Wagner Nicky: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6190] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I want to refer to Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of Dr Russel Norman. Part of this Supplementary Order Paper deals with security for costs. Security for costs is something that concerned many of our submitters but we believe that a lack of knowledge about the process increased their concern unnecessarily. The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill does reinstate security for costs. Many community groups were concerned that this provision may exclude them from participating in environmental decisions. But when the Local Government and Environment Committee reviewed court decisions from the past we felt that the judges had used their power with discretion and that genuine environmental groups with genuine concerns would not be disadvantaged. 
It is important to note that the Environment Court has always had the ability to award costs in appeal proceedings but the power of the court to require security for costs has varied. Security for costs is the deposit of money or security to meet the possibility that the party will be unable to pay costs that may be ordered by the court should the case be unsuccessful. In the period 1996-2003 although the Environment Court had this power it was rarely used. Database searches could find only eight times when security for costs was required whereas nearly 1500 cases went before the court each year. Contrary to common perception among many of the submitters the practice of requiring security for costs in the Environment Court does not kick in automatically upon the lodgement of an appeal. A party usually the party whose resource consent decision is being appealed against first has to apply to the court for an order for security for costs. 
When it had the power to require security for costs the Environment Court exercised its discretion according to a range of factors. The general principles are set out in rule 61 of the District Court Rules 1992 and the interests of both the appellant and the applicant are to be considered. Factors that are considered include the strength or merits of the plaintiff’s case the conduct of the parties involved public interest factors and an assessment of the financial resources that are available. Given that the court already has case law in place and it has been considered to work well we did not see a need to specify criteria for additional consideration in this legislation. I repeat: we do not think that environmental groups or individuals with a genuine issue need to fear this amendment. It is there to provide a balance at the court’s discretion and I believe it is needed. During the submission process we did see firsthand evidence of an environmental group that felt it was OK—in fact it felt it was its right—to dissolve the organisation and walk away from its responsibility when court costs were awarded against it. 
We believe that the new bill in allowing the ability to require security for costs at the court’s discretion provides a good balance. We hope that as groups get to understand the process and see it in action they will conclude that they have nothing to fear and everything to gain from participating in environmental decision-making. Therefore I suggest that we do not support Dr Russel Norman’s Supplementary Order Paper.