Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15026] 
12.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How did her Government’s decision to amend the Resource Management Act 1991 last year by removing the Environment Court’s power to grant security for costs help reduce the problem of frivolous and vexatious objectors? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The removal of the Environment Court’s ability to award security for costs was designed to eliminate the barrier to worthwhile appeals proceeding to court in the public interest; it was not about frivolous and vexatious objections. We have taken other action to reduce that problem such as properly resourcing the Environment Court which was so badly neglected by the National Government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Has the Minister read the analysis by the Ministry for the Environment stating that 10 parties out of 26 had not paid the costs awarded by the court—one for $424000—and given that advice does she now accept that her amendment to ban security of cost orders was another of her legislative boo-boos? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Not only did I read the paragraph that the member read but I read the third paragraph following that which noted that there were better alternatives in order to meet both goals than security of costs: the need for community participation and the need to limit vexatious and frivolous objections. 
David Parker 
: What reports has the Minister seen about outcomes from public interest groups raising environmental concerns? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Taieri Plains environmental protection society was given funding to raise issues at the Environment Court about possible environmental damage. The court upheld the society’s submissions. In spite of that Katherine Rich wants to abolish the fund so that groups like that cannot raise legitimate environmental concerns. That is more evidence of National’s policy of development at any cost and of hearing only one argument at a time. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister concerned that prior to the amendment applicants were threatening legitimate participants that if they took part in the process at all they would have to put up $30000 as security before the case even started and that public interest groups that could have brought useful information to the process were being scared off? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes we did have those concerns which is why we removed the Environment Court’s ability to award security for costs. As various Environment Court judges have noted the process for deciding resource consents is better when others can make submissions. But in spite of that the National Party wants to cut the public out of decision making. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Is the Minister concerned that the Resource Management Act is being used to extort money from developers and indeed even State-owned enterprises; if she is not concerned why is she not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I would be concerned if I had proof of that. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Would the problem of frivolous and vexatious objections be reduced by the addition of another layer of bureaucracy in the resource management process such as the expansion of the Environmental Risk Management Authority to create a new environmental protection authority; and has the Minister seen any media reports on how business reacted to that idea when it was proposed by the National Party spokesperson on the environment? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No it would not solve the problem and yes I have seen a report from Simon Carlaw of Business New Zealand in which he said that turning the Environmental Risk Management Authority into an environmental protection agency as promoted by Nick Smith is a daft idea. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister claim that the ministry’s advice was in support of the removal of security of costs when in fact the ministry said: “The awarding of costs is therefore not a deterrent to following good practice during court proceedings.” and further said: “Security for costs upfront would go some way to prevent failure to pay costs.”; does not that quite explicitly say the Minister got it wrong? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The paragraph below that which I draw to the attention of the Hon Nick Smith says that the alternative to including the ability to seek security for costs is to leave it—the Environment Court—to use case management to limit vexatious and litigious participants. That could occur with the court’s new case-tracking systems the new higher filing fees and daily hearing fees together with its ability to award costs post hearing. It is also possible that setting a scale for cost awards would assist to defeat the problem. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: My having noted that the same paper specifically says: “Some Ministers have specifically requested that the proposal for security of costs to be awarded in the Environment Court be put back on the table.” which Ministers were being referred to and does the Minister now accept that those Ministers disagree with their dopey decision last year to amend the Resource Management Act in that way? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I object to ad hominem arguments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is—[ 
Interruption 
] If I were to rule out every such comment I would be ruling out quite a few. I do however think the word “dopey” was a silly thing to say in the context of the question because it did not add to but subtracted from the question. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The questioner would acknowledge that I am not going to reveal what took place in robust debates inside committees except to reveal that the arguments prevailed about which was the most effective way to deal with vexatious and frivolous objections.