Tariana Turia

Wellington, June 11 NZPA - More flexibility is needed from the Crown before the Maori Party will consider supporting a replacement for the current foreshore and seabed legislation, co-leader Tariana Turia says.

The Government's stance is that it wants to repeal the law and put ownership of the foreshore and seabed out of crown ownership and into the public domain, while reasserting the right of Maori to seek customary rights -- but not freehold title -- through the courts.

Prime Minister John Key said this week he was confident of getting an agreement with the Maori Party, which has been liaising with iwi leaders.

But he has repeatedly said if the Maori Party cannot agree to the general public domain stance, the Government will simply retain 2004 legislation enacted by Labour, which leaves it in crown ownership.

The Maori Party has not commented while negotiations took place, but Mrs Turia said today her party's caucus had revealed concerns about the current status of the policy proposals arising out of the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

"While we acknowledge this is an issue of profound significance to the Maori Party, we are concerned that there are still some points of difference between the Crown's position and that of iwi leaders," she said.

"Unless we can negotiate some changes, the current state of the policy may be a bridge too far for our people."

Mrs Turia's comments came after the party met the Iwi Leaders Group in Wellington today and heard concerns about issues not considered to have been adequately addressed during negotiations.

Co-leader Pita Sharples said it was now critical that Mr Key heard directly from the iwi leaders and the party was pushing for a meeting between him and those leaders within the next few days.

Iwi Leaders Group chairman Mark Solomon said at the weekend that public domain was an unacceptable outcome, but Mr Key said he understood that was not the stance of all iwi leaders -- some of whom supported the Government's position.

Mr Solomon also questioned why the public domain stance would not include over 12,000 freehold titles which exist.