We can learn a lot from newspapers’ Letters to the Editor pages.

This week, I had a column in the Stuff newspapers on the Initiative’s proposed fast-track for new supermarkets.

I noted that existing district plans block new supermarkets that might compete with existing ones. So, we suggested enabling large-scale entry by a new player, overriding anticompetitive parts of district plans, and handling plan changes and consents for all sites at one go.

A retired RMA hearings commissioner wrote to the Christchurch Press saying that I had succumbed to a commonly believed myth. The RMA already forbids councils from considering ‘trade competition’ and its effects. Plans and decisions not allowed to consider competition couldn’t possibly restrict competition.

Nothing to see here, I suppose.

Or, perhaps more accurately, a whole lot to see – in how RMA hearings commissioners understand the world.

Let’s take a few examples.

Ashburton set a planning rule forbidding a new retail development from taking on new retail tenants. Why? Taking customers away from the downtown shops would hurt downtown amenities. Very anticompetitive in effect. But the planners never considered competition, so all is well. Somehow.

Homebase Mall in Christchurch was initially prohibited from having any supermarkets at all, for fear they’d reduce the amenity provided by The Palms shopping centre down the road. On appeal, Homebase was allowed one supermarket.

Christchurch’s Plan Change 84, for the area around the airport, also prohibited more than a single supermarket. And downtown hoteliers objected to there being too many hotels. But none of that has any effect on competition - apparently.

As far as RMA hearings commissioners are concerned, these sorts of things are fine so long as effects on competition weren’t the intent.

Imagine claiming, during a Commerce Commission cartel inquiry, that you never considered competition when colluding with your competitors to restrict output. It was instead about preserving scarce resources, fighting overconsumption, and helping the environment. If they could avoid laughing too loudly, they would weigh those considerations against effects on competition. And you would face penalties.

The country’s RMA hearings commissioners know or care not about the anticompetitive effects of what they do. Forgiving them for that failure requires someone more charitable than me. They have caused substantial harm.

But it’s always better to change the game rather than blame its players. A fast-track to enable greater supermarket competition would help while more comprehensive reform is in progress.