More Funding To Cut Court Case Backlogs
' Hon Paul Goldsmith
Minister of Justice
Minister for Courts
Court case backlogs will be further reduced through extra funding to improve court timeliness and access to justice, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith and Courts Minister Nicole McKee say.
'Justice delayed is justice denied. Waiting months or years for a case to be resolved only adds to the frustration and trauma for victims and, indeed, all court participants,' Mr Goldsmith says.
'While there has been progress, it's really important that we keep things moving. This funding will to do exactly that.'
Budget 2025 will provide New Zealand's courts with $246 million of additional funding over the next four years.
'This funding will support the ongoing operation of specialist courts, tribunals, the District Court, senior courts, the Coroners Court, and the legal aid system.'
'This Government is supporting the courts to be more efficient and minimise delays, to ensure everyone can navigate the process smoothly and have trust and confidence in the system,'
Mrs McKee says.
'An efficient court system that delivers timely justice is an important part of the Government's plan to restore law and order. Through Budget 2025 we are making sure we keep our foot on
the pedal.'
In the year ending 31 March 2025, cases disposed of within expected timeframes has stabilised at 81 per cent, after almost a decade of declining timeliness.
Backlog cases have decreased by 9 per cent to 7,067, while active cases decreased by 3 per cent to 37,920, with a reduction of 1,074 cases on hand.
Disposals of district court jury trials are at historically high levels, reflecting the approach of applying additional resources to reduce the post-Covid backlog of trials in Auckland courts.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
20 hours ago
- RNZ News
Trial of 53-year-old accused of killing mother to begin
The trial of a 53-year-old woman accused of killing her mother is set to begin in the High Court at Wellington on Monday. Reporter Kate Green spoke to Alexa Cook. Tags: To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
Newsroom
a day ago
- Newsroom
Cabinet frets over funding for Māori foreshore claims
Public funding for Māori claims to rights over areas of coastline could face further tightening, despite blunt cuts in 2024 being found to have seriously breached the Treaty of Waitangi. Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith says the $13m set aside in this year's Budget followed a potential blowout a year ago to $30m – but a coming wave of court hearings and direct negotiations still presents problems for the Government. He has told MPs the Government is now 'turning our mind to the whole framework to see if there's a better way' to arrange financial support for resolving claims under the Marine and Coastal Areas (Takutai Moana) Act. The last cuts for 2024/25 put caps on funding, reduced claimants' lawyers maximum pay rates to those in the legal aid system and forced some to cover the work pro bono (for free) to keep hearings going. Cabinet refused the projected additional funding despite Goldsmith and Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka recommending a further $19m to cover the claimant costs for that year. The Waitangi Tribunal found the way the funding limits were imposed last year breached the Treaty by insufficient consultation, prejudice to the cases before the courts and lacked analysis of legal or treaty implications. It said there are hundreds of court claims and also hundreds of bids for direct negotiations to come, but the direct negotiations had essentially never started and had little chance without funding. The cuts caused 'confusion and disruption to scheduled hearings.' The increase in costs should have been predictable for both past and present governments and officials because Māori had entered the legal process years ago, building cases towards High Court hearings. Preparing for and appearing in court cases was a higher cost than initial research and interlocutory phases. Those cases were starting to hit the courts as part of the normal progression of legal action. 'The escalation of hearings in the High Court is a natural consequence of the Crown's regime, the number of applications filed and the High Court fulfilling its judicial function of determining applications before it.' The $12m in applicant funding for 2024/25 was 'demonstrably insufficient'. Separately the Government introduced a bill in 2024 to amend the MACA Act to tighten criteria by which iwi, hapū and whānau can prove continuous, exclusive use under tikanga (custom) of coastline and waters since 1840. The amending bill would send unresolved court cases for Customary Marine Title (CMT) back to the High Court for re-hearing under its new provisions. In parallel, the Supreme Court set out alternative criteria in a November judgment which would also tighten possibilities of successful claims, and that has seen the Cabinet put the amending law on hold for seven months so it can decide which way to proceed. When Goldsmith appeared before Parliament's Māori affairs select committee as part of Scrutiny Week, MPs quizzed him on the Government's response to the Supreme Court decision, the fate of its amendment bill and its view on the Waitangi Tribunal criticism over the funding cuts. Green MP Steve Abel suggested the now stalled amendment bill would have worsened Goldsmith's budget problem over funding claims under the MACA Act because it would make Māori go back to court for repeated hearings, with a big double-up in costs. The minister answered: 'Based on the legislation we had introduced there was going to be a cost to potentially rehear elements of cases that were underway. The Government is still considering that. 'There's going to be an extra cost and we recognised that but our view was that those costs were justified.' He told Labour's Ginny Andersen the primary budget pressure point for the Government for agency Te Tari Whakatau (successor of Arawhiti – the Office of Crown Māori relations) was 'the payments for claimants for Takutai Moana. The demand is high and our ability to meet the demand is constrained.' Andersen asked if the cost blowout calculated in 2024 impacted the decisions the coalition took in pushing the MACA amendment bill. 'No, we felt the Court of Appeal had come up with a threshold materially different from what the Parliament had expected. 'The cost of the process we are going through at the moment is very high. The first step was to put some budgetary restraint around that as part of a much broader restraint government-wide.' The Waitangi Tribunal's findings on the cuts to the MACA Act funding scheme said 'the Crown does not suggest that the increase in costs incurred by applicant groups weren't actual or reasonable. 'When we consider the claims in this context, we acknowledge that this is an expensive regime. However it is the regime the Crown created. Māori have participated in the regime in good faith. 'The Crown accepts their costs have not been unreasonable. The Crown is concerned that its own regime costs more that it would like, a problem not caused by the applicants.' Despite this the $12m budget amount in 2024 was around 38 percent of what was projected for that financial year. 'Cabinet offered no reason for this decision. There is no evidence that Cabinet undertook a Treaty-compliant balancing exercise as part of this decision. 'This context highlights the serious nature of the [Treaty] breaches by the Crown. 'We find that the Crown has not acted reasonably or in good faith. It has not actively protected Māori interests in relation to this important taonga and not exercised good government.' The tribunal report said funding caps and lawyer rates could prejudice claimants by raising the risk senior counsel walked away from helping. 'We are extremely concerned at such a rudimentary approach being taken to applicant funding under the Act.' In another part of the report, tribunal members observe: 'The only inference we can draw is that this was a purely fiscal decision, but one made without any evidence that the additional funding would affect the economy, not any apparent consideration of how it would impact Māori rights and interests. 'This is not a Treaty-compliant balancing exercise,' the wrote, then concluding the Crown's decision 'breached the principles of partnership, good government, and active protection.' Tribunal members seemed perplexed at how the former Te Arawhiti officials had been unable to anticipate – even though it should have known in 2021 and 2022 – the surge in claimant costs as MACA Act claims moved to the court action phase. 'The Crown should have been on notice from this point that the High Court pathway was gathering momentum which would likely result in a significant increase in demand on the funding scheme.' The agency also had a significantly flawed modelling system to calculate how much would be needed each month, ignoring that some claimants would be involved in more than one case with overlapping Takutai Moana interests. The late identification of the problem had a significant impact, the report says, and the time pressure it put officials under in 2024 'was created by the Crown failing to properly identify earlier the growing pressure on the funding scheme.' The tribunal reiterated its concern over the lack of progress on the alternative Crown Engagement Pathway, in which 387 applications across 20 different coastline areas seek direct negotiations with ministers via Te Tari Whakatau. There has been no successful determination over the years and no chance now for applicants to seek financial assistance 'The Crown Engagement Pathway is effectively suspended at present.' It had advice for the Government for future funding decisions: 'When making decisions, the Crown cannot only consider fiscal matters. It must also consider, in good faith, Māori interests and the potential impacts of any decisions on Māori. 'Such decisions should not be made in isolation.'
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Pacific relationship will ‘remain constant': Peters
Winston Peters out and about in the South Pacific. Photo: supplied When Winston Peters speaks about political engagement with the South Pacific, he walks his talk. Midway through his third stint as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Peters has once again demonstrated a commitment to the area which was a hallmark of his previous times in office. Now, as then, Mr Peters is a conscientious attender of regional conferences and forums; he has also visited 16 of the 17 other Pacific Island Forum member countries personally. Some of those countries have been visited twice or more, and Mr Peters has also twice taken cross-Parliamentary teams (with MPs from Labour and the Greens as well as National, Act New Zealand and his own New Zealand First party) to the Pacific. "That's important to send the message that even with future changes of government, our relationship with the Pacific will remain constant," Mr Peters said. He will be in Dunedin this week for a duty he has performed several times before, giving the opening speech to the University of Otago's annual Foreign Policy School. Now in its 59th year, the school is an annual gathering of politicians, diplomats, academics, students and those interested in diplomacy, to hear a range of papers on the theme of the conference — in 2025 that is "Small Powers and Strategic Competition in the Indo-Pacific" — and also to network. The foreign minister of the day usually gives the opening speech — although Mr Peters did not do so last year as the conference had a specific focus on health. He is back this year, and speaking on a topic close to his heart. "Why the Pacific," he asks. "Well, because it's our neighbourhood. No-one thinks that charity should not begin at home. Photo: supplied "The moment you then look at where you fit in the world and our level of isolation, anyone who doesn't pay attention to their neighbourhood doesn't know how the world is." While Mr Peters' reference was to geographic isolation, he also has plenty to say about diplomatic isolation. As Foreign Minister in Jacinda Ardern's first term in government, Mr Peters racked up plenty of frequent flyer points going to the Pacific. He then watched frustrated, out of Parliament and out of power, as his successor Nanaia Mahuta — to his mind — abandoned the region. While Ms Mahuta did have the reasonable excuse of the Covid pandemic cancelling many of her travel plans, Mr Peters is adamant that a vacuum was left in the Pacific which other powers sought to fill. His hectic travel schedule is an attempt to repair frayed relationships he said. "Was there a void? It was a huge void. They hadn't seen anybody," Mr Peters said. "Sadly, many of them hadn't seen anybody in New Zealand either. When diplomats take you aside, shortly after I came back in 2023, and said, we're not there, we were wandering. I said why, they said why do we bother because no-one will talk to us, no one's seen us. "I then began to realise from a leadership point of view, just how vacuous many of their claims of the leadership were. It was actually a disgrace. "And so yes, it's been hard work and it's been exhausting for us time-wise, but we've managed to fill it and we've managed to talk to others alongside us as they realised that more had to be done on the Pacific." And in South East Asia. New Zealand has just signed an enhanced partnership agreement with Vietnam and last week in a speech in Wellington Mr Peters said New Zealand was "working hard" to similarly upgrades in its relationship with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) and Singapore. Coincidentally, the Foreign Policy School is also hosting a roundtable commemorating 50 years of diplomatic relations between New Zealand and Asean. Photo: supplied Not that everything has been plain sailing in the Pacific though. There has been friction between New Zealand and Kiribati over the scheduling of official visits by Mr Peters, and a state visit by Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown to China earlier this year to sign a partnership agreement also raised alarm bells. News of New Zealand's response — pausing nearly $20 million of core sector support funding for the Cook Islands — emerged last week. One of the themes of the Foreign Policy School is great power competition between China and United States in the region; the gathering takes place at a time when Chinese interest in the Pacific is as high as ever, and as the US is cutting its aid programmes worldwide, including to the region. Just as the former presented challenges to New Zealand, the latter presented opportunities Mr Peters said. "We should always be, though, doing a review of our offshore aid and our offshore expenditure. America is having a massive one at this point in time. And then the second thing you've got to remember is it is their money, taxpayers' money. I think that there's some reasons to be confident that we'll have a greater engagement." To that end, New Zealand's Pacific international development co-operation programme has been revamped to focus on fewer, bigger, projects — an emphasis which it hoped means that they will be done better. Projects include efforts to build climate and economic resilience, strengthen governance and security, and to lift heath, education and digital connectivity. Although not one of Mr Peters' portfolios, he has been an advocate for greater defence spending, and has urged that with the Pacific very much in mind. Quite apart from any actual or perceived security threats, Mr Peters well knows that NZDF forces deploy to the region for many reasons, and that the greater role New Zealand can play in surveillance and emergency recovery the more the country is appreciated by its neighbours. "When you are seeking to talk to people, remember that they don't just talk to you, they look over your shoulder to see what's behind you, or they look at your record. If they find that you're all words and no action, then your level of influence is massively reduced. So that's the first thing," he said. "Then the second, right across the board ... we are actually expressing the need for greater defence spending. It's important. And remember this, though it's a commitment, the timing of the purchase, the optimisation of that purchase, and the interoperability of those purchases are critical. "So it's not all here right now, it's going to happen, but at least we've made the commitment, and therefore other countries who are forced to make a commitment will take us more seriously." • The University of Otago Foreign Policy School, June 27-29.
