The crown case at the Rena hearing in Mount Maunganui is following the Waitangi Tribunal's recommendation that it participates actively in the resource consent process, paying particular regard to how it can protect Maori interests.

Ken Stephen for the crown also told the Rena consent hearing panel that they want the consent period to become 20 years, instead of 10.

Despite not seeking further removal of the wreck's stern infrastructure because of the practicalities involved and health and safety risks, the crown does want the removal of the remaining bow sections at the top of the reef.

They claim further removal of the bow sections could help address safety, natural character and ecological issues.

With Treaty obligations to all groups that are before the panel, the crown retains its position in partial opposition on the basis of its expert evidence. However, they acknowledge that with the changing cultural dynamics, the matter is not straight-forward.

Irrespective of what decision is reached on the bow sections, the crown seeks consent conditions that are robust and enforceable in order to deal with contamination and ecological impacts in particular.

This directly raises the question of scope, while another issue is the situation is not recognised by New Zealand law.

'It's unlikely anyone would get consent – retrospective consent – to dump the Rena in the state she was when she hit the reef,” Ken told panel chair Judge Gordon Whiting.

'So what we are grappling with is trying to fit into the scheme of the RMA, circumstances which in my submission, aren't particularly well suited.

'The crown's purpose in teasing out these issues isn't to insist that a particular statutory pathway is necessarily absolutely on all fours, in the circumstances. But to endeavour to ensure that a workable consenting regime including the debris field is arrived at.

'The crown's position is it won't die in a ditch over niceties associated with particular pathways through the Act, provided they're not used to create slightly artificial circumstances where you can dump a ship, but not be responsible for the things that were in the ship.”

The application is to dump the wreck and remains including its equipment and cargo.

The crown says within that there are several types of contaminant requiring consent.

They include cargo within the spatial confines of the wreckage but not confined to a container or part of the original ship, and which will continue to discharge contaminants into the debris field over time, including cryolite and tri butyl tin antifouling paint.

They also include contaminants within the spatial confines of the application site and which will discharge into the outer reef zone over time through future storm and other weather events.

'The contaminants clearly exist,” says Ken, 'and are fundamentally different and have altered the quality of the pre-grounding environment.

'Their effects have not simply occurred and ceased — they will continue into the future with foreseeably poor outcomes for marine life.”