User:Robin Patterson/WIP

Gems from the CA 82/03: Subsections (1A)-(1C) were inserted in 1998 pursuant to s 27 of the optimistically styled Taxation (Simplification and Other Remedial Matters) Act.

At all material times, he was an undischarged bankrupt. Despite this disadvantage, he was able to participate in an active way in the promotion of the joint venture. … It is fair to infer that the appellant recognised that the cheque had been paid by mistake and that, the Commissioner would in due course appreciate his mistake and seek to recover the money. Mr Gilchrist was paid a "success fee" in relation to the payment of the refund and steps were put in place to have the balance of the money transferred to the Channel Islands. …

The ambiguity in the judgment makes it understandable that the appellant (who may well have assumed that he had won the case) did not appeal in a timely way.

225/03: In this area of the law, the language customarily used by lawyers is rather slippery.

226/03: … [4] This case has a decidedly Dickensian appearance, in that it has become a procedural morass. Unfortunately, it is not possible to appreciate the issues now before this Court without a sketch of the quagmire. … [13] In forensic terms, the appellants considered that they had something of a “king-hit” in this point, which would see them entirely free from the unwelcome attentions of the Commissioner in this case. … [16] However, the appellants were not about to give up lightly. … … [20] The appellants were now distinctly warming to the litigation. … … [26] The energies of the parties were not yet exhausted. The appellants subsequently applied to this Court for conditional leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against this Court's decisions in respect of both Case U35 and Case U41. … [29] After the Judicial Committee declined leave, the appellants wrote to the TRA seeking to have it sign the case on appeal which had originally been struck out in Case U41. … [30] The TRA declined to allow the appeal to proceed. That decision is now reported as Case W7 … [31] The appellants thereupon commenced this proceeding in the High Court, seeking judicial review of the decision of the TRA in Case W7 … … [42] Matters were further delayed whilst the material for the appeal was transmitted to the Commissioner's present counsel, the Crown Law Office, on 16 January 2004. Effectively, the whole conduct of what had become an extraordinary saga, was passing from Auckland counsel to Wellington counsel. … [44] In the simplest terms therefore, at the end of this forensic odyssey the position had been reached whereby the extension of time which had been granted to the Commissioner in Case U35 had been upheld. The "king-hit" sought to be landed on the Commissioner was no longer available to the appellants. … [45] We were told that, to cap all this off, the substantive case is presently being heard, on an ongoing basis. … [66] … it was entirely rational for Parliament to have taken the view that endless interlocutory skirmishing of the kind which has occurred in this case should be discouraged in taxation cases. …

239/03: The tail would be wagging the dog. We do not see any indication in either the Act or the Broadcasting Act that that was Parliament’s intention.

CA252/04 effortlessly concatenating 15 phrases: The applicant seeks special leave to appeal under s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 from a decision of the High Court by Fogarty J at Christchurch on 12 May 2004 dismissing an appeal against the applicant’s conviction in the District Court for behaving in a disorderly manner in Montreal Street Christchurch on 28 May 2003.

94/04: But the jury would have been entitled to think it highly unlikely that B would detour into the complainant’s room to take indecent liberties with a sleeping woman before retiring to his own room where his recent paramour awaited.

Gems from the SC

SC CIV 13/2004, 25/11/04: “It is difficult to discern any pattern in an unnecessarily complex Act which has grown over the past 40 years from 23 pages to over 200 pages without ever being systematically consolidated.”

SC 11/2004, 25/8/05: “The position in Australia cannot be stated as briefly nor as precisely because of the variations in approach among members of the High Court of Australia.”

A64/06 PICK v FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL - Russell •	Section 11.5 concerns “Heritage” generally throughout the district. Interestingly, it commences with a Maori epigram for which a translation is also provided: Taonga Tuku Iho He wahi hirahira, he hangaanga, me nga rakau o te ngahere kei tenei rohe. He nui te mana o nga taonga nei; ahakoa he mana tikanga, mana wairua, mana korero tuturu, mana mahi huakanga ranei. Whakanuia tiakina hoki te whanuitanga me te mana motuhake o nga taonga tuku iho, hei painga mo nga tamariki, moripuna, o nga ra kei te haere mai. Heritage There are special sites, places, structures and trees which are treasured by us as a heritage passed into our care. Let us be good caretakers of our diverse and unique heritage that we in turn may pass it on to the care of future generations.

DECISION STRIKING OUT PURPORTED APPEAL [1]	On 17 February 2006 Ms Lomax lodged an appeal purporting to follow Form 34 in Resource Management (Forms, Fees and Procedures) Regulations 2003. The document described certain alleged difficulties in obtaining a resource consent for a house, but closer examination showed that resource consent had in fact been granted on 17 February 2005, and that the matter actually complained of related to a request for information by the council in connection with a building permit. [2]	The Registrar invited Ms Lomax to explain how jurisdiction arose for this Court, by letters dated 20 February, 16 March and 30 May 2006. No response has been received. [3]	The Environment Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain complaints about procedures under the Building Act 2004, and the purported appellant has not advised the Court that her appeal seeks any relief under the Resource Management Act 1991. [4]	The purported appeal is therefore struck out as being outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

Genesis… 29/8/06, HC Wn [7]	The planning and construction of the [Tongariro Power Development Scheme (“TPD”)] spanned the years 1960-1983. The Government approved the scheme in principle in 1964. The western diversion of the TPD began operating in 1971, the eastern diversion in 1980.

[9]	The TPD is in the central North Island. It takes water from the headwaters of the Whanganui River and diverts it via a series of tunnels and canals into Lake Taupo, and thence down the Waikato River. It takes the water by means of a series of intakes set in the headwaters of tributaries of the Whanganui. Some of these are on what is called the western diversion and some on the eastern diversion. Those diversions lie, respectively, to the west and to the east of the central North Island massif comprising Mts Ruapehu, Ngaurahoe and Tongariro. [10]	En route to Lake Taupo, water from the eastern diversion generates power at the underground Rangipo Power Station, and again at the Tokaanu Power Station, this time along with water from the western diversion. Later, as it flows from Lake Taupo down the Waikato River, the water from the TPD, along with water from rivers in the Taupo catchment, generates power in the nine power stations on eight successive hydro dams on the Waikato River. [11]	Some important statistics about the TPD are: a)	The Rangipo and Tokaanu Power Stations have generating capacities of 120 MW and 240 MW respectively. This is approximately 3.5% of New Zealand’s annual average energy demand. b)	The contribution rises to 5% when power generation on the Waikato River is taken into account. The water diverted by the TPD into Lake Taupo enables the nine hydro power stations on the Waikato River, owned and operated by Mighty River Power Limited, to generate an extra 630 GWh’s. The total 1850 GWh/year generated by the hydro dams on the Waikato River is about 8% of national renewable energy. c)	Current environmental constraints on the TPD limit generation to approximately 82% of its maximum potential generation capacity. This results from a combination of the minimum flow regime and the fact that not all water available to the TPD can be diverted all the time. d)	The amounts of water diverted by the TPD are controlled by a minimum flow regime e.g. the minimum flow down the Whakapapa River below the Whakapapa intake is 3 cumecs. (Details of the regime are set out in [49] of the Environment Court’s decision. I do not believe that the decision anywhere discloses what percentage of the total mean average flow of the Whanganui River is diverted by the TPD.) [12]	While those statistics demonstrate the national importance of the TPD in terms of its contribution to New Zealand’s renewable energy generation, they demonstrate also the significance of the TPD to affected Maori, in terms of the taking away of water which would otherwise flow down the Whanganui River. [13]	In about 1991 Genesis (or rather its predecessor the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand) began consulting with Whanganui Maori, and embarked on the effects assessment process for obtaining resource consents under the RMA. [

2006 0911dury – HC PN Elmira Avenue and Manapouri Crescent [4]	Elmira Avenue and Manapouri Crescent are adjoining streets in Palmerston North. They were developed in 1929 after the developer went to the United States to inspect new subdivisions based on ideal housing criteria developed by the English Arts and Crafts movement. These criteria include curved and tree-lined roads with grass verges either side of the footpaths, low fences, homes set back to reduce road parking, and garages at the rear of the houses. [5]	The Council recognises Elmira Avenue and Manapouri Crescent as a special character area. A 1998 report records that the defining characteristics of the street include strong definition of both the central carriageway and side footpaths by mature street trees, continuity of the tree canopy, and consistency of tree type. The streets have a rare degree of aesthetic quality, and the area has heritage significance as a garden suburb. [6]	The Council has adopted design guidelines for the two streets, and it resolved in 2003 that they exhibit special characteristics that warrant formal recognition. The Council envisaged that the Chief Executive would within two years develop a definite plan to preserve the special character of the two streets. But there are no special rules in the District Plan applying to these two streets. Infill subdivision and house design are subject to the same rules as the rest of the residential zone. Although Elmira Avenue is largely intact, there has been some infill housing, and some home-owners have erected fences of 1.5 or 1.8m in height.

From A47/06 GEOTHERM GROUP LIMITED & Ors v WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL

Introduction [1]	These appeals concern important policy issues relating to the extraction of geothermal energy to be applied by the Waikato Regional Council through its Regional Policy Statement and Proposed Regional Plan. Two main issues were before the Court during these hearings. They were — whether regional policy should: (i)	Require reinjection of the extracted geothermal water[fn1 “Geothermal water” is defined in the Resource Management Act as including “. . .all steam, water, and water vapour. . .”. The expert witnesses variously referred to “geothermal water” and “geothermal fluid”.] back into the same geothermal system; and (ii)	Provide for a single operator (or single tapper) for each geothermal system. A subsidiary issue was: (i)	Whether discharges of geothermal water to ground or surface water be prescribed in the Geothermal Module or the Water Module of the proposed plan. [2]	The issues arise as part of Change No. 1 to the Waikato Regional Policy Statement and Variation No. 2 to the Proposed Waikato Regional Plan, both of which deal with the geothermal resources in the Waikato Region. [3]	While these issues were the focus of attention during a lengthy hearing, they could not be isolated from the other provisions of the Change and Variation. Accordingly the evidence addressed other provisions of the Change and Variation, although not as comprehensively as the specific policies on reinjection and single tapper. Also, because of the linkages and overlaps between the various provisions, we in the course of this decision, will of necessity comment at times on other provisions. This is also necessary for contextual reasons. [4]	The hearing took place at Taupo and Auckland on 42 sitting days. We heard detailed opening and closing submissions from counsel for all the parties. We are grateful to counsel for their industry and the manner in which they presented their cases. [5]	We heard from 46 witnesses, many of them experts with world-wide recognition in their respective fields. We attach as Appendix 1 a list of the witnesses. Most of the witnesses were cross-examined extensively, resulting in 2582 pages of transcript. It is not possible, in the interests of brevity and efficiency, to discuss in detail all of the evidence or even refer to all of the witnesses. However, we have regard to the totality of the evidence. [6]	Further, much of the detail, particularly in relation to specific geothermal systems and the effects of abstraction, while helpful as background, is not specifically required to be determined for the purposes of the broad policy issues which are the focus of these proceedings. Accordingly, if specific parts of the evidence are not averred to in this decision we mean no disrespect to the parties or their witnesses. We reiterate we have taken into account all of the evidence. [7]	In this regard we note the observations of Cooper J in Rodney District Council v K F Gould and F Y P Gillain[fn2 High Court decision CIV 20003-485-2182, 11 October 2004.] where he said: . . .it is axiomatic that no Court is obliged to make a finding of fact (unless the issue concerns a jurisdictional fact) and a failure to do so will not generally give rise to an error of law: Auckland City Council v Wotherspoon (1990) 1 NZLR 76, at 88-89. Secondly, and partly as a consequence, it is not possible to conclude that the Court did not consider evidence it has not referred to in its decision. It might have considered the evidence but has not thought it worthy of mention; there is no general duty of a Court to recite all the evidence it has heard, and give reasons for accepting or rejecting each statement made to it by a witness.[fn3 Paragraph 113.] [8]	The large takes of geothermal water in the Waikato Region are for the purpose of converting the energy extracted into electricity. In a number of instances a proportion of the extracted fluid is passed on to other users, for example, the prawn farm at Wairakei, known as “Cascade Users”. Other comparatively smaller takes are used for industrial purposes such as heating of glasshouses, timber drying and heating of public swimming pools. Houses and other buildings use geothermal water for domestic heating and bathing. [9]	Dominating these proceedings was the extraction of large takes of geothermal energy for electricity generation and the consequential effects of that taking on the environment. In order to set the scene within which these proceedings took place, it is necessary to explain briefly the general nature of geothermal systems in their natural and developed state and the means by which the extracted energy is converted into power. Geothermal systems [10]	A number of expert witnesses described to us the general nature of geothermal systems in their natural and developed state. Their descriptions varied in the degree of detail. We endeavour to encapsulate in simplistic form the material characteristics. [11]	Underlying all of the evidence presented to the Court by the geothermal experts, was the fact that each geothermal system is unique. Unique in such aspects as the hydrology, underlying and overlying geology and chemical composition. Accordingly while there are characteristics that are generally common to all systems, each system has particular characteristics which determine its natural state and the effects of development on that system. [12]	The word geotherm comes from the Greek words geo (earth) and therme (heat), and means the heat of the earth. The earth is made up of several layers: a hard crust, a semi molten mantel, a liquid outer core, and a solid inner core. The outer core, and to a lesser extent the mantel, are molten because of the great heat that is stored within the earth. The core is solid because of the pressure it is under from the weight of the overlying layers[fn4 Luketina, EiC, paragraph 8.]. [13]	The centre of the earth has a temperature of approximately 6000o C, the same temperature as for the surface of the sun. Geothermal energy is ultimately derived from the heat contained in the core of the earth and from radioactive decay within its mantel. At high temperatures and pressures within the mantel, melting of mantel rocks forms magma which rises towards the surface carrying the heat from below. [14]	In some regions where the earth’s crust is thin or fractured, or where magma bodies are close to the surface, there are high temperature gradients. Deep faults, rock fractures and pores allow groundwater to percolate towards the heat source and become heated to high temperatures. Some of this hot geothermal water travels back to the surface through buoyancy effects to appear as hot springs, mud pools, geysers, or fumaroles. If the ascending hot water meets an extensively fractured or permeable rock zone, the heat of the water will fill pores and fractures and form a geothermal reservoir. These reservoirs are much hotter than surface hot springs, reaching temperatures of more than 350o C, and are potentially an accessible source of energy. [15]	These high temperatures can be achieved in liquid-dominated reservoirs because increasing hydrostatic pressure with depth allows elevated temperatures without boiling. Many undisturbed geothermal reservoirs in New Zealand have temperature and pressure profiles such that the fluid is close to boiling point to depths of more than one kilometre. [16]	Geothermal areas are commonly close to the edge of the continental plates, and the North Island of New Zealand lies on one such boundary, where the Pacific Plate is being pushed under the Indo-Australian Plate. Because of this boundary action, the crustal rocks of the Pacific Plate are pushed down to depths of hundreds of kilometres, where they melt. [17]	The characteristics of geothermal systems vary widely, but three components are essential: •	A subsurface heat source that may be igneous magma bodies or heat stored in other rocks; •	Fluid to transport the heat; •	Faults, fractures or permeability within subsurface rocks that allow the heated fluid to flow from the heat source to the surface or near surface. [18]	Geothermal systems are usually classified as either single-phase or two-phase systems[fn5 Clotworthy, EiC, pages 2-4.]. In a single-phase system water is below the boiling temperature for its pressure. [19]	In a two-phase system water exists in two phases — liquid and vapour (steam). Over a range of temperatures and pressures liquid and steam can co-exist. Thermo dynamics gives a relationship between pressure and temperature in this state — for example for a given pressure there is an equivalent saturation temperature. Two-phase fluid consists of a mixture of boiling liquid water and steam. Fields containing two-phase fluid can be termed either liquid-dominated or vapour-dominated. [20]	In a liquid-dominated system liquid water occupies most of the pore or fracture space in the rock and is able to flow freely through the fractures. As a consequence the pressure gradient is close to that for liquid water (ie hydrostatic). [21]	In a vapour-dominated system, liquid water is confined to the pore space and is immobile. Steam is able to flow freely through the fractures. As a consequence the pressure profile is governed by the steam phase (ie steam-static). Wells tapping vapour-dominated two-phase regions of a geothermal reservoir produce dry steam, although liquid water is still present in the pore space. [22]	The Waikato Region contains 15 high temperature geothermal systems which represents 80% of New Zealand’s geothermal resource. These geothermal systems contain hot liquid water at depth and in some cases a mixture of boiling water and steam at shallow levels. The pressure profile through the geothermal system is close to hydrostatic (that is, increasing pressure with depth). They are thus liquid-dominated two-phase reservoirs or sometimes known as “wet” fields. [23]	This is in contrast with some overseas geothermal systems which contain mostly “dry” steam, with liquid water held within pores and the rock. These systems have a vapour-static pressure profile and are thus vapour-dominated two-phase reservoirs or “dry” fields. It was clear from the evidence that these “dry” fields behave quite differently when subject to extraction (production) of geothermal water and reinjection of liquid water at low temperature[fn6 Clotworthy, EiC, paragraph 20.]. [24]	A geothermal system may have several heat up-flows supporting separate geothermal fields that are linked to each other by sub-surface lateral flow. For example the Wairakei/Tauhara geothermal system is believed to have two up-flows in the Tauhara field, and one in the Wairakei field. [25]	Geothermal water extraction and injection will inherently create pressure and temperature change within the geothermal system and therefore there is a good probability that the character of surface discharges will be affected to some degree. Experience has shown that some surface discharges may be stimulated while others will decline under development. Each geothermal system is unique and will respond differently to development[fn7 Bixley, EiC, paragraph 33.]. [26]	Long-term extraction of geothermal water and heat from geothermal fields impacts on the state of the geothermal resource and the surface features overlying the resource. It is not possible to maintain the fields in their natural state while disturbing the hydrology of the system by large-scale extraction for electricity generation. There will usually be consequential effects on the nature of the surface features[fn8 Clotworthy, EiC, paragraph 32 and following.]. [27]	Extraction of substantial volumes of geothermal water from a liquid-dominated field causes a decline in deep liquid pressure. The extent of the pressure decline in response to development depends on the magnitude of the extraction, the extent of in-system reinjection and the rate of flow of recharge water stimulated by the pressure decline. [28]	Normally the pressure decline in the productive part of the reservoir causes boiling in the upper layer of the geothermal reservoir and a distinct shallow dry steam zone may form as liquid water drains from this layer. These steam zones are a transient feature and they decline in pressure over time even if they are not tapped for production. [29]	Temperatures generally decline in geothermal reservoirs as the original hot water is replaced by water flowing into the reservoir, which can be a mixture of reinjected lower temperature water, cooled groundwater (typically flowing laterally from outside the system or downwards from shallower aquifers above the production reservoir), and hot geothermal water (which will be coming from greater depth or laterally). [30]	Hot geothermal water recharge entering the system has the effect of maintaining the heat stored in the rock and replenishing the resource. It follows that the greater the proportion of hot recharge to groundwater recharge and/or injectate, the longer the productive life of the resource will be. However, because hot geothermal water recharge never makes up 100% of the recharge, rock temperature and energy stored in the resource will always decline with time. As Mr Clotworthy said: Any large scale utilisation of a geothermal resource therefore takes heat from the geothermal resource at a greater rate than it is being supplied ie the heat is being “mined”.[fn9 Clotworthy, EiC, paragraph 46.] [31]	The take, use and discharge of geothermal water can adversely affect not only the geothermal resource itself, but other natural and physical resources[fn10 Luketina, EiC, paragraph 74 and following.]. Of particular relevance to these proceedings are the following effects: (i)	property damage through subsidence — the removal of large volumes of fluid from a geothermal reservoir can lead to compaction of strata once they are dewatered. This has occurred at Ohaaki and Wairakei/Tauhara where the dewatering of soft Huka Falls Formations of mudstones has caused land subsidence. This can lead to damage to buildings and structures. (ii)	increase in steaming ground and hydrothermal eruptions — extraction of large volumes of geothermal water from a reservoir can cause a decrease in reservoir pressure and result in an increase in steam production. This can lead to an increase in the area of steaming ground, as is occurring at some locations near Taupo. It can also increase the likelihood of hydrothermal eruptions. Increases in steaming ground and the occurrence of hydrothermal eruptions can cause damage to property and infrastructure and injury or loss of life.[fn11 Luketina, EiC, paragraphs 75 and 76.] Geothermal power [32]	As large takes of geothermal water are for electricity production it is necessary to have some understanding of geothermal power plants. From the evidence we set out, again in a simplistic form, their general characteristics[fn12 A simple explanation was set out in the evidence-in-chief of Mr Clotworthy — Clotworthy, EiC, paragraphs 21-36.]. [33]	Geothermal power stations utilise both steam and hot water to generate electricity and there are various machines that are able to operate on these two fluid streams. [34]	The geothermal water comes up the wells from the reservoir and in the well bore at the ground surface is either steam alone or a mixture of geothermal steam and water. At the surface, wells producing a mixture of steam and water lead into a separator where the steam and water components are separated. The steam and separated geothermal water are piped separately for use in the power generation process. Steam [35]	The steam is piped directly into a steam power plant to provide the force to spin the turbine generator. The steam turbine exhausts into the condenser and evaporative cooling permits a lower pressure/temperature to be achieved which results in a more efficient power plant and greater output[fn13 Bottomley, EiC, paragraph 7.]. As part of the process steam is condensed to water. This water is called steam condensate or condensate. [36]	If the condensation system used in the power station uses a wet cooling tower some of the cooling water is evaporated to the air as part of the cooling process. It is the cooling tower design and the atmospheric conditions of a given plant site that determines the amount of evaporation that occurs. At a geothermal power station where river cooling or dry cooling systems are used, there is no evaporation to the atmosphere. Discharge of the balance of the steam condensate has to be undertaken via discharge to surface water, or reinjection/injection or irrigation. Separated geothermal water [37]	Because separated geothermal water is still hot after separation of the steam fraction (between approximately 130o C and 180o C at the developed Waikato fields), additional energy can be extracted from it. This occurs in a binary plant where heat is extracted from the separated geothermal water and transferred by a heat exchanger to a secondary working fluid (hydrocarbon or ammonia) which drives power-generating equipment. The separated geothermal water typically exits a binary power plant at a temperature of 80o C to 90o C. [38]	After use, the separated geothermal water is discharged. This may be by way of reinjection back into the geothermal system, injection outside the system, discharge to surface water or discharge to land, or a combination of some or all of these. [39]	There are five geothermal power stations in the Waikato Region, generating approximately 340MW of electricity. Contact Energy Limited, a publicly listed company, has two power stations at Wairakei/Tauhara, and one at Ohaaki. It also has consents to build a further station at Wairakei/Tauhara. Mighty River Power Limited, a state owned entity, has a joint venture with the Tauhara North No. 2 Trust at Rotokawa, and a 25% shareholding in the Tuaropaki Power Station at Mokai. Geotherm Group Limited has consents to build a station at Wairakei. There are also geothermal power stations at Kawerau in the Bay of Plenty, and Ngawha in Northland. Together they generate approximately 7% of the nation’s total electricity. [40]	The Resource Management Act defines geothermal energy as a renewable energy source. However, as we have said[fn14 Paragraph 30.], because the hot water recharge never makes up 100% of the recharge, rock temperature and energy stored in the resource will always decline with time. Geothermal power stations are very reliable and can generate electricity almost continuously, with a few days off each year for maintenance. Unlike hydro, wind, or solar energy, geothermal generation is not weather dependent. In the context of Resource Management type planning processes (ie 10 years horizon for plans, 35 year precincts for resource consents) geothermal power is renewable (if properly managed). Likewise in comparison with engineering horizons (50 years) geothermal energy can be managed to be renewable.

A126/06, LIVING EARTH LIMITED v AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL, 4/10/06 Effects on Maori dimension [256]	All persons exercising functions and powers under the Resource Management Act in relation to managing the use of natural resources are obliged to recognise and provide for the nationally important relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga; [fn106 RMA, s 6(e).] and for the protection of historic heritage[fn107 A term defined by s 2(1) to include sites of significance to Maori, including waahi tapu.] from inappropriate use; they are to have particular regard to kaitiakitanga; [fn108 Ibid, s 7(a).] and they are to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. [fn109 Ibid, s 8.] The evidence [257]	Four witnesses gave evidence on Maori cultural matters at this hearing: Mr MTW Love a Maori resource management consultant; Mr S B Roberts a member of the Makaurau Marae Maori Committee, and chair of the Makaurau Marae Environment Committee; Ms Kowhai Olsen, a member of the Makaurau Marae (who did not profess to be an expert on cultural matters); and Mr Murdoch. [258]	The witnesses were all agreed that: (a)	Puketutu Island (also called Te Motu a Hiaroa) was occupied by Maori in traditional times, and was an “island of tohunga”; (b)	The associated iwi were Ngati Ahi Waru, Ngati Te Aki Tai, Nga Oho, Ngati Pou (Te Uri o Opoutukeka), Waiohua, Ngati Whatua, Waikato; (c)	Makaurau and Pukaki are the affected Marae; (d)	The Opoutukeka embayment was a tauranga waka (an historic canoe-landing site) for Tainui waka; (e)	Food (especially kumara) was grown on the island in pre-European times; (f)	The Island is very much a significant cultural Maori landscape; (g)	The Island has been subject to severe and adverse modification; (h)	In pre-European times there had been several tuahu[fn110 Places for sacred rituals.] on the Island peaks (and Mr Murdoch added that there were other smaller ones near Ariki houses and gardens for offerings); [fn111 Transcript, p913.] (i)	There are also Pakeha cultural values associated with the Island now. [259]	Mr Love acknowledged that the whole island has the character of being a waahi tapu, but gave the opinion that the effects of the proposed composting on the land and in-situ waahi tapu would be either non-existent or minor. He considered that the presence of the composting facility was more in keeping with the rural character of the landscape and a connection to early Maori agriculture. He concluded that activities such as mahinga mataitai could co-exist with this proposed facility with no adverse effects on their cultural and physical environment. [260]	Mr Love referenced most of his evidence from written sources, though he identified Nganeko Minhinnick, Warena Taua, Carmen Kirkwood, Bob Mahuta and the Reverend Maori Marsden as other kaumatua sources of information. [fn112 Ibid, p287.] [261]	Mr Roberts claimed a mandate to present evidence on behalf of the Makaurau Marae Committee, Ngati Te Ahi Waru and Ngati Te Akitai to object to the proposed Living Earth development on Puketutu Island. He did not claim to be a kaumatua himself. [262]	The first portion of his evidence described a report dated July 2004 that he and Mr Te Warena Taua had prepared on behalf of Te Kawerau a Maki, titled A Cultural Heritage Report for Living Earth. The report concluded “There are no waahi tapu on the site that will be affected by LEL’s development.” [263]	However in giving his evidence Mr Roberts did not support that conclusion of the report, citing the following matters in explanation: (a)	Te Kawerau a Maki does not have mana whenua over Puketutu Island: (b)	He had not been aware at the time of the waahi tapu status of the Island under the Manukau City District Plan: (c)	He had not been aware that 30% of the area to be used by Living Earth had not been quarried or subjected to landfill: (d)	From later discussions with kaumatua he considered that the green-waste composting, being a noa (common, profane) activity, would render the site without tapu and have significant adverse effects on the tapu nature of Te Motu a Hiaroa. [264]	In response to questions from the Bench, Mr Roberts stated that he had mentioned to the team that there was a waahi tapu issue here and that as a mokai (junior) in Te Kawarau a Maki, he had succumbed to the recommendation[fn113 Ibid, p886.]. He agreed that it was less than honest to have two people say “this is not waahi tapu” but one of them tells the Court that it is. [fn114 Idem.] [265]	Mr Roberts described in his evidence the history of occupation of Puketutu Island by Maori, describing it as the island of tohunga, as having a number of tuahu, burial places of important ancestors, and sacred trees for cultural rites. He also described the relationship with Puketutu Island of the people of Ihumatao Makaurau Marae and the area surrounding the island. [266]	Mr Roberts sought to refute the evidence of Mr Love with particular reference to: •	Mr Love’s ability to evaluate the cultural effects of the proposal, due to his not having access to information from kaumatua and kuia of Mr Roberts’s iwi; •	The effects of the sawmilling and quarrying in diminishing the tapu of the site, which Mr Roberts claimed affects the mana of the site, but not its tapu: •	Recycling being a traditional form of gardening, Mr Roberts asserting that Maori would not have recycled green-waste, as it would be considered noa. [267]	The main reasons for Mr Roberts’s opinion were: (a)	The whole Island is a waahi tapu; (b)	Opoutukeka is a significant waahi tapu; (c)	Waste is considered noa, and should not be mixed with areas of tapu; (d)	The composting would continue to impinge on iwi relationships; (e)	The composting would further alienate the ability of Maori to access the sacred places on the island; (f)	There would be no significant benefit to the community of Ihumatao; (g)	Discharge from the composting would have adverse effects on the tapu of the harbour, and affect the ability of the rohe mataitai to operate in an environmentally sustainable way. [268]	Of all the witnesses on effects on Maori cultural relationships with Pukektutu Island, Mr Murdoch (though a Pakeha) showed the most in-depth knowledge of the topic. He has had a long association with the Puketutu Island and the various iwi in the surrounding area, and has heard many kaumatua including such noted tohunga as Henare Tuwhangai and Pumi Taituha[fn115 Transcript, p912.]. He is proficient in the Maori language, familiar with tikanga, traditional customs and practices, and versed in much of the historic details relevant to Puketutu. [269]	It was he who gave clarity to the word tapu as meaning “setting aside” or “specialness”, as opposed to “restriction”. [fn116 Idem.] [270]	He also explained to the Court the significance of the tuahu as “special worshipping places on the tops of the cones”, and other tuahu that were set up beside the Ariki’s house to make offerings before going fishing. [fn117 Ibid, p913.] [271]	Mr Murdoch cast doubt on Mr Love’s evidence, suggesting that it had been gleaned from limited written sources, which included Te Kawerau a Maki Cultural Report, and did not reflect a full picture of the knowledge held by tangata whenua. Mr Murdoch gave the opinion that Mr Love’s assessment of the impact of Living Earth’s proposal on cultural and heritage values suffered from his lack of detailed knowledge of the true status and importance of Te Motu o Hiaroa (Puketutu Island) to tangata whenua associated with Makaurau and Pukaki Marae in particular.

Brookers is a New Zealand-based company which is part of the Thomson Legal & Regulatory division of The Thomson Corporation. Its products use a number of brand names, including Brookers, BusinessWise, DSL, Employment Today and Safeguard. The company uses the standard Thomson starburst logo with "BROOKERS" at the bottom.

Origin
In 1910 a Wanganui lawyer, John Friend, started annotating his copies of the statute books with amendments to the law. Soon he was doing it for his colleagues and the business grew. The annotating of clients' lawbooks with printed amendment slips continues to be done twice a year.

Diversification
Soon after the passing of the Companies Act 1955, the company produced an immediately popular book of commentary on it. Other bound books of a similar nature followed.

In the early 1980s the company, by then known as Brooker & Friend Ltd, diversified into publishing looseleaf legal works dealing with law that was frequently updated, such as local government and company law. Quarterly or monthly update pages were sent to subscribers with instructions on which pages to remove and where to add the new ones. The service soon gained loyal clients with products such as "McVeagh's Local Government Law in New Zealand". Content included not only the bare words of the law but also commentary written by respected academics and practitioners such as lawyers and judges.

In the early 1990s the company pioneered the New Zealand use of electronic distribution of legal information, first on floppy disks, then CDs and online. That side of the business continues to increase in importance, as lawyers (some reluctantly) realise the value of electronic means of obtaining information.

Thomson merger
By 1994 the business had grown to include general printing, copy centres, a farm, a winery, and an art gallery. In that year the managing director, Stuart Brooker, decided that the planned move into the Australian market would be best achieved by accepting a merger offer for the legal publishing division by an Australian subsidiary of The Thomson Corporation.

Current activities
Acquisitions of local businesses such as Smart Tax, Employment Today, BriefCase, Safeguard, and DSL Publishing have further diversified the business, which has over 150 staff in Wellington and Auckland and field staff who train clients in the use of products with a view to finding information solutions.

A recent publicly-visible success was the partnership with the Parliamentary Counsel Office that produced the first free online version of the legislation of New Zealand.

In February 2006 a new integrated online service, designed and maintained in Wellington (though hosted on servers in Sydney), was launched. The company now offers legal and regulatory information services in online, CD, looseleaf and book format.