3. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does he stand by his statement in this House on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 that “This Government is committed to access to justice for all, not just for those privileged few”; and if he does stand by this statement, why?
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this
Yes; access to justice is important for all—none more so than the less privileged in society.
Did the Minister’s own Ministry of Justice provide advice that the Government’s proposed changes to the Resource Management Act would present an obstacle to people with legitimate cases but not enough money taking a case to the Environment Court; and is that “justice for all”?
As I am sure the member is aware, I am not responsible for the planned amendments to the Resource Management Act. However, I am advised that the Ministry of Justice was consulted on the proposed bill, and in the course of the consultation it was satisfied that the issues around access to justice had been addressed.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was asking about a specific piece of advice from the Minister’s ministry. I am seeking to find out whether his ministry provided a specific piece of advice. I would ask the Minister to address that question.
Mr SPEAKERThe member has further supplementary questions; I think he is asking a bit much there. I invite the member to ask a further supplementary question.
Did the Minister’s own Ministry of Justice also advise that limiting appeal rights under the Resource Management Act would take away a fundamental right of New Zealanders, and how is taking away a fundamental legal right to appeal district plans to the Environment Court consistent with his commitment to “justice for all”?
Advice was provided in respect of the bill, and I am advised that the ministry is satisfied that any issues that that member is raising have been addressed.
Does the Minister agree with his ministry that when a cost is imposed on people’s access to justice, there is a group in our society who will no longer ever have their day in court, and that group is ordinary New Zealanders trying to fight corporate developers—whose legal costs are actually tax-deductible? Does he agree with his ministry that when costs are imposed, access to justice is restricted?
I agree that costs and their relationship to access to justice have to be measured carefully, to ensure that the justice system provides open access for as many people as possible, and that is why I am confident that the resource management bill that will be tabled in this House at some stage in the next few days reflects those concerns in a proper and appropriate manner.
Metiria TureiIs the Minister aware of the key findings of the 2006 Te Puni Kōkiri report Māori and Council Engagement under the Resource Management Act 1991 that there is low-quality Māori participation in Resource Management Act processes, that most Māori groups cannot compete with professional planners and lawyers, and that basic costs stand in the way of Māori access; and how does he expect Māori to engage with the Environment Court process if, in addition, they have to lodge a bond just to get a foot in the courtroom door?
No, I am not aware of that Te Puni Kōkiri report. But I can assure the member that any issue relating to security for costs, to which I believe the member is referring, is a matter for the discretion of the court, and that at the point that those orders or requirements are made, genuine cases where a plaintiff has limited means are considered.
Is the Minister aware that before the power to award security for costs was removed from the Act, powerful applicants were using that provision to intimidate community groups, and were threatening to bankrupt them if they exercised their legal and democratic rights to object; and how does putting back security for costs improve access to justice?
In answer to the second part of that question, I am advised there are adequate safeguards, such as fee waiver provisions and the discretion of the court not to require security for costs. I believe that issue addresses the member’s question.
Why will the Minister not simply admit that what his officials have advised him is true, which is that the changes National plans to make to the Resource Management Act will limit access to justice for those with limited money; and that if people do not have the money even to get through the door of the courtroom, they will never get access to justice in Aotearoa New Zealand under a National-led Government?
I will admit no such thing. I will restate what I said earlier: I am satisfied that those issues of access to the Environment Court are met through mechanisms around discretion of security for costs, and through the new structure for filing fees, which will probably make the application of those fees and daily hearing costs cheaper than the District Court and High Court provisions as they currently stand. Those are sufficient, as is the advice that has been put into issues around the new Resource Management Act legislation to ensure that issues of access to justice have been addressed.
I seek leave to table a page from the Te Puni Kōkiri report I referred to earlier that sets out the key findings and shows that Māori are restricted in their access to resource management processes, primarily due to financial restrictions.