Debate over foreshore only just beginning, says law professor

12.15pm

UPDATED REPORT - Public reaction to the Government's foreshore and seabed policy continued today with a mixture of confusion, disappointment, opposition and support.

The legislation to enact the policy will be presented to Parliament this afternoon, when Maori representatives, opposition political parties and lawyers will be able to pick over the detail.

Today Professor Matthew Palmer, Dean of Law at Victoria University, said the nationwide discussion about the policy had only just started.

"These are hard issues the Government is dealing with," he said on National Radio.

"Some of the hyperbole and political rhetoric that is being thrown around doesn't help...this is just the start of considering specific government proposals -- we've had a lot of debate already about a bill that hasn't been introduced yet."

The bill is expected to get its first reading in Parliament on May 5, and it will be sent to a special select committee which will hear public submissions for at least six months.

The National Party says it will probably repeal the legislation if it comes to power.

Party leader Don Brash has described it as "a gigantic fraud" and says it will open the door to a flood of grievance cases and allow Maori a virtual right of veto of foreshore and seabed development.

The Government rejects that, and today Prime Minister Helen Clark said Dr Brash had not understood the key provisions of the policy.

Their difference of opinion was an indication of the political debate that is going to rage for months over the bill.

Maori, farmers and Fish and Game New Zealand all criticised the bill for different reasons.

The Treaty Tribes Coalition said it took away Maori rights and denied access to the courts.

"The Government's mishandling of the issue has led to a fiasco," said coalition chairman Harry Mikaere.

"No New Zealander who cares about the rule of law can support this legislation until the court process has run its course."

Federated Farmers president Tom Lambie said it would create uncertainty for landowners.

"It suggests that anyone can walk across private land to reach the foreshore," he said.

"We need to have the right to say no to people coming on to private land."

Fish and Game NZ was upset because the words "public domain" had been removed.

Director Bryce Johnson said Crown ownership was open to interpretation and manipulation by future governments.

Government ministers continued to speak up for the proposals and Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen said National and ACT did not know what they were talking about.

"Both parties want to turn this into a race issue...the right wing parties are at sixes and sevens," he said.

Marlborough's mayor Tom Harrison, who was a key player in the local dispute that led to the Court of Appeal ruling which triggered the controversy, said he was delighted with the proposals and Parliament was at last listening to the people.

Prime Minister Helen Clark today said she would have preferred to keep the term "public domain" in the Government's foreshore and seabed legislation but had no choice about removing it because she had to have New Zealand First's votes.

It was "public domain" that caused the problem yesterday because NZ First leader Winston Peters said it was meaningless and confusing, and made its removal a condition of his support.

Because three Labour Maori MPs refused to back the legislation, Miss Clark needed more than the eight votes offered by the Government's usual ally, United Future, which wanted public domain to stay in.

"I would have preferred to have been able to follow through the 10 months work we had done with United Future," she said on National Radio today.

"The term public domain meant a great deal to them. If I could have preserved it I would have, because I actually preferred it myself."

Miss Clark said she spoke to United Future leader Peter Dunne yesterday, thanked him for his previous support and explained she faced a situation where eight votes plus the 51 she could count on from her own party were not enough for the 61 she needed for a parliamentary majority.

Mr Dunne said today it was simplistic to argue that "public domain" would have had no legal force.

He said United Future had insisted on the term being in the legislation for two reasons.

The first was to make it as clear as possible that all New Zealanders had equal rights of access to the foreshore and seabed.

The second was to strengthen the "ambiguous" nature of Crown ownership.

"As it stands, there is nothing to stop a future government, for ideological reasons, determining to privatise the foreshore and seabed," Mr Dunne said in a statement.

"Nor is there anything to prevent them giving away tracts of the foreshore and seabed for exclusive ownership as part of a Treaty settlement process."

Mr Dunne said the "moral force" of adding the concept to Crown ownership would have made both those possibilities more unlikely.

"United Future makes no apology for not being prepared to cave in and accept a lesser standard of ownership, just to make up the numbers," he said.

"New Zealanders do not expect major issues of this nature that go to the core of our national birthright to be determined by last-minute, shabby backroom deals brought on by the desperate need for a majority because of internal dissent," he said.

- NZPA