Post by Kiwi Frontline on May 17, 2024 6:13:25 GMT 12
Graham Adams: TVNZ HĪKOI DOCUMENTARY NEEDS A SEQUEL.
It is never mentioned that her Foreshore and Seabed Act allowed iwi and hapū to apply to the courts for recognition of customary rights in coastal areas where substantially uninterrupted, or continuous, possession and exclusive use from 1840 could be established. A successful claim would allow a form of “guardianship” over a foreshore and seabed reserve.
Without that knowledge, it is impossible to understand National’s very successful — and contentious — “Iwi/Kiwi” billboard advertising campaign for the 2005 general election that portrayed Helen Clark as sympathetic to Māori activists and willing to cede control of the nation’s beaches that would undermine the public’s right to unfettered access.
Nowhere in the documentary is it mentioned that, by New Zealand importing England’s common law, ownership of the foreshore and seabed had long been viewed as having rested with the Crown from 1840. Clark decided to make that explicit in statute.
In fact, a 1963 Court of Appeal case over Ninety Mile Beach had decided that all customary title had been extinguished. In overturning that 40-year-old decision, the 2003 Court of Appeal judgment came as a bombshell in finding that Māori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed persisted until they were explicitly extinguished by law. Which the Foreshore and Seabed Act did......
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/05/graham-adams-tvnz-hikoi-documentary.html
It is never mentioned that her Foreshore and Seabed Act allowed iwi and hapū to apply to the courts for recognition of customary rights in coastal areas where substantially uninterrupted, or continuous, possession and exclusive use from 1840 could be established. A successful claim would allow a form of “guardianship” over a foreshore and seabed reserve.
Without that knowledge, it is impossible to understand National’s very successful — and contentious — “Iwi/Kiwi” billboard advertising campaign for the 2005 general election that portrayed Helen Clark as sympathetic to Māori activists and willing to cede control of the nation’s beaches that would undermine the public’s right to unfettered access.
Nowhere in the documentary is it mentioned that, by New Zealand importing England’s common law, ownership of the foreshore and seabed had long been viewed as having rested with the Crown from 1840. Clark decided to make that explicit in statute.
In fact, a 1963 Court of Appeal case over Ninety Mile Beach had decided that all customary title had been extinguished. In overturning that 40-year-old decision, the 2003 Court of Appeal judgment came as a bombshell in finding that Māori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed persisted until they were explicitly extinguished by law. Which the Foreshore and Seabed Act did......
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/05/graham-adams-tvnz-hikoi-documentary.html