Editorial: Keep venom and vitriol out of hearing

Professor Margaret Mutu has thrust herself to the forefront of Maori protest against the Government's foreshore and seabed legislation. This high profile, however, is the result not of the soundness and sense of her position but the extremity of her language. Earlier this year she described Government policy as cultural genocide and a declaration of war on her Ngati Kahu tribe. It seemed unlikely that she would take a step back in her submission to the select committee considering the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. Nor did she, warning that nationalisation of tribally owned parts of the coastline would lead to the type of bloodshed seen in Israel and Palestine.

Regrettably, this volley was no less ill-conceived than her earlier statements. Deliberately inflammatory language such as this serves no purpose. It holds appeal only to the most disaffected. For the vast majority who, quite correctly, deem the prospect of civil war over this issue as unthinkable, it prompts only anger and alienation. In sum, such rhetoric is counterproductive. It will do nothing to solve the ill that Dr Mutu sees embedded in this legislation.

That is not to say she should not state her discontent, and state it firmly. Clearly, the Foreshore and Seabed Bill represents a challenge to Maori perception of their customary property rights. Whatever the reality of the bill's practical exercise - in placing coastal land below the high-water mark in Crown ownership, but allowing Maori groups to go to the courts to have customary rights recognised - it has strong cultural and spiritual implications. But no matter the strength and sincerity of her feeling, nothing is ever accomplished by approaches that seek only to divide.

The voices that need to be heard in the present circumstances are those of moderation; those that move on from Dr Mutu's position by trying to steer a course which will find a significant degree of across-the-board favour. Already the select committee has, quite rightly, indicated these are the people or groups to which it will pay attention. The committee, said its chairman, Russell Fairbrother, was not "an entertainment", and it did not wish to hear people who "do not understand the issues in the bill". Pointedly, he noted that Dr Mutu, when questioned, had been sketchy on details of the legislation.

Voices of moderation are already apparent, and more from all sides of the debate will come forward as the select committee travels to other major cities. One that emerged in Auckland, on the same day as Dr Mutu's submission, was that of Auckland University emeritus professor Jock Brookfield. He had said previously that the Government should not have been surprised by the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Ngati Apa Marlborough Sounds case that customary title to parts of the foreshore could be established by indigenous people. It merely confirmed the trend and logic of court decisions and much legal writing.

Now Professor Brookfield has suggested a compromise by which the Government could still nationalise the foreshore but hold it "upon trust for Maori customary owners if and where they are judicially sustained". He also wants tribes whose foreshore was confiscated to be paid compensation. The test for such proposed compromises is their level of political acceptability. Whatever the legalities, this is essentially a political issue. If it were not, the Government would have allowed the Ngati Apa case to roll forward.

On that basis, the Brookfield solution appears to strike difficulty. Nonetheless, it is the type of calm, considered contribution that attempts to advance debate on the bill rather than drive it down the dead-end street of venom and and vitriol. As the head of Maori studies at Auckland University, Dr Mutu was ideally placed to take a similar approach; to play a major hand in shaping the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. She has wasted that opportunity.