Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to take just a minute here to clarify in general comments, as indicated in both opening addresses and the one we did from committee, regarding the amendment of the bill which allowed the Minister to consult with the Supreme Court before setting fees or court fees. That reference is to, later on as we’ll note in detail, Section 24 of the act and number 2.
What we see within that amendment is a compromise to the true intention of what many in committee were striving to achieve. This concept was fair and reasonable court fees. Now, the department was adamant that this simple concept of fair and reasonable could not be included within the fabric of the act, as it would have had disastrous consequences for a number of other acts that could be challenged in the courts. So again, why the fuss?
In simple terms, court fees which are unreasonably high may pose a barrier to access of the courts and to justice and, as such, can be deemed unconstitutional. Courts should not be run on a cost recovery basis, and seeking to do so would more than likely dissuade the average person from seeking justice.
The committee recognized that some fees are appropriate, but it was important to have some scrutiny of the fees the government charged and to
make sure they do not become real barriers to justice. In essence, the court cannot fulfill its democratic function as an independent and impartial arbiter between government and individual or between individuals if the government limits those who come before the court by means of financial deterrence such as significant, unfair, or unreasonable fees.
The committee could not leave this amendment in the same position; therefore, the oversight of compromise was established with the Supreme Court who deals with average citizens on a daily basis. The committee felt that they were the best able to review the proposed fees and provide advice to government as whether the fees sought to be charged are fair and reasonable, taking into consideration not only the economic needs of government but the circumstances of the average member of the general public.
I would like to thank the committee for allowing me to qualify this amendment in the proposed line that we’ll be discussing later on today.