Question: What common law concerning the Maori has been the subject of New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy?

Context articles: Ngati Apa v Attorney-General
New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy
Major archiepiscopal church
Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board
Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004
Aboriginal title
R v Symonds
Rakahanga-Manihiki language
Tariana Turia
Coastal Coalition

Ngati Apa v Attorney-General was a landmark legal decision that sparked the New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy.
 The case arose from an application by eight northern South Island iwi for orders declaring the foreshore and seabed of the Marlborough Sounds Maori customary land.
 After lower court decisions and consequent appeals in the Maori Land Court, the Maori Appellate Court and the High Court; the Court of Appeal unanimously held that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to determine whether areas of foreshore and seabed were Maori customary land or not.
 The court also held that, "The transfer of sovereignty did not affect customary property.
 They are interests preserved by the common law until extinguished in accordance with the law".
 The effect of the decision was subsequently overturned by the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.
The New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy is a debate in the politics of New Zealand.
 It concerns the ownership of the country's foreshore and seabed, with many Māori groups claiming that Māori have a rightful claim to title.
 These claims are based around historical possession and the Treaty of Waitangi.
 On 18 November 2004, the New Zealand Parliament passed a law which deems the title to be held by the Crown.
 This law, the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, was enacted on 24 November 2004.
 Some sections of the Act came into force on 17 January 2005.
 It was repealed and replaced by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.
Major archiepiscopal churches are the Eastern Catholic Churches governed by the major archbishops, assisted by the respective synod of bishops.
 These Catholic churches also have almost the same rights and obligations as patriarchal churches.
 A major archbishop is the metropolitan of a see determined or recognized by the Holy See, the Supreme authority of the Church, who presides over an entire Eastern Church sui iuris that is not distinguished with the patriarchal title.
 What is stated in common law concerning patriarchal churches or patriarchs is understood to be applicable to major archiepiscopal churches or major archbishops, unless the common law expressly provides otherwise or it is evident from the nature of the matter" (CCEO.151, 152).
 The Ukrainian, Syro Malabar, Syro-Malankara Catholic and Romanian churches are the four major archiepiscopal churches in the Catholic Church.
Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board was a decision of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand concerning the right to silence and implied statutory repeal of the common law privilege against self-incrimination.
 The decision, about "constitutional principles as well as eggs", is important because of an obiter dictum by New Zealand's pre-eminent judge, Justice Cooke, later Lord Cooke, on the relationship between the judiciary and Parliament.
 Cooke forcefully states that there are some parts of the common law so fundamental that courts will not enforce laws of Parliament that seek to abrogate them.
The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 is a former Act of the Parliament of New Zealand.
 It overruled the 2003 decision of the Court of Appeal in "Ngati Apa v Attorney-General."
 Its passage arose out of, and further fueled, the New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy.
Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty under settler colonialism.
 The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction.
 Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, except to the national government, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.
R v Symonds "(The Queen v Symonds)" incorporated the concept of Aboriginal title into New Zealand law and upheld the Government's pre-emptive right of purchase to Maori land deriving from the common law and expressed in the Treaty of Waitangi.
 Although the Native Lands Act 1862 waived Crown pre-emption, the notion of Aboriginal title has been revived in the 20th century to deal with Maori property rights.
Rakahanga-Manihiki is a Cook Islands Maori dialectal variant belonging to the Polynesian language family, spoken by about 2500 people on Rakahanga and Manihiki Islands (part of the Cook Islands) and another 2500 in other countries, mostly New Zealand and Australia.
 Wurm and Hattori consider Rakahanga-Manihiki as a distinct language with ""limited intelligibility with Rarotongan"" (i.e. the Cook Islands Maori dialectal variant of Rarotonga).
 According to the New Zealand Maori anthropologist Te Rangi Hīroa who spent few days on Rakahanga in the years 1920, ""the language is a pleasing dialect and has closer affinities with [New Zealand] Maori than with the dialects of Tongareva, Tahiti, and the Cook Islands""
Dame Tariana Turia {'1': ", '2': ", '3': ", '4': "} (born 8 April 1944) is a New Zealand politician.
 She gained considerable prominence during the foreshore and seabed controversy, and eventually broke with her party as a result.
 She resigned from parliament, and successfully contested a by-election in her former electorate as a candidate of the newly formed Māori Party.
 She retired from Parliament in 2014.
The Coastal Coalition is a political group in New Zealand that opposes the removal of coastal and marine land from Crown ownership.
 It was created to fight what it considers the risk of coastal land and marine areas coming under the control of local Maori under the proposed Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill of 2010, which is intended to replace the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.
 The group has run a large number of advertisements opposing the Bill.