Let’s break down what Budget 2025 means for the justice sector.
Peddling too far
On the surface, the Government’s $245.5 million investment over five years to tackle court backlogs might seem like a step forward. But dig a little deeper, and it doesn’t add up.
“Justice delayed is justice denied,” Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said in a statement.
“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.”
Enter the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill, introduced under urgency last week, which proposes changes to the Senior Courts, Criminal Procedure, and Coroners Acts. It aims to streamline case management, reduce delays, increase judicial and magistrate personnel, and limit vexatious litigation. Sounds good, right?
In a letter to the legal profession, the Ministry of Justice’s Carl Crafar said the bill would enable a single court judge to strike out baseless claims without holding a hearing. Fine.
But here’s the kicker: if someone has two proceedings struck out within two years, they can be barred from filing anything for three years – unless they get leave from the court. That’s three years of no access to justice. Sure, legally-inclined tyre-kickers can be a pain, but there’s also due process and the Bill of Rights Act, which guarantees everyone the right to natural justice.
And where’s the National Party’s consistency here? Where’s the third strike?
Snake-in-the-grass rulemaking
The proposition seems to directly contradict the provisions of the Senior Courts Act, which imposes a three-year limit on “general orders” unless exceptional circumstances apply. The way the legislation is framed appears at odds with fundamental civil liberties, which mandate that rights, including the right to litigate, must be protected, not quietly eroded.
This was highlighted in the 2019 case of Siemer v NZ Law Society, which found the 2016 legislation replaced the 1908 Judicature Act’s ability to ban vexatious litigants for whatever period, willy-nilly.
The ministry has been reviewing the accessibility and affordability of civil justice since 2019. In the 2022 Rules Committee report, the term “vexatious” appeared only once and there was no mention of a two-strikes-you’re-out penalty.
Instead, the report emphasised the importance of expanding the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal to $70,000. To give the Government credit, the new Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill, which increases the cap to $60,000, is a step in the right direction. Still, perhaps the calculations incorrectly included a “depreciation” rather than an “inflation” adjustment.
Moral panic and slippery slopes
There’s a clear difference between a pattern of behaviour and an overall character assessment. In a 2024 paper, newly appointed Otago Law Dean Bridgette Toy-Cronin cautioned against oversimplifying self-represented litigants as either “vulnerable” or “vexatious”.
The vulnerable are often seen as being forced into self-representation due to cost or lack of legal aid, and are typically met with sympathy, for example. On the other hand, vexatious individuals are viewed as persistent, disruptive and motivated by either psychological or political factors.
They are “a tiny minority of litigants”, she wrote, “but their shadow looms large, particularly in the appellate courts where they take up a disproportionate amount of resources as they attempt to overturn any decision”.
Ultimately, the label determines whether they’re assisted or ignored in court, creating disparities in how they are treated.
The thing is, the existing legal framework already allows for cost penalties for vexatious conduct. Even the Law Commission’s 2004 report, Delivering Justice for All, noted that court fees should both fund the system and deter frivolous claims. Sweeping legislation based on rare behaviour is moral panic, not sound policy.
Access to justice, if you can pay for it
Speaking of court fees, Budget 2025’s $100m to manage “inflationary” costs won’t help those needing access to services, as fees are set to rise by 3.65% in July.
Then there’s the Government’s approach to legal aid – not to mention cuts to the Public Defence Services, which is maddening, to say the least.
It’s important to note legal aid in New Zealand is not a free ticket; it’s a loan. Anyone who receives legal aid may be required to repay it, depending on their income and assets.
Repayments have steadily increased, from $12.2m in 2019-20 to $32.1m last year. Budget 2025 continues this trend, targeting $103.5m in recoveries by 2029 through “a greater emphasis on debt collection”.
While the legal aid scheme is under review (and funded by taxpayers), it has received only a modest increase to meet demand, rising from $320.5m in 2024-25 to $328m in 2025-26.
Legal aid lawyers have been screaming bloody murder for years, yet last year received no increase in funding. A $7.5m increase is a mere fraction of a Band-Aid, especially considering the cost of criminal legal aid has risen by 185% over the past decade, for example.
For context, non-legal aid lawyers typically charge $300-$400 per hour, plus GST, while legal aid rates tend to be fixed. Otherwise, hourly rates range from $100 to $134 per hour, plus GST. It’s essentially pro bono work, and the criminal bar is diminishing as a result.
To add insult to injury, the Government has introduced a new performance indicator, setting a target for Legal Services to conduct 250-350 audits of legal aid lawyers annually under the Legal Services Act. There were about 100 audits per year between 2017 and 2020. Squeeze them dry, the Government said. Break the legal aid system forever, they went on.
Ultimately, the Government’s arbitrary approach to justice signals a more profound ideological shift, favouring convenience over best practices and individual popularity gain over collective wellbeing.
Driven by anecdotes, naff slogans, selective outrage and arbitrary distinctions, Budget 2025’s promises to improve access to justice are fundamentally – and dangerously – bogus.
