judgements. John
sick of apartheid and do gooders dumb enough to support it norman
everyone should be the same under the law in NZ laurie
Things are disastrous enough already Colin
New Zealand law is based on English law which treats all people equally. Maori Tikanga is racist. Robbie
this will give control of laws and enforcement over to Maori Activists, who will press for territorial and commercial privilege, at the expense of all other hard working Kiwis. Reverse Aparthied is well under way and we sit back and let it happen to save ourselves the shame of being accused of being racists. Without Political intervention non Maori Kiwis will be paying for everything Maoris want and do, in the name of Tikanga. Sadly i think we are already gone too far to change that outcome. 🙁 stewart
I am not maori, therefore I do not wish to be converted to tribalism. Tikanga as known prior to 1840 is NOT what radical, elite maori are promoting now. Maureen
New Zealand Law is based on English law and upholds the rights of all people equally. Maori Tikanga is racist. Robbie
one people, time to move on Jack
When, in heaven’s name, is this country going to wake up to the fact that all people in this country have equal rights.This Maoridom nonsense has to stop. Tom
I firmly oppose the fracturing of NZ society based on racial preferences. We must be treated equally before the law regardless of ethnicity or status. There must be judicial neutrality. Lee
one law for all bill
once again maori playing their devious tricks John
Maori signed the treaty to be an equal partner under law, a move by this Left Wing Activist government to establish Apartheid in New Zealand is just stunning in its over reach and arrogance to the majority of kiwis. I can only hope that the silent majority of New Zealanders deal to Jacinda and her band of sycophant at the next election and cast them to the political wilderness for a very long time! John
There should be one and the same law for ALL New Zealanders. Glenn
NZ law already gives Maori and all other residents equal rights as stated in the treaty of Waitangi. Here we go again with Maori racism trying to reverse history. I have had enough. They are already the most privIleged group in NZ. with no or low land rates, companies that don’t pay taxes and a high percentage on the dole and other benefits while most other kiwis struggle to make ends meet working Garry
We are one people. Peter
What for? there are no full blood Maori in NZ, stop playing Racial games in this country, we do not need language racial integration as most people cannot talk decent English now and most Maori are the same from different tribes who spoke different dialects. Ian
One law for all. Mark
I can’t believe we are even contemplating such a thing. They were a stone age culture for hells sake. John
The country needs only 1 law. Any other will create confusion and cost. Only the legal fraternity would be the winners Brian
One country one law. Errol
It’s apartheid to favour one race over another and this is blatant favouritism for another round of greedy claims at the expense of ordinary NZers. Sherin
Tikanga Maori is the culture of a stone age civilisation.. Why change something that isn’t broken anyway? John
One people, one Nation, one law for all. Separatism leads to conflict, and no one wins. Roy
The laws of the country needs to be clear and well defined. tikanga does not meet this criteria. Kirke
Unprintable Bob
Tribalism out of control tom
It is not fair and just to all New Zealanders Pierre
Racism Daviid
Maori anything is a latter day construct with no better than extremely tenuous links to maori at the time they became British Citizens. It has no place in NZ law, education, health nor other government or social services. Encouraging it is not only introducing a fantasy but imbedding racial apartheid in NZ. Cherry
New Zealand, on a pathway to being held to ransom by radical maori. Closer now to being racially divided by their drive for apartheid in this country. Darryl
Definitely oppose! Aren’t we supposed to be “many people, one nation?” Joe
“Tikanga” is whatever Maori say it is – so it will be an ever-growing and ever-changing collection of Maori opinion. Another bunch of nails in the coffin of our secular democracy Chris
Look here please, Maori in this beautiful land of OURS, have had plenty of time to in every aspect of the modern world we all face every day, to Educate and acquire work skills. A hellova lot have done so and are doing very well, but there is still a lot, especially those who were born post 1960`s who decided getting an education and then a meaningful job was not part of their culture and successive pandering Guvmnts, pandered to them. Now today we have a massive problem and Maori have a gigantic one going forward in a world advancing ad breakneck speed. I am a white 74 yr old N.Z. European male, worked hard, retired early through work injury and have to admit, live is tough going. If one hasn’t accomplished what I did, financially from many years of working, life is always going to be tough going. Hence why this Country is experiencing its very high number of suicides per capita I believe. So back to the Q—No Maori need to wake up, pull their socks up, get educated in our schools, get out into the work force and knuckle down and work ,save, be HEALTHY, have a positive outlook as one goes through ones trials and tribulations in life and save for a happy retirement, however that will be down track for everyone. Maori need to believe in themselves, one Country, one Nation of people, all going in the same direction—together. Anon
I was shocked by the reaction of the public in general to the Helen Clark’s government Foreshore and Seabed proposed Act. Claims to airwaves and rivers etc etc have multiplied since. Rochelle
Everyone should be under the same laws , no special laws race based Colin
No special privileges for Maori Pete
Identity politics has no place in NZ. We are meant to be one people with equal rights for Maori & non-Maori. Any separate advantages granted to Maori – as already rife in NZ – is nothing but frank racism or ‘apartheid in reverse’. Nothing less Hylton
Tikanga supports utu–we don’t do might is right in NZ. Kevin
Crazy legislation John
APARTHEID in NZ continues it’s relentless, insidious march while NZ’ers sleep walk into apathetic future. Geoff
We don’t need a form of apartheid in NZ law! Allan
against maori have individual power over all other ethnicities. Graeme
Absolute rubbish. The law is the law and must be colourblind Dave
Maori will claim the air and the entire universe if they could. Their greed is shameless !! Kevin
Enough is enough. Terry
we already have a law to cover these things , and Maori will just invent another law , that didn’t exist before %u2026.to get their own way…..so no . just stop procrastinating and use the existing laws . Roy
No more apartheid introduced into New Zealand Tom
It only confuses things. Law is not race based. Andrew
Absolutely oppose. Next thing we will be having proposals for Sharia law to be included as well. David
Strongly oppose Dick
Not an effective way for those in need- unbalanced method Mike
We are all immigrants in NZ. No room for the racism of neo-Liberalism. Coral
Because it would be racism. John
What does the word “tikanga” mean? Does it mean that we are all equal under the law? Graham
When will the lunacy stop Chris
The law should not be couched in nebulous terms, subject to possible reinterpretation at some later date. Mark
No one will be safe in their person and property if this is allowed to happen. Maori customary law was quite simple – anything unguarded must belong to me! Scott
No way frank
Tikanga will support tribialism and that has some very serious downsides for a modern society and NZ overall. There are some very good expert authorities written up on the importance of not receding back into tribalism. And need we forget the UNDRIP agreement that was signed by Sharples with the shadow move by politicians. NZ is being changed by voted-in political sophistry that operates with window-dressing so as to fool the populace – Not via democracy. Ron
New Zealand for all New Zealanders Laurel
Simply more racist nonsense in support of a small minority of our multicultural society who claim special privilege from a cobbled together Treaty that was signed in 1840. John
Cultural appeasement is threatening the equity is NZ society. Thank you NZCPR for your bravery to expose this nonsense. Aaron
“Opening a can of worms !!!” Jack
I vehemently oppose this trojan horse for Maori Sovereignty. It’s a thinly disguised coup that will leave those of us in New Zealand who are not Maori, in a position of being second class citizens without the protection of the law as all of the legal structures will no longer be reliable or effective. It is a disaster and will continue to be a disaster for New Zealand. Civil Society will be thrown in to chaos, as the Law of the Land will no longer be functional as any challenge by Maori will take precedence. Dianna
We have been badly served by recent Attorney Generals and activist judges. The public is tired of politically motivated lawyers and judges where the rights and protections required by our democracy run secondary to the wishes of politically motivated activists in the justice system. Rex
Vehemently oppose. Maddi
We are one. One law for all. Martin
We do not need it in N.Z. law. Digby
Laws as I see it are the same for all. It cannot be altered to give one section of our nation an unfair advantage over others. Dennis
Let’s be one people and everyone on the same page. We are being constantly pulled away from the notion of one law for all. Tikanga will only bring separatism. Graeme
Stop this foolishness Mike
All of this nonsense is causing racial friction and anger and needs to stop Trevor
Arrant nonsense to foist primitive ‘culture’ on our society. Perhaps a poll should be run on keeping Maori words out of the English language – by all means have a translation of documents into Maori, but stop ruining English Patrick
Aren’t we supposed to be one nation with equal rights? Kristene
Racism Cutty
One law for everyone! Chris
One law for all NZers. NO group or race should have different rules in our society. George
Such proposal will lead to the ruination of our justice system.We have already had a taste of might become with protests in Auckland and elsewhere. A lack of sound government direction is up for grabs. I await for some common sense to prevail but the only apparent outcome is that matters continue to deteriorate. Chris
This disgusting gutless government has already sold out to maori demands. Ive had enough. Put Maori tikanga where it should be … right out of the picture. It has NO place in law. Do the Government not see the damage that maori are doing to this country. They contribute NOTHING. Des
It would promote even more division in NZ. Bernard
One law for all Philip
I firmly believe that the crown should own the foreshore and seabed on behalf of all NZ citizens. Tony
I oppose the introduction of Maori tikanga in the law of New Zealand. Peter
no to all race based laws Nigel
Why DONT those MP,s WE PAY THEIR SALARY & WITHOUT OUR TAXES govt.would,nt be able to waste/spend wake up THIS IS NZ NOT aotaroa & we are all equal with one law for every-one & its TIme govt. GOVEN FOR EVERY-ONE & they FINALLY remember the public who PAY THEIR HARD EARNED TAXES so it,s time it was spent on things that benefit EVERY-ONE NOT as jacinda & the greens want OUR TAX MONEY for maori ONLY.AND REMEMBER THIS IS NZ & ENGLISH. Cindy
Laws based on a race or a tribe are too narrow and self serving. Laws must reflect New Zealand and its long historic heritage dating Bach’s to Roman times Terry
no race based laws are ever acceptable Nigel
One non racial law for all New Zealanders Malcolm 
nz belongs to all nzers not maori Graeme
Absolutely not! Mick
Racism at its worst (Maori racism) Ian
one law for all or war. Brian
Why not just lie down and give it to them. They’ve been given almost everything else they have asked for – and they are the same age as ‘all’ New Zealanders – and with respect many have been life beneficiaries and/or have participated in gangs!!! Stuart
We are one people with one law for us all Roy
Racism Cutty
To include ‘Tikanga’ into Law makes two sets of Law. Even the Treaty of Waitangi states ‘we are now one People” WTF is all this Tikanga then, is it certain People ‘Flip flopping’ all over the Law prospective for a hidden agenda.. ONE COUNTRY ONE LAW !!. Geoff
Absolutely … Who the hell do they think they are … they? .. are NOT what they dream. Greed at the top and must be nailed. Alan
I cannot because it is biassed and the blind justice our western system is built on is being undermined by such thinking. Ray
It’s of no value other than to Maori. Dave
The equality to all guaranteed under “the Treaty” was to be administered under British based law. Acceptance of any other system of law chisels away at individuals freedom. Geoff.
Nothing should be based on race, Hugh
Maori cultural practices have NO place in the law. The RULE OF LAW depends on everyone being treated as equals. The Chief Justice would be undermining the Rule of Law if she introduces tikanga into the law. Can she not see that? Daniel
No, No, No! Maori tikanga must be opposed. New Zealanders have had enough of racial privilege.  Greg
Of course it shouldn’t be part of the law. Our so-called fine legal minds must surely understand that radical separatist ideas would undermine the rule of law. Stuart
When will the radicalism end. Why can’t we have a sensible person to head our judiciary? For goodness sake, these people need to realise that they are being influenced by cultural extremists, because that’s what separatists are.  Rebecca
I’m absolutely opposed to Maori culture being given any place in our law. New Zealand is a country that must protects equal rights. If there’s a party that will promise to repeal all race-based rights in law I will consider voting for them!    Lee