KEY POINTS:
The National Party has faced a difficult political calculation about whether to support the Maori Party's bill to repeal the Government's foreshore and seabed legislation. It is in National's interest to see the Maori Party prosper and take seats from Labour but it is not in National's interest
to rekindle the public debate.
Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia says she has been assured of National's support, at least to give the bill a first reading and send it to a select committee for public airing. National insiders now believe their caucus is most unlikely to agree to that.
It is not hard to see why the caucus would come to that conclusion. National opposed the act for reasons diametrically opposite those of the Maori Party. National argued that the legislation gave too much recognition to customary rights, the Maori Party held that it trampled on them.
If they sent the repeal bill to a select committee National would later have to perform an about-face on the bill. The party would looked duplicitous to the public, and for no gain from the Maori Party. If the new party's survival at the next election depends on restoring a customary right to the foreshore and seabed, National's about-turn would destroy that prospect. And if the party does survive the election the chances of its helping National form the next government would not be enhanced by turning against its bill after the select committee stage.
So there is nothing to gain for National and everything to lose, since, as it finally calculates, majority opinion would side with Labour if repeal became a serious prospect.
Labour alone possibly relished a public debate on the Maori Party's bill. Labour would have been able to present itself as foremost defender of the beaches while National struggled to explain its tactical position.
As it happens there is truth in both the arguments made by National and the Maori Party against the foreshore and seabed legislation. The act has trampled on a customary right recognised in principle by the Court of Appeal's astounding ruling in 2003. But the act also provides for formal recognition of customary rights to foreshore and seabed, as claims that would have succeeded but for the act. This is a recipe for future trouble.
The act is an attempt to compromise irreconcilable interests - customary tribal ownership of resources that have long been a highly-valued element of the public domain. Like many compromises the Government's act could turn out to be worse than had it done nothing.
Had it done nothing, iwi claims to some of the seafront would have proceeded to the courts. The 2003 ruling did not presume the claims would succeed, but rather stated the claims had not been extinguished by previous legislation. One or two of the judges outlined the hardships the claimants would face proving customary title.
But it will probably be much easier for them now. The rather academic recognition Labour's legislation permits can be granted by the Maori Land Court without immediately fearful implications for public access to the claimed foreshore. Claims that might have faced rigorous opposition might be quietly endorsed in these circumstances.
But there will come a time when successful claimants will not rest on academic recognition. They will press again for usable rights with the added leverage of recognition under the present act. By then the present legislators, Labour and National, will be long gone. For the present, National calculates the country is content with Labour's compromise and prefers to leave well enough alone.
