Editorial: Government between a rock and a hard place

The foreshore and Seabed Bill duly passed its first reading in Parliament yesterday, thanks to the backing of New Zealand First. That party's 13 votes provided a comfortable majority - but that was the only measure of comfort the Government could derive from proceedings. Almost every other aspect of the vote pointed to a troubled road ahead. First will be the aftermath of Nanaia Mahuta's decision to join Tariana Turia in crossing the floor. Whatever slim chance the Prime Minister had of cajoling the Tainui MP out of such drastic action had vanished the previous day amid the hikoi's demonstration of anger. That Georgina Beyer, after much agonising, chose to reflect the wishes of her Wairarapa constituents was small consolation.

Ms Mahuta will continue to be a focus of attention as she considers whether she will resign from the Labour Party. Yet even if she stays, the Government knows from the strength, scope and solidarity of the 20,000-strong hikoi that it has many bridges to repair if it is to win the seven Maori electorates at the next general election. It knows also, however, that were it to bow to Maori and dilute the foreshore and seabed legislation, it risks an even more decisive rejection by middle New Zealand. The National Party's "preferential treatment for Maori" campaign has tapped into a groundswell against such concessions.

If Ms Mahuta were to resign, it would remove the Government's one-vote confidence and supply majority. The Government would either have to defeat her in a byelection - a forlorn prospect - negotiate with her and Mrs Turia to retain the confidence of Parliament, or strike a deal with another party. If it garnered NZ First's support for the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, that came only after bickering with United Future over what term should denote inalienable public property.

Despite that unseemly spectacle, the Government must now be eyeing a more permanent arrangement with either NZ First or the Greens. Winston Peters has not indicated what he would expect in return for his support. Nor is he likely to. It would be more his style to extract that price as and when opportunities arise - and when there is the biggest advantage for NZ First as it strives to ward off National's incursion into its traditional vote. Cosying up to Mr Peters is not a prospect the Government will relish.

Nor, however, would it delight in dealing with the Greens. That party has not been coy in playing its bargaining chips. But two of these would undermine key planks of economic progress - the planned free-trade agreement with China and the release of genetically modified organisms. The GM issue scuttled a coalition between Labour and the Greens at the last election. To pander to renewed demands now, thereby delivering a killer blow to biotechnology research, would be extremely unpalatable.

In its sea of troubles, the Government must be ruing its handling of the foreshore and seabed issue. Some within its ranks must feel, in hindsight, that the legal system should have been left to run its course. The Court of Appeal had, after all, suggested particular claims of customary ownership might be hard to establish. The Government, however, was clearly loath to risk a decision that might demand a legislative response nullifying customary tribal ownership. This, it must have feared, would be the catalyst for Maori outrage.

As it transpired, the Government has that anyway. Ironically, the Foreshore and Seabed Bill might provide a more satisfactory vehicle for Maori aspirations, with hapu or iwi able to apply to the Maori Land Court for an ancestral connection order or customary rights order for particular tidal areas. But Maori are not of a mind to acknowledge that; the hikoi suggested a deep-seated grievance that transcends one issue. Nor has middle New Zealand been of a mind to try to make sense of garbled communications from the Beehive. For the Government, the trouble has just begun.