Jones Shane: Resource Management (Security for Costs)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Jones Shane: Resource Management (Security for Costs)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3599] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Firstly congratulations to Kate Wilkinson on having had the opportunity to introduce this bill coming out of the ballot system given that we both arrived in Parliament at the same time. But I stand based on a long body of experience on both sides of this debate in resource management to assure her that I do not support this bill having said that I congratulate her on having seized the opportunity. No. 1 the bill as proposed will do a great deal of damage to the Maori constituency. It will disempower prevent and further marginalise. Their opportunities will be reduced to speak about those values and interests in the environment that are so easily or very often overlooked and forgotten by rapacious developers as they pursue profit at the expense of the environment—in particular mahinga kai urupa and other features of significance to the tangata whenua. We may well see come to pass a cheque-book type of environmentalism corporatising the environment so that it becomes the plaything only of those who have deep pockets of those who have the opportunity to hire the flashest lawyers I fear that this could mean that opportunities are denied to Maori communities. This is not good either for the environment or for the involvement of hapu iwi and tangata whenua in the future. 
Now of course Nick Smith and others are very supportive of this. Purposely they exaggerate the nature of the problem. The problem is actually being addressed come August 2007 when new statutory powers will be available to strike out frivolous mischievous and vexatious issues—and I am not entirely sure why Nick Smith complains about such issues because we put up with that sort of thing every day from him during question time. However I agree that the opportunity that exists for people to raise such issues is very very frustrating and can be cumbersome. It should come to an end as a consequence of the amendments that have already been dealt with. 
There is a great deal of rhetoric behind this issue—not necessarily from Kate Wilkinson; I found her delivery to be very lawyer-like stripped of rhetoric and dealing with the problem but unfortunately coming up with the wrong remedy. I get the sense that Nick Smith and others are harking back to the National Development Act. They actually would prefer the Resource Management Act to be put to the side and for developments to be approved from a national agency with minimal or no opportunity for public or community participation. That would lead to a simple reversion back to the days of Muldoon. The Resource Management Act is an evolving piece of legislation and as one of the four members of the core group who worked with Sir Geoffrey Palmer in 1989-90 actually developing the Resource Management Act which was then taken forward by Simon Upton I say that it has to be amended as it goes. 
But there should be balance and opportunity for participation. Most important communities should not be dislocated or locked out from an opportunity to influence the final shape and form of their community when a life-changing development comes to town. Members may very well ask why security of costs options are not being enjoyed by the Environment Court. The Environment Court as an institution is in a class of its own. It cannot be compared with the activities of the District Court or various other fora of the legal system. That is why I cannot support this bill because it is disempowering and leaves far too much influence and potential for marginalisation on the basis of the depth of the pocket and the cheque-book flourishing of developers. There is nothing wrong with development provided that it does not undermine the sustainability of the resources surrounding the development. However for those reasons I say to Kate Wilkinson that it was a nice try but I do not support this bill.