Flavell Te Ururoa: Resource Management (Security for Costs)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Resource Management (Security for Costs)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3596] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker tena tatou katoa. The Maori Party is speaking to the Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill as informed by our understanding of “CIR”. That is not “citizens initiated referendum” although that certainly would not be such a bad idea; the initials stand for “cultural impact reporting” as defined under schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act 1991. In that provision the requirements for assessing environmental effects are set out. Cultural impact reporting looks at the spiritual cultural or other special values for present and future generations. This bill in effect adds a new layer of costs to an already expensive process—the process of taking a case against a company. The bill will require claimants to sign that they can put up the money before the case can go to court. The money is not small change. If we are seriously committed to due process in order to ensure that all people receive a fair hearing in front of the law then the cultural impact assessment provision in this bill does nothing to enhance that right. 
Section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act 1991 states that: “The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands water sites waahi tapu and other taonga.” is a matter of national importance that councils must recognise and provide for. It is a matter of national importance that with this amendment bill would never see the light of day through prohibitive costs. It is these matters of national importance natural justice and environmental equity that demand we oppose this bill. 
Two other factors have emerged relating to the cultural impact assessment provision. The first is the issue of relevance. The purpose of the bill is to limit vexatious and frivolous objections to applications for development. Yet in a search of the environmental rulings between 1998 and 2003 we have unearthed only two instances that could be defined as vexatious and frivolous. We did not think that could be right so we approached the Ministry for the Environment. We were told quite clearly that the ministry has not undertaken any assessment let alone a cultural impact assessment of how many cases could fall into the vexatious and frivolous category. The response was that at best estimates could be only anecdotal. 
The issue of relevance being discounted we then turned to the issue of necessity. We found that the Resource Management Amendment Act 2005 actually makes this new bill redundant. There is a section in that Act that will prevent such cases getting to court by the direct intervention of local bodies. This will come into force in August 2007. Section 41C of the principal Act is amended by the addition of specific subsections including section 41C(7)(a) which directs that a submission can be struck out if the submission or part of it is frivolous or vexatious. 
The costs of litigation are already impacting adversely upon a group of people who are already overrepresented amongst communities where poverty is endemic. Security for costs can be understood as yet another clever construct of the Crown to constrain tangata whenua from their right to challenge developments. For this bill to be sitting alongside other local government situations in which Maori have been prevented from doing their own developments is at the very least a case of déjà vu or worse yet another instance of racism. Putting it another way we wonder whether the Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill is actually the real frivolous and vexatious legislation. The Maori Party will not support this bill.