Reports — Resource Management (Forms, Fees, and Procedure) Amendment Regulations 2009, which

The Green Party is very pleased that we led the complaint against the increase the filing fee for appeals or inquiry proceedings to the Environment Court by 900 percent, from $55 to $500. Our complaint to the Regulations Review Committee covered four areas, most of which were touched on by Jacinda Ardern. For instance, the increase was contrary to the objectives and intentions of the Resource Management Act. The Environment Court is designed to be accessible to the broad community because of its purview; the issues it considers are of serious consequence to the whole community.

Unlike, say, the District Court, where an issue might affect one or two parties, Environment Court decisions affect whole communities, whole cities, and whole ecosystems. Therefore, there is public interest in having maximum access to this court. Mediation is a core function of the Environment Court, and I will talk in some detail about the numbers on that. Mediation is an important process in all kinds of disputes before a tribunal such as the Environment Court, and access to mediation is extremely important for effective resolution of issues that affect the whole community. As a result, broad participation by the community as a whole is what is needed to ensure that the Environment Court process works and that the objectives and intentions of the Act are upheld. The Ministry for the Environment agreed with that in the select committee report. It “accepted that access to the Environment Court is amongst the objects and intentions of the Resource Management Act.” We are very pleased about that because the select committee report goes on to show real concern that the filing fee increase seriously infringes on those objects and intentions.

We note the recognition of the waiver process that is available, and the select committee report dealt with that. But the waiver process requires people who are engaged with the Resource Management Act and the Environment Court to know that it is there, to know that they can ask for it, and to not have to rely on court officials to advise them of it, because they may not be advised of it. Unless people know that the waiver process is available and how to use it, they simply will not be able to use it, and will be shut out from engaging in this process. There is certainly no information to show that the waiver process is working effectively; we could not find any. There is no evidence to suggest that the waiver process would be effective in ensuring that people get access to the court. We also note that legal aid and the environmental legal aid options do not provide for filing fees. People who want to access the court and who might rely on sources of funding other than private funding will not be able to use that funding for the purpose of getting a foot in the door. This is where our concern is. Essentially, this filing fee hike of 900 percent shuts out people from even getting a foot in the door. It is not just us who are concerned about it.

We raised the issue of vexatious and frivolous claims, and the purpose of the filing fee in trying to prevent such claims going to the court. This was an issue raised by the Minister’s technical advisory group and the Cabinet paper. They said that the increase in the filing fee was proposed to act as a deterrent to frivolous or ill-merited appeals; therefore, that was the justification for the 900 percent rise. The Ministry of Justice, which understands these issues very clearly, expressed strong concern about the increase. It said that it would be “inappropriate to use filing fees as a means of discouraging litigants. There is no evidence that high fees discourage vexatious litigants.” I accept that from the report it is clear that the officials at the time said that that was not the justification for raising the fee but it was the policy intent behind all of the initial documents that led to the decision to increase the fee, so I find the claim that that was not the reason disingenuous. I think it is clear from the evidence that the fee increase came as a result of wanting to discourage vexatious litigants, with there being no evidence that it would do so. However, there was clear evidence that it would discourage legitimate and poorer claimants from being able to access the court.

What has essentially happened with the filing fee increase is that rich vexatious litigants have access to the court, and poor legitimate ones do not. Which organisations are they? The poorer legitimate organisations that will not be able to access the court now are those that have the public interest at heart, in the main. Those most affected by this are the mums and dads who are concerned about the impact of a development on their community and on their environment, such as the impact of a development on local schools and all of those kinds of issues. Those affected include the environmental non-governmental organisations and, particularly, Māori organisations, and I will talk about them in just a moment.

I said earlier that mediation was an issue here, but we know that 1 percent of resource consents are appealed to the Environment Court. So it is not a huge number, about 500 per annum, and only 10 percent of those go on to hearings because 90 percent of the appeals to the Environment Court go to mediation. There lies the success of the Environment Court and the success of access to that court. People can have a place in which their disputes can be resolved in a win-win situation to the benefit of all, but not now, because those legitimate appellants will not have access to the court because of this fee hike.

I am very concerned about the impact of this on Māori, and I am deeply disturbed by the fact that the Māori Party’s vote allowed this regulation to proceed and the fee to be increased. I would be very interested if the Māori Party made a statement in the House at some point about why it thought it was important to do that, because we know that the Resource Management Act itself makes particular recognition of the principles of the Treaty and of the right of Māori, iwi, and hapū to engage on issues of importance to them in a Treaty and tikanga Māori context. The Act is designed to be accessible to them. Māori have fought for much longer than a decade to have real access to the courts under the Resource Management Act, and to have the effective relationships under the Treaty that the Act provides. They have had to use every possible means available to them to do that, whether through their local authority, iwi management plans, or cultural assessments and assessments of the environmental effects on any particular development. Māori have engaged and engaged in an effort to protect their rohe, their people, their waterways, and their land, and that engagement has been demanded of Māori by Parliament and the community, which are continually telling iwi, hapū, and whānau that we must engage in all of these processes if we are to be taken seriously and if we want to foot it with the big boys and be part of New Zealand society—and Māori do. They take up that challenge and they work very, very hard. They pay huge amounts of their own private money to access these things. They drive themselves, really, into the ground at times, trying to fight to prevent the discharge of contaminants into their waterways so they can save their tuna and their food sources, or to fight huge developments that will have a significant pollutant effect on their communities, their children, and generations to come.

Māori engagement with the Resource Management Act and with these processes is extraordinary for its strength and for its perseverance. But a filing fee of $500, supported by the Māori Party, is the best possible way of kicking the stool out from under Maori. It is the best possible way of shutting that court door and locking them out from the processes that they have worked for decades to try to be part of. This will be a key means, along with other changes like securities for costs, which were introduced by this Government, for shutting out iwi, hapū, and whānau who do not have access to huge economic resources, but do have access to heart, commitment, whanaungatanga, kaitiakitanga, and rangatiratanga. They will be the ones who will not get access to the courts, because of the filing fee that has been hiked up 900 percent by the National Government and the Māori Party.

What justification could the Māori Party, in particular, have for locking out our own people from a court process that we have fought for years and years to be fully engaged with? What justification can there be for the destruction to rohe, kai moana beds, waterways, and all of those areas that Māori have fought to try to protect against development, pollution, and degradation, and now will not be able to? All those kids will now not be able to access their conservation areas or their wāhi tapu—it is particularly a concern on the protection of wāhi tapu—because the filing fee hikes, supported by the Māori Party and the National Government, prevent them from accessing the courts. It is a disgrace.

Motion agreed to.