Greenmailing

At the moment there is considerable attention being devoted to infrastructure development, as the chickens of decades of neglect are coming home to roost.  

When developing infrastructure, RMA processes can be a hugely expensive and protracted nightmare if there is opposition to a consent, so it's cheaper to pay potential objectors to not object than to go through a protracted process.  

The practice is called Greenmail and it is seemingly frequent.

Reading the articles in Stuff and from David Farrar, on the re-consenting of the Waitaki Power Scheme, $180 million dollars is budgeted for payment to DOC, Ngai Tahu and Fish and Game: they will not be opposing the re-consent. 

The payments are cash and not tagged to any specific works or remediation, so the money could wind up...where?

While this is all entirely legal, it's imposing huge costs on a public good that we all ultimately have to pay for, and looks like yet another one of the cosy arrangements that New Zealand seems to function on that benefit small groups in positions of power.

The remedies suggested at the end of David Farrar's article make a great deal of sense:

• A law requiring any NGO, company or Iwi that receives money from a resource consent applicant to disclose annually how much they received.

• Ban payments from resource consent applicants to potential objectors. Allow them to directly fund remedial work that will satisfy the objector, but don’t allow a cash payment just for not objecting.

• Remove the special status some organisations have under the RMA which means they get more weight if they object and hence applicants need to get them on board. Have all decisions based purely on the merits of the environmental issues, not on who is objecting