18 NOVEMBER 2005

NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 194

tribunal’s recommendations, and referred them back to us for our reconsideration in light of
his judgment.

Re-hearing

In that light, I determined that the tribunal needed to hear further evidence.
I issued a direction
(1) seeking from the applicant rūnaka a presentation of evidence identifying for the
tribunal the special significance of the whole area comprised in the proposed taiāpure; and

(2) seeking from the parties expert evidence on the nature of the waters in Akaroa
Harbour

(3) in scientific terms, addressing the question of whether they should properly be
regarded as littoral.

The re-hearing took place at Christchurch on 21 and 22 February 2005.

In the event, it was not necessary to hear from the rūnaka further on the cultural and spiritual
significance of the sites in and around the harbour. The evidence that had been presented by
witnesses for the rūnaka at the hearing was transcribed, and its usefulness was enhanced by
the rūnakas’ filing a map plotting all sites to which particular significance attaches. The
transcribed evidence was helpfully cross-referenced to the sites shown on the map, and a
commentary provided by the person who had co-ordinated the rūnakas’ case, Nigel Scott,
helped put the evidence in context. None of the interested parties sought to ask questions, and
as a tribunal we decided that the evidence as transcribed, mapped and commented upon, was
sufficiently comprehensive for our purpose.

So the hearing focused on the further scientific evidence adduced by the applicant rūnaka, the
Department of Conservation, and Sea-Right. The tribunal heard from four scientists with
expertise in the fields of marine biology and coastal processes, and we asked them questions
in order properly to understand the technical information contained in their evidence, and to
apply it to the present context.

In the course of the hearing of the expert evidence, it became clear that the tribunal’s earlier
assumption that Akaroa Harbour was not estuarine in nature might be incorrect. Neither
evidence nor argument had previously been addressed to the estuarine nature of the Harbour:
it was universally accepted that because no rivers of consequence ran into the Harbour, it was
not estuarine in character. But at the re-hearing, it appeared from the evidence of Dr John
Zeldis, a marine biologist with NIWA and witness for the applicant rūnaka, that Akaroa
Harbour should perhaps be characterised as “estuarine waters” as well as “littoral coastal
waters”, for the purposes of the Act. At the tribunal’s request, the applicant commissioned
Dr Zeldis to undertake the further work required to illuminate the question of whether, and to
what extent, Akaroa Harbour is estuarine in nature. Dr Zeldis needed some time to undertake
the work and file his report, and counsel needed time to ask questions of Dr Zeldis if
necessary, and to include his material in their closings and reply. All of these stages were
finally complete in early May 2005.

Application amended

Another important development at the hearing was a resolution of the differences between the
applicant rūnaka and Sea-Right.

We delayed commencement of the hearing at the request of counsel, to enable the rūnaka and
Sea-Right to discuss the matters at issue between them. Over the course of a day’s talks, these
parties were able to agree upon a way forward. They presented to the tribunal a memorandum