Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5567] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I do not know why the National Party ever agreed in the first place to support a bill that allowed any hearings or submissions. It seems to me that the ideal resource management bill from its point of view would be one in which people got any application they applied for with no community participation at all. National Party members do not agree with anything that makes it possible for community groups to get to court and have a say. 
I am sorry that Dail Jones does not appear to have heard anything I said on the subject of costs yesterday. I made it very clear that the new provision on security for costs does not remove the award for costs. I will quote from yesterday’s speech: “If the case has no merit there must be some sanction for failing to comply with directions of the court and there must be some incentive for people to prepare a case properly and observe the normal rules that go with running the process. That sanction is the ability of the court to award costs against any party to the court that misuses the process.” 
I said specifically that the court does not use the award of security for costs very often. The Local Government and Environment Committee was very clear that it was not criticising the way the court behaves. What we were criticising—what we were trying to deal with—was developers using stand-over tactics and threats to try to prevent community groups from ever having a say in the first place and that is totally contrary to the purpose of the bill which is about bringing all the evidence to the table. If some parties are excluded because of this sort of behaviour and because they do not have very deep pockets all the evidence does not get to the table. The fact is that National is supporting those stand-over tactics and threats from big developers against community groups. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member please desist. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: It is hard to see how— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We want a withdrawal and an apology. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have asked the member to desist in using that terminology and that is where the matters rests. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I have desisted and I assure the Committee I will not make those claims again. I simply say that the effect of what the National Party is proposing is that developers would be able to continue unchecked with their stand-over tactics and threats to community groups. 
Community groups do not always know that the court is quite unlikely to agree to the threats of the developers. They do not have the experience in court to know that and many groups came before us that said they had been deterred from taking action where they had a good legal case because they were threatened with costs. In another case just recently the court turned down an application for security. The group involved was wondering how on earth it was to raise $30000 through cake-stalls if the court awarded security which in the end it did not. That issue was discussed with a judge and legal experts and it was made clear to the committee that going back to the 1996 situation would not create any great difficulties for the court.