He said the Crown and Maori should be directed to consult and devise a mechanism which protected the claims until they were resolved.
However, it was ultimately the Crown's obligation under Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi to protect Maori interests in water.
"It is not for Maori to dictate to the Crown or even in the context of litigation provide the mechanism that protects."
Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias, who is leading the bench of five judges, observed that "a protective mechanism could be that the Crown will only divest 25 per cent until there's some resolution".
The Crown's lawyer David Goddard, QC, faced tougher questions than those he fielded in the High Court last year.
Chief Justice Elias quizzed him why the sale of shares in the companies to private investors was "not an additional impediment to some of the range of responses the Crown might develop" to protect Maori interests.
Mr Goddard said "no meaningful and real option" for recognising Maori interests in rivers and other water bodies would be lost by the sale. The tools of most relevance for recognising those rights involved regulatory reform and the Government's ability to do that would not be affected by the sale.
Maori Council spokeswoman Rahui Katene said she was encouraged by the Supreme Court judges' questions to both lawyers. She felt the questions were clearly intended to elicit more information rather than to attack the council's submissions as had been the case in the High Court, which gave her hope for the outcome.
The hearing continues today.