9. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Minister for the Environment
Does he agree with the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society regarding the increase in the Environment Court filing fee from $55 to $500 that the fee increase of over 900 percent will act as a barrier to representation in the court by parties with a legitimate case, and will reduce access to justice; if not, why not?
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) Link to this
Although the Minister supports the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society in its work, he does not agree that the increase in the filing fee will act as a significant barrier to representation in court. The fee was last increased to $55, in 1988, from the previous rate of $50, which was set in 1978. That puts it way out of line with the current District Court filing fee of $140 plus a daily hearing fee of $750. The proposed fee for the Environment Court will still be lower than fees for the District and High Courts, because the Environment Court will not be charging daily hearing fees.
If the Minister does not agree with the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, does he agree with the statement made in 2004 by the National Party’s then environment spokesperson, Dr Nick Smith, that a proposed increase of the same fee to just $245 “cannot be justified”; if so, how can he justify doubling the fee now?
Yes, the Minister agrees with the statements made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith when he was the Opposition spokesperson on the environment, because the previous Government planned to increase the Environment Court fees to $245 for filing plus a hearing fee of $445 per day, totalling a minimum daily fee of $690.
Is the Minister aware that 90 percent of cases that are filed with the Environment Court do not actually go to a hearing but are resolved at mediation, and that, hence, increasing the fee from $55 to $500 simply to get through the door of the Environment Court will knock out most small environment groups, which will not be able to come up with $500 to access even the mediation provided by the Environment Court?
The Minister is aware of the assertion to that effect made in a submission by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, but he does not agree with the conclusion.
Does the Minister agree with the same Dr Nick Smith when he also said: “Middle-income Kiwi battlers will be hardest hit by these high charges, which will become a barrier to access to justice.”; if so, why has he already doubled this high charge—which Dr Smith railed against 5 years ago—simply to get through the door of the Environment Court?
I believe I explained to the House the discrepancy between those two figures in an answer to an earlier question. The member might be interested to know that the advice I have to hand is that the Ministry for the Environment also operates the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund for not-for-profit groups to advocate for the public interest in resource management cases at the Environment Court and other courts. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society itself has had five applications to this fund approved since January 2008, totalling, I am advised, $147,000.
Is the Minister aware of the Cabinet paper from the Ministry for the Environment that shows that 90 percent of cases are resolved at mediation—the figure is not just in someone’s submission—and does he not agree with the statement from the same Dr Nick Smith that the solution to frivolous appeals does not lie in making it too expensive for the average family to actually get through the door of the Environment Court so that they can access mediation?
The Minister can advise that his colleague the Minister of Justice has no information to hand on that particular question, but if the member puts a written question down to the Minister, I am sure that he will answer it.
Does he agree with the accusation made by Dr Smith in 2004 that “The Government giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other.”, and is it the case that National complaineth loudly with one mouth when in Opposition, and maketh worse decisions when in Government?
Yes, the Minister does agree with the statement made by the then Opposition spokesperson on the environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, because he saideth it in a most helpfulest way in that context.
Charles ChauvelIs the Minister aware that the Local Government and Environment Committee has referred the question of the fee increase to the Regulations Review Committee; and, in light of that referral, would he be willing to undertake to the House to put the increase on hold until such time as the Regulations Review Committee had had a chance to scrutinise it?