Katene Rahui: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Katene Rahui: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6209] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I stand to speak to the Maori Party’s amendments to clauses 20 83 83A and 133 which relate to the removal of security for costs and the reinstatement of ministerial veto for coastal permits. I will firstly talk to the detail around the removal of security for costs. This amendment reinstates the provisions of the principal Act whereby the Environment Court does not have the power to order a party to give security for costs. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I recall that many submitters were opposed to the repeal of the provisions preventing security for costs. It was their view that the repeal of the provisions may limit public participation in resource management decision-making to those able to raise security. 
The provisions in the current Act reinstated the powers for the court to require security for costs from appellants. The idea was that this move would limit the number of vexatious and frivolous objections to applications for development. What it means in practice is that before a group can take a case against a company the group would need to put up whatever money the company determines the court proceedings will cost it in lost time production etc. as security for costs. Claimants then have to sign that they are able to put up the money before the case can go to court. 
I recall that for my auntie Eva Rickard in the case she brought against Tainui in 1995 the security for costs that Tainui named was $1 million. That is a classic case of environmental injustice. We all know there are already significant costs for whanau hapu and communities in taking cases before the Environment Court. I recall a case brought against the Exide Technologies battery recycling factory in Petone by the local community which cost approximately $35000 before it even got to court. 
In many respects security for costs is a way of restricting and preventing people’s right to challenge development. It is yet another way of shutting up the public and marginalising the poor. Corporations that fund developments have the financial means to fight through the Environment Court for years whereas hapu and communities may not be able to afford even to get to court. The other key issue is that a judge can already throw out a case and order costs if the judge thinks the case is vexatious. So the Maori Party’s amendments will reinstate the provisions of the principal Act whereby the Environment Court will not have the power to order a party to give security for costs. 
The second issue dealt with under these amendments relates to the decision-making powers of the Minister of Conservation in respect of coastal permits. The amendments reinstate the decision-making powers of the Minister of Conservation in relation to coastal permits for restricted coastal activities. The bill before the Committee amends the Resource Management Act 1991 in respect of restricted coastal activities by repealing the section that allows the Minister of Conservation to make the final decision on the issuing of coastal permits after receiving a recommendation from the Environment Court. 
Clause 83A substitutes a new section 119A which stipulates that the court’s recommendation is the final decision and that the coastal permit commences on the date of the decision or on such later date as the court determines. Members will recall the fracas that erupted over this issue in respect of the Whangamata marina. Well if the bill goes through unamended it could all be on again. The amendment put forward in the bill will have a retrospective effect which means that the court’s recommendation made on 26 October 2005 in respect of the Whangamata marina operates as a legal coastal permit regardless of the actions of the Minister of Conservation in declining to grant the coastal permit for it. It is important to remind ourselves that the Government has a responsibility to uphold the Treaty relationship and tangata whenua rights which were upheld in respect of the Whangamata marina. As we know Hauraki iwi were not listened to by the judicial process but were listened to by the Minister. 
The Maori Party believes that it is not appropriate for the Environment Court to make final decisions on resource management. It has no responsibility to uphold or recognise a Treaty relationship and tangata whenua rights. Judges cannot be held accountable in the same way as a Minister. Again as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I can say that many submitters including Maori were opposed to this amendment. It was their view a view we share that a ministerial power of veto remains important to properly protect the coastal environment. So our amendments to clauses 20 83 and 83A reinstate the ministerial veto for coastal permits.