Jones Dail: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5565] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The main point I want to refer to today is the point that has just been taken up by the leader of the National Party which is to do with the removal of security for costs. Speaking as a lawyer who has done some resource management work—though I try to avoid it because it goes on for ever and sometimes it is very unsatisfactory— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: On legal aid? 
DAIL JONES 
: No never on legal aid. Fortunately I had a practice that did not seem to warrant that; we are quite lucky sometimes. If the right of the Environment Court to award security for costs is removed one will get the problematic situation that existed before whereby people who have no real interest in the matter will delay the Environment Court. There is a suggestion from the Greens that the Environment Court will award security for costs on a willy-nilly basis which is quite wrong. 
The Environment Court does have certain grounds and rules under which it may award security for costs. The insertion of this clause is a rebuke to those judges who sit on the Environment Court. It is saying to those judges: “We don’t approve of the decisions you have made in the past and we don’t think we can trust you to make the right decisions in the future.” That is what the Labour Government is saying to the Environment Court in this situation. It is saying: “We are very very unhappy with the way in which the previous clause was used. We don’t want you to have this power”—which really boils down to a discretion—“any more.” What sort of way is that to run the country when the Government can take the view that the court is not doing its job properly and will rebuke it on the matter of security for costs? All that the judges were doing was trying to say to some people: “That’s fine you can object but really if you’re going to object you’ve got to put some of your money where your mouth is.” And that varies—it is not always $50000. If the person does not have much money that fact is usually taken into account by the court which has discretion in those matters. 
This particular clause would on its own make me oppose this legislation because this little clause alone will result in great delays in resource management consents. Once people are allowed to get in there and lodge an objection willy-nilly we can say goodbye to the proper administration of the Resource Management Act. 
That was proved before the clause was put in some time ago. 
There was a good reason for that clause being put in and I again ask as I did earlier on in the debate on this bill: where is the Attorney-General in this matter? What responsibility is she taking to earn her money and to advise the Government in regard to the running of the court and the ability of court officers and judges to run their affairs? Where is the Minister of Justice? What advice has the Attorney-General given to Cabinet? What advice has the Minister of Justice given to Cabinet? Clearly they are saying: “If we give in to the Greens on this one we will allow endless delays in Resource Management Act applications and all of the things that have been said about the Resource Management Act allowing delays and such like will well and truly apply again.” 
I find the administration of the Resource Management Act generally pretty good. I am not in the camp that says that the Act is necessarily bad. I believe that the administration of the Act is poor but under the situation where there was security for costs there was some control over the people who lodged applications willy-nilly. It is the people who run the system who sometimes are not as efficient as they could be. Now we have lost control over the people who put in spurious objections. Everybody in the House knows that. The Greens know that. We have seen people put out notices stating how they could delay resource management applications. I really think that the Government should have a close look again at that provision because it will create considerable problems in the future. I warrant that within 2 years if the Government has any sense that provision will be repealed.