The dispute over the foreshore and seabed is essentially one of power relationships.
It would not have occurred had the Crown, in the form of successive governments since the 1970s, not decided to embrace the "principles" of the Treaty of Waitangi, and, likewise, the higher courts including the Privy Council not acknowledged certain claims, giving indigenous preference.
This whole area of the law is relatively new and much ink has been spilt and money spent navigating a way through the maze.
The Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004 was just such an example.
It was sponsored by the Clark government with perhaps the best of intentions - to preserve general public access to the foreshore while enabling some limited customary title to Maori - but it was prompted by a court decision.
A tribe had sought a mussel-farming licence in what it claimed was its traditional area, and when this was rejected by the local district council, took its claim to the Court of Appeal which ruled against the Crown's contention that customary title had been extinguished.
The court also determined that the Maori Land Court had the jurisdiction to decide whether any part of the foreshore and seabed was still Maori customary land.
No government fearful of such a challenge to its supremacy could allow this particular can to be opened, and Labour's purpose with its legislation was to reassert Crown ownership over the foreshore and, perhaps more significantly in the longer term, the seabed and its largely unknown and untapped economic potential.
The National Party entered last year's election promising to review the Act and in its post-election negotiations with the Maori Party confirmed it.
The review panel's recommendation now published represents realpolitik under MMP in action, whatever might be thought of the review as a "set-up" designed to produce a predetermined outcome.
In reasserting the Crown's power, the Act left the issue exposed for future discord and disruption from Maori, who believe a modern confiscation of their customary rights has taken place.
The review panel agreed, recommending the repeal of the Act and recognition of this Maori "property right".
If the Government proceeds along these lines it will do so in the face of several difficulties, not the least being providing a guarantee of free public access to coastal areas and to the seabed.
Will this mean access in any circumstances, everywhere? A further difficulty will be establishing a form of customary title acceptable to Maori - such a measure seems inevitable now - without enraging non-Maori.
Will Maori customary title be able to be converted into freehold title, as was the potential effect of the Court of Appeal's original decision?
In fact, the very meaning of "ownership" may need to be redefined in a way not yet particularised, such is its importance.
If new legislation proceeds, it will also need to find a way to recognise both cultural views in law, a challenge even for Solomon.
In practical terms, non-Maori New Zealanders might consider their interest is chiefly recreational - a questionable judgement at best - but there cannot be any doubt that Maori interest is principally economic today.
Where will the authority lie, therefore, to determine paramountcy of ownership of anything of economic value along the coast and under it?
What steps (if any) will any new legislation take to deal with potential customary title being able to be converted into private ownership?
The National Party element of the Government must box very cleverly if it is to survive politically unscathed from trying to reconcile the competing interests.
It will be looking for an acceptable compromise from the Maori Party to secure its own existence in power, and to do that it will have to make compromises itself which may alienate its own supporters.
There will be a cost, both in compensation already being demanded and, as was evident at the meetings of Maori around the country to discuss the review, in having a separate tribal financial stake in any future discovery of precious minerals or deposits of fuel or oil reserve.
Will National be able to find these claims acceptable, if indeed they are proposed?
The review panel's bob-each-way recommended preference for the resolution of ownership and rights by negotiation between tribes and the Crown at local and national levels creates the spectre of an entirely new chapter in the treaty claims manual.
Co-management with the public's right of access maintained may very well be the desirable outcome, but it would be a bold punter who would bet on it being achieved within the term of this Government.
