Whangamata decision

So the Minister of Conservation has decided not to allow the Whangamata marina development, and the right are outraged. But contrary to their squealing, this is not a case of the Minister "overturning" a court decision. Under the RMA, the process was always a two stage one, requiring approval from both the local council and the Minister. And the reason for this is simple: there are different interests involved. The local council represents the environmental views of the local community, as expressed through its planning documents and guidelines. But there are also national-level environmental interests in the coastal marine area, and these are represented by the Minister. Given these different interests, disagreement between the two consenting authorities is possible even if there is total agreement on the facts.

In this case, there also appears to be disagreement about the facts as well. Except that when you unpack it, those "facts" are really values: the value of a salt marsh, the value of local iwi being able to collect kaimoana, and the value of continued recreational use by all rather than the effective privatisation of yet more of the coastline for the benefit of a few. The local council and Environment Court took one view of these values, and the Minister another. Unfortunately for the developers, they both had to (broadly) agree. This sort of disagreement is the essence of politics, and its one of the reasons we have a two-stage process in certain situations in the first place.

The developers have already announced their opinion to seek a judicial review. From my limited knowledge of Administrative Law, such a review is limited to an examination of whether the Minister followed the correct procedure in making their decision, rather than the merits of the case, and the grounds on which it can be overturned are very narrow, boiling down to procedural impropriety, illegality, or irrationality. The Minister has made a valid argument and the conclusion isn't grossly unreasonable (no matter how loud those who disagree squeal, it is not on the level of firing someone for having red hair), the power exercised is very definitely within the law, and no extraneous grounds have been cited (Carter has specifically limited himself to talking about the environmental value of salt marshes and mussel beds, and explicitly ruled out taking account of other recreational interests), so I don't think it can obviously be overturned (and contrary to their claims, having spent more than a million dollars doesn't mean they're automatically entitled to have their way). But they're entitled to test the Minister's process in court, and we'll find out in due course whether its considered up to scratch.