Port tells opponents to produce evidence

Sadly Resource Management law tends to be ineffective at protecting the environment. But very effective at making lawyers rich.

Pity the critters do not later have the right to sue if/when harmed. It's their harbour too.

Geoff Plunkett's call for proof is a sham because he knows that The Environment Court will not allow the appellants to present a case on behalf of the environment.  Those who originally submitted opposition based on the environmental impact did not have the funds necessary to pay the appeal filing fees.  The court will only hear arguments that match the initial arguments.  Therefore, the appelants who were able to file may not pick up the issue of environment due to a legal loophole. This is a travesty! 

There is no one speaking for the only mainland albatross colony in the world.  There is no one speaking for the endangered yellow eyed penguins!  The seals, the fish, the sharks and whales are going unrepresented and The Environment Court will not allow the existing appellants to take on the argument for the ecology/environment because it was not in their first submission.  How can this happen?  The Environment Court must allow the appellants to speak on behalf of the animals who have no voice!

Actually I think the ORC has it wrong here. The burden of providing evidence is actually legally on the applicant - they have to demonstrate that their activity would cause no harm or else that any harm can be mitigated significantly.

The problem with applications like this is that 'hired liars' are all too readily available and that organisations and businesses with a lot of money can afford to get extremely flashy and expensive ones.

I don't think people opposing dredging need to say any more than that dredging and dumping spoil kills fish and inhibits their breeding. Well, in a fair world that should be enough.

If you don't think this process has been done fairly, maybe you could contact the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and see what her office thinks - whether you have any grounds for an invesigation. 

The whole "independent" nature of this hearing was like a monkey's court.....here you have "independent" commissioners chosen by ORC who own the Port and who told the "independent" commissioners what they could and could not consider. Not only that - the "independent" hearing was held at the ORC's offices and the whole "independent" hearing was staffed by the ORC.  The ORC staff refused to put our submissions on the website for people to read instead they had one of their staff read our submissions and give a line about what each submitter was opposed or not opposed to.  

It states in the laws of New Zealand under the Resource Management act that local authorities such as ORC cannot be judge and jury when they have both an operational and  policy making interest in an activity - that these interests must be clearly separated.

This behaviour is unacceptable.  We are not servants of this industry.  They need to behave like good corporate neighbours and deal with their pollution just like everyone else.

[Abridged]