You Want to Know About the Dead Hand of the RMA?

Have heard the Greens and Goof (sorry Goff) wittering on about the proposed RMA changes. I have been involved in 2 big RMA cases and am very cynical about the whole process. It is a process designed to make lawyers rich and to keep inadequate local body planners in work.

Case 1 was a very large infrastructure project in a part of the country screaming out for both the investment and for the work it would bring. There were the usual nut cases (unshaven women in tie dresses), some neighbours with legitimate concerns and the company that would lose out by no longer having a monopoly. The company funded all the objectors to the District Council hearing. We won. They promptly appealed to the Environment Court.

Most people do not realise that cases appealed to the Environment Court are heard 'de novo'. In other words, the whole case has to be presented again as if the District Council hearing had never happened. Witnesses had to be brought from all around the world to re-present their evidence. In most other sorts of legal process, appeals are usually only allowed on points of law, not on the facts. This means that appeals (the actual hearing) are considerably quicker.

The opponent company again funded all the objectors. Their lawyers were told to delay as long as possible as every week's delay was worth over a $1 million in revenue to the opponent company. How do I know, the lawyer boasted to anyone who would listen in the bar at the local hotel and within my earshot. With that sort of encouragement, a hearing set down for 6 weeks took 6 months. And the decision? Exactly the same as the District Council hearing but $2 million later in costs and about $12 million in charges paid to our opponent over and above our proposed solution. But, by then everyone was so exhausted that despite having the consent, the project was canned.