Wilkinson Kate: Resource Management (Security for Costs)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Resource Management (Security for Costs)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3600] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I came to Parliament believing in justice—justice for everybody—and not in denying justice to anyone as the opponents to this bill are suggesting. Justice in any court requires the reduction of vexatious and frivolous claims. That is not just in relation to the Environment Court; it also applies to the District Court and High Court. The other courts have provision for security for costs to reduce vexatious and frivolous claims as has already been mentioned. Why does the Environment Court not have that provision? 
Vexatious and frivolous claims must be discouraged. The test of course is rigorous and robust—we have said that—to discourage frivolous objectors from stymying the due process of law without any comeback or form of redress. That is justice and that is what this bill is about. 
Opponents of this bill have been trumpeting some alternatives—for example that the courts will have the power in 2007 to strike out an objector’s claim. But that might not necessarily be what the objector wants. The objector might just want to provide some security for costs in order to buy time to put forward a lucid argument and striking out the claim would deny them that right to justice. 
I refer now to flip-flop No. 1. In the  
Hansard 
 reporting of this matter in 2002 New Zealand First’s Dail Jones I thought summed up the situation rather well. He said: “One of the major areas of complaint I have with this bill which I am sure will lead to its downfall as a whole is the removal of security for costs.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Who said that? 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Mr Jones from New Zealand First said that. That was flip-flop No. 1. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The baubles of office. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Exactly! And he continued: “As a lawyer I would think that surely this would still have been a matter to be left to the discretion of the judge involved.” He went on: “The main criticism we make of judges in this House … is that they tend to be too soft. That tends to be the attitude judges take because as lawyers we are trained to give the individual all the protection we possibly can under our system.” He continued: “I have never known anyone to complain that security for costs has ever been too high. But we remove security for costs whether it is $500 $1000 or $1500 we put nothing in its place and now the same old people who delayed things prior to 1996 are really going to have a field day.” He concluded: “New Zealand First cannot support this legislation.” How right he was. New Zealand First was then in favour of security for costs; now it is not. 
Flip-flop No. 2 came from United Future. United Future was then “particularly unhappy with the removal of the power of the Environment Court to require security for costs from individuals or groups it considers vexatious.” United Future was right also. Then that party was in favour of security for costs; now it is not. That is flip-flop No. 2. 
A National member said at the time: “We have provisions in this bill that this Parliament will live to regret. There are provisions that ban the court from providing security for costs. That was an Alliance policy … I do not know why United Future—let alone Labour—now sees an obligation to follow through on a policy that effectively allows people to object without any responsibility for those actions.” That member was my colleague Nick Smith and how right he was. What is wrong with asking people to put their money where their mouth is? What is wrong with trying to remove one of the handbrakes to progress? What is wrong with trying to reduce personal vendettas and frivolous and vexatious costs? 
We have heard that the courts still have the power to award costs but incorporated societies have limited liability. There is no person who would be personally liable for those costs. There is no discipline and so that is absolutely meaningless. The security for costs order has been used infrequently and with extreme caution—only on eight occasions. The courts are reluctant to make the order because they want to ensure that natural justice is done and that due and proper regard is had for individuals. But we need the safeguard against vexatious and frivolous proceedings in our judicial process. We also need adequate protection from those objectors. 
Supporting this bill would allow the select committee to scrutinise the legislation properly. There are stand-over tactics and we need to avoid the ability of such tactics by frivolous and vexatious objectors to pervert the course of justice when those objectors know they cannot be touched. I urge support for this bill.