Editorial: The coast is not as clear as it seems

New Zealanders' love of the outdoors underpins a huge liking for the concept of a Queen's chain. So deepseated is this partiality that the existence of an uninterrupted string of public land next to the country's waterways is a popular notion. But if there is some historic rationale for the idea, based on a royal decree of 1840, time has clearly rendered it obsolete. Reports prepared for the Government say as much. They conclude, in effect, that about a third of the coastline is off limits to the public because the land bordering it is privately owned. In the words of the Prime Minister, "it appears the concept [of a Queen's chain] has been somewhat eroded over time and legal entitlements aren't what they should be".

It is easy to see why the Government is keen to debunk the notion of a public right to enjoy the land next to our rivers, lakes and the sea. It puts an altogether different perspective on the Court of Appeal's ruling that Maori may be able to claim customary title to the foreshore and seabed - and the Government's attempt to find a way of balancing Maori rights and public access. In a none too subtle way, people are being told that if large beach areas thought to be in the public domain are already tied up in private title, it is time to forget about unfettered access to the coastline. And it is time to see customary titles that endow no exclusive ownership in rather less threatening terms. For good measure, there is also the chance to poke fun at the National Party's Beaches for All campaign. It is little wonder the Government has kept the ball rolling this week by dripfeeding titbits from the report of the land access reference group.

Politics and debate about the extent of private ownership aside, the report focuses on a problem that will cause increasing friction if nothing is done. It appears that more and more private property-owners are shutting the public out. The report, which will be released next week, is thought to emphasise the need to clarify the relevant laws on access rights. As the Government has discovered, this is far from a cut and dried matter. The rights of private property-owners, as well as desire for access, will have to be considered when action is taken.

The nub of the issue is that, whatever New Zealanders' right to use the coastline, there is no common-law right of access. If a road, paper road or reserve corridor does not exist, landowners are presumably within their rights to use the likes of the Trespass Act to deny access. This is a recipe for tension. As, for example, when access is denied or when property-owners demand a fee for access. Or when property-owners shut out the public while reaping the financial reward of lodges and resorts that offer exclusive use of the coastline.

The Government says the public's right to gain access to beaches should be improved. Few would disagree. But the Government's reticence about how this can be achieved speaks volumes. The most direct action - paying property-owners compensation for the loss of rights entailed in guaranteed access or buying coastal blocks as they become available - would in all likelihood be too expensive to be tenable. Perhaps the best that can be done is the encouragement of mediation between landowners and those seeking access. Presumably, that would be the key role of the agency recommended by the land access reference group. To ensure the problem spreads no further, rights of access could be strengthened through changes to the Resource Management Act, and caveats placed on future land purchases.

The immediate task, however, is to establish the exact legal position. This is, as the Government suggests, an issue that must be debated. But a useful debate can take place only in the light of the facts and this cannot sensibly happen while the Government dripfeeds tidbits from the report of the land access reference group.