The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill reached Parliament last week with none of the controversy that attended its predecessor, the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.
The name change, obviously an attempt by the Government to remove some of the heat from the issue, could not entirely be the cause of public indifference: with the country's attention focused on the Christchurch earthquake and its aftermath, it was understandable that one of Parliament's most disputed measures had been largely overlooked.
The purpose of the new Bill is to restore the possibility of customary title for Maori, while retaining general public access to the beaches.
Only the former was extinguished by the original Act, but the widely held fear - at least among non-Maori - was that the right of customary title might mean parts of the foreshore and seabed could be vested in private tribal ownership, with all that implied.
The new Bill attempts to deal with these fears while assuring tribes of their right to seek customary title in certain limited circumstances.
Tribes must be able to show the High Court or the Crown that they have exclusively used and occupied a specific area virtually continuously from 1840.
Even if tribes are able to demonstrate this - the Bill seems to avoid using the word "prove" - they will not be able to sell the land.
Interestingly, while a grant of customary title does not permit tribes to sell it does confer other potentially revenue-earning abilities such as conservation, the protection of sacred areas, marine mammal watching permits, and especially the ownership of minerals other than those belonging to the Crown, as well as earning royalties from the Crown.
The Bill also provides the right to create a planning document and to be consulted by regional councils.
From the viewpoint of the general population, the Bill establishes the creation of a "special status" for the coastal marine and foreshore (other than land already in private ownership, though no new private titles can be created) so that "neither the Crown nor any other person owns, or is capable of owning (it)".
The right of public access appears to be assured.
However, there is reason to be dubious about the Bill as it stands because so much will depend on the legal tests, should they occur.
It is relevant to note that within a matter of hours of its publication, a Maori Party spokesman was talking in terms of it not being the "final solution" to Maori grievances, while he was "comfortable" with the outcome of the Government's promise to repeal the Act.
The Bill will be referred to a select committee which, after hearing public submissions may well recommend changes.
It is very likely Maori will press for changes, particularly on the issue of ownership rights.
The Bill does not attempt to define what would happen if competing tribes seek rights to the same piece of coastline.
Having to "show" continuous use may also be regarded as difficult to achieve and an effort will likely be made to lower the standard.
To the extent that the right to seek customary title has been reasserted, the Bill will be viewed by most tribes as progress but some have already indicated that if the Maori Party is in a position to influence the formation of the next government, it may be pressed hard to demand further concessions.
Some members of the Ngapuhi tribe, in particular, appear to be strongly opposed.
The Government wants to bury the grievance as soon as it can, having inherited it from the Clark government which, as we pointed out at the time, would have been far better to have allowed the original Court of Appeal's decision to be challenged before trying to legislate a Maori claim out of existence.
But by promising to repeal the Act as the price for Maori Party support, National raised Maori expectations to the extent that in some cases tribes thought they would gain title to the entire coastline; and the promise has also deepened general scepticism.
On the basis of the new Bill, Maori likely will think they are going to get very little as a consequence of the repeal: for example, "management" of the commonly held foreshore is to be the responsibility of the Department of Conservation.
There are plenty of other potential fishhooks, too, as the Dunedin example of Pilots beach has demonstrated: access to that reserve will be theoretically freely available from the sea or by walking along the shore, but practically it will be prevented for many people unable to manage the pathways; and at any event, will be closed from dusk to dawn.
People will also be charged to "view the penguins" - at the very least an inconsistency with the Bill's specific prohibition of charging for public access to those parts of the foreshore held to be in customary title.
It will be fatal for the Government to now rush the process of consideration of the Bill: the intention should be to get it as right as possible to serve in fairness the interests of all New Zealanders.
