Illustrating the real issues

Just when the foreshore and seabed is back in the news, there's a court case which perfectly illustrates the real issues involved. In 1865, Charles Hatfield built a hotel on a triangle of land near the Wellington railway station. In 1942, the hotel was compulsorily acquired by the government to house US troops, and the government retained it after the war as it was "required for defence purposes". It has never been used for such purposes, and now the family is suing to get it back.

No doubt people will point to the obvious difference - that Maori claimants have not proved ownership of the foreshore - but that's a red herring. Whatever your opinion on the merits of their claims, it is unquestionable that there are facts there which can be discovered by a court. It can be shown that either they owned it, or they didn't. The important difference is that in the hotel case, the crown legally acquired the land (and subsequently breached its duty to return it). In the case of the foreshore, it has not (or at least, not universally; various parts of foreshore and seabed have been acquired under various acts governing harbour boards and such, but that, like ownership, is a fact to be discovered by a court). The question for opponents of Maori claims to the foreshore then is why they are not also opposing efforts by this family to regain their property?