Publications

 

Vote Courts

The objective of Vote Courts is to provide for a transparent, efficient and independent court system. The Vote pays for the infrastructure supporting the work done by courts, such as the buildings, services and systems. Vote Courts also provides for the enforcement and collection of fines and civil debt services.

Output class one: Higher court services

SCOPE

This appropriation covers the provision of services in relation to the work of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

The number of criminal jury trials awaiting hearing in the High Court is currently at the lowest point since September 2005. However, waiting time from committal to trial has continued to increase (from 348 days in June 2010 to 396 days in June 2011) and criminal jurisdiction court-supported sitting time is decreasing.

The Ministry is unique in that we have direct responsibility for supporting the constitutionally independent judiciary. The Ministry has no ability to affect the conduct of a case beyond ensuring that court systems operate effectively in allowing the court to conduct a trial. To ensure this support is of sufficient quality, the Ministry surveys judges on case management, file preparation and courtroom support. 

Actual
2009/10
Performance indicator  Standard
2010/11 
Actual
2010/11 
Variance explanation
89%  Percentage of responses from High Court judges surveyed about criminal appeals and jury trial cases that rate case management/file preparation and presentation as ‘meets expectations’ or better  (see Footnote 7) 90%  92%
 
97%  Percentage of responses from High Court judges surveyed about criminal appeals and jury trial cases that rate courtroom support provided as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 7) 90%  97%
 
87%  Percentage of responses from High Court judges surveyed about civil cases and civil and family appeals that rate case management/file preparation and presentation as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 7) 90%  93%
 
97%  Percentage of responses from High Court judges surveyed about civil cases and civil and family appeals that rate courtroom support as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 8) 90%  98% 
 
0   Number of High Court criminal cases stayed for undue delay in terms of section 25(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for reasons wholly or partly the responsibility of the Ministry 
 
132  Number of criminal and civil appeals managed by the Supreme Court  135   169  The number of appeals managed by the Supreme Court was above forecast for the financial year owing to a number of pre-trial appeals from a multi-accused trial pending in the High Court. Each of the 12 defendants in this trial has applied for leave to the Supreme Court. This has had a significant impact on the usually small number of appeals to the Supreme Court and this is reflected in the variance for the 2010/11 year.
1,305   Number of criminal and civil appeals managed by the Court of Appeal  1,260   1,380 
 
The number of jury trials managed in the High Court was below forecast for the financial year owing to a decrease in new cases. In cases that could be heard in either the High or District Court, more cases were referred to the District Court, which further reduced volumes in the High Court.
467   Number of jury trials managed by the High Court  520   359    
3,955   Number of civil cases managed by the High Court   3,950   3,771  
1,513 Number of criminal and civil appeals managed by the High Court 1,450

1,432

OUTPUT CLASS STATEMENT

Actual
30 June 2010
$000

 

Actual
30 June 2011
$000

Main estimates
30 June 2011
$000

Supplementary estimates
30 June 2011
$000
 

 

Revenue

     

 55,271

Crown

59,566

58,517

59,566

 427

Departmental  

1,022

790

790

8,013

Other  

8,298

6,561

6,561

63,711

Total revenue  

68,886

65,868

66,917

61,663

Total expenses  

66,665

65,868

66,917

2,048

Net surplus 

2,221

 -

 -

Footnote 7, 8: Judicial satisfaction is measured by an annual survey of the High Court judiciary, which is conducted during July. The performance measure standard is the percentage of judges who rate case management, file preparation, file presentation and courtroom and hearing support provided as ‘meets expectations’ or better. The scale for responses is: far exceeds expectations, above expectations, meets expectations, below expectations and well below expectations. Formal and informal feedback processes are used to manage the quality of support that the Ministry provides in all jurisdictions, including the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. The 2011 High Court Judicial Satisfaction Survey had a response rate of 27% (12 out of a possible 44 respondents). From 2011/12, the survey will be run six-monthly.

Output class two: District Court services

SCOPE

This appropriation covers the provision of services in relation to the work of the District Courts, including the Youth Court and Family Court.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

New business with the District Court continues to decline across all jurisdictions. Factors that have contributed to this decline include the Christchurch earthquakes and, within the Youth Court, a Police focus on alternative action practices meaning more cases are diverted from the Youth Court. Improvement initiatives continue to be identified, developed and implemented so that the District Court is able to make the most of the resources at its disposal.

The Ministry provides the infrastructure that allows the court system to operate and come to independent and impartial decisions. An important aspect of this work is the functions performed by juries. To assess whether this function is being administered to a high quality, the Ministry surveys the judiciary, juries and other court users.

Actual
2009/10
Performance indicator  Standard
2010/11 
Actual
2010/11 
Variance explanation
90%  Percentage of survey responses about jury trial cases that rate case management/file preparation and presentation as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 9) 90% 95%   
95%  Percentage of survey responses about jury trial cases that rate courtroom support as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 9) 90%  100%   
90%  Percentage of juror survey responses that rate overall juror satisfaction as ‘satisfied’ or better  (see Footnote 10) 90% (see Footnote 11 90%   
85%  Percentage of survey responses about criminal summary cases that rate case management/file preparation and presentation as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 9) 90%  81%  
94%   Percentage of survey responses about criminal summary cases that rate courtroom support as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 9) 90% 92%    
100%  Percentage of survey responses about Youth Court cases that rate case management/file preparation and presentation as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 12) 90% 100%   
100%   Percentage of survey responses about Youth Court cases that rate courtroom support as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 12) 90%  100%   
100%   Percentage of survey responses about civil cases that rate case management/file preparation and presentation as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 12) 90% 90%   
88%  Percentage of survey responses about civil cases that rate courtroom support as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 12) 90% 90%   
88%  Percentage of survey responses about Family Court cases that rate case management/file preparation and presentation as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 12) 90%  67%  This result reflects feedback from a group of judges in larger courts where there is a high demand for services. The Ministry is reviewing further feedback and will address the issues raised during 2011/12.
100%   Percentage of survey responses about Family Court cases that rate courtroom support as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 12) 90% 87%  
2   Number of District Court criminal jury cases stayed for undue delay in terms of section 25(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for reasons wholly or partly the responsibility of the Ministry   0 0  
4   Number of District Court criminal cases stayed for undue delay in terms of section 25(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for reasons wholly or partly the responsibility of the Ministry  0 4

Two cases were stayed owing to the unavailability of interpreters.

Two cases were stayed because of the unavailability of courtrooms and lack of other court resources.

New measure   Number of Youth Court cases stayed for undue delay in terms of section 25(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for reasons wholly or partly the responsibility of the Ministry   0 0  
5,045   Number of criminal jury cases managed   6,200  5,932  
233,006   Number of criminal summary cases managed    237,300  216,144   
6,717   Number of Youth Court cases managed   7,200  6,301

The number of Youth Court Cases managed in the financial year was lower than forecast owing to:

  • a decrease in new cases of 21% (1,347 cases)
  • the success of the Policing Excellence programme in diverting young people with minor offences from the Youth Court. 
39,422   Number of civil cases managed    40,000  36,266   
94,926   Number of Family Court substantive applications managed    99,500  98,846   

OUTPUT CLASS STATEMENT

Actual
30 June 2010
$000

 

Actual
30 June 2011
$000

Main estimates
30 June 2011
$000

Supplementary estimates
30 June 2011
$000
 

 

Revenue

     

172,205

Crown

173,135

180,496

173,135

1,717

Departmental  

1,750

1,839

1,839

19,549

Other  

20,025

19,352

19,202

193,471

Total revenue  

194,910

201,687

194,176

187,538

Total expenses  

187,441

201,687

194,176

5,933

Net surplus 

7,469

-

-

Footnote 9: Judicial satisfaction is measured by an annual survey of the District Court judiciary, which is conducted in July. The performance measure standard is the percentage of judges who rate case management, file preparation, file presentation and courtroom and hearing support provided as ‘meets expectations’ or better. The scale for responses is: far exceeds expectations, above expectations, meets expectations, below expectations and well below expectations. Formal and informal feedback processes are used to manage the quality of support that the Ministry provides in all jurisdictions in the District Court. The 2011 District Courts Judicial Satisfaction Survey had a response rate of 30% (53 out of a possible 177 respondents).

Footnote 10: Juror satisfaction is measured by an annual survey of jurors, which is conducted during July. The performance measure standard is the percentage of survey responses where jurors rate their overall satisfaction level with specific services as ‘satisfied’ or better. The scale for responses is: very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, dissatisfied and very dissatisfied.

Footnote 11: The standard included in the Estimates of Appropriations 2010/11 was 85%. As the Ministry has continued to receive high satisfaction reported with juror services, the standard was increased to 90%. This also aligns the standard to those for the Ministry’s other satisfaction surveys.

Footnote 12: Judicial satisfaction is measured by an annual survey of the District Court judiciary, which is conducted in July. The performance measure standard is the percentage of judges who rate case management, file preparation, file presentation and courtroom and hearing support provided as ‘meets expectations’ or better. The scale for responses is: far exceeds expectations, above expectations, meets expectations, below expectations and well below expectations. Formal and informal feedback processes are used to manage the quality of support that the Ministry provides in all jurisdictions in the District Court. The 2011 District Courts Judicial Satisfaction Survey had a response rate of 30% (53 out of a possible 177 respondents). 

Output class three: Specialist courts, tribunals and other authorities’ services

SCOPE

This appropriation covers the provision of services in relation to the work of the Environment Court, Employment Court, Māori Land Court, Māori Appellate Court, Disputes Tribunals, Tenancy Tribunal, Liquor Licensing Authority, coroners and a range of tribunals and other authorities. This output class also includes services to Māori landowners and contracting mortuary services as part of supporting the work of coroners.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

The Māori Land Court exceeded its target of 5,500 in both applications received and disposed for the year. The historical trend of a steady increase of cases on hand has been reversed and has been tracking down since March 2011.

Caseloads for coronial services have increased by 15% over the year owing to the impact of the Christchurch earthquakes. Despite the impact of resources being diverted to assist with enquiries and the Disaster Victim Identification process, the number of disposals is 6% above forecast nationally.

New business in the Environment and Employment Courts has been significantly lower than forecast, which has contributed to both achieving over 100% clearance rate for 2010/11.

Caseloads have increased in the Accident Compensation Appeals District Court Registry by 22%. The tribunals unit is refining its registry processes to ensure the caseload is being managed as effectively as possible.  

Actual
2009/10
Performance indicator  Standard
2010/11 
Actual
2010/11 
Variance explanation
Employment Court
100%  Percentage of Employment Court judges surveyed that rate case management/file preparation and presentation as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 13) 90% 100% The Employment Court has continued its high standard of support provided to judges.
100% Percentage of Employment Court judges surveyed that rate courtroom and hearing support as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 13) 90% 100% The Employment Court has continued its high standard of support provided to judges.
80% Percentage of Employment Court pending cases under 12 months old  80% 63% Employment Court pending cases less than 12 months old were below forecast owing to complexities arising during cases, which required adjournments to enable parties to undertake further negotiations. Other cases were stayed owing to the financial situation of plaintiffs.
260  Cases received by the Employment Court   240   178  

Cases received by the Employment Court were lower than forecast owing to:

  • forecasts allowed for amendments to the Employment Relations Authority, which came into force in April 2011. These amendments have removed fewer cases than forecast
  • forecasts were based on 2009/10 actual figures, which had an unsustained increase compared with previous years. 
223 Cases disposed by the Employment Court    200   237   The number of cases disposed in 2010/11 was higher than forecast owing to there being fewer applications received. This has enabled the Court to clear some of the cases on hand.
Environment Court        
100%  Percentage of Environment Court judges surveyed that rate case management/file preparation and presentation as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 14) 90% 93%  
100%  Percentage of Environment Court judges surveyed that rate courtroom, hearing and mediation support as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 14) 95% 100%  
52% Percentage of Environment Court pending Plan and Policy Statement Appeals under 12 months old  50% 52%  
52% Percentage of Resource Consent Appeals and other Environment Court matters under six months old  55% 47% The percentage of resource consent appeals and other matters under six months old was lower than forecast owing to a marked reduction in consent appeals filed, which has reduced the number of appeals under six months old relative to the overall consent workload. 
826  Cases received by the Environment Court 960  605  The number of cases received was significantly lower than forecast. The forecast was based on historic trends and a more rapid economic recovery over the year.
1,006  Cases disposed by the Environment Court   1,056  917  The number of cases disposed was below forecast owing to a reduced number of cases being received.
Coronial services        
100% Percentage of coroners surveyed that rate inquest hearing support as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 15) 90% 91%  
91% Percentage of coroners surveyed that rate case management/file preparation and presentation as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 15) 90% 82%  
5,542  Cases referred by the Coronial Services Unit  6,000  5,848   
5,618 Cases disposed by the Coronial Services Unit   5,000  5,300   
Māori Land Court        
83% Percentage of Māori Land Court judges surveyed that rate judicial support and administrative services provided as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 15) 90% 83%  
100% Percentage of Māori Land Court judges surveyed that rate courtroom and hearing support as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 15) 90% 100% The Māori Land Court has provided a high standard of courtroom support to judges.
100%  Percentage of customers surveyed satisfied with the services provided by the Māori Land Court (see Footnote 16) 90% 98%  
81% Percentage of all Māori Land Court applications disposed within 12 months  80% 92% Māori Land Court applications disposed within 12 months was above forecast owing to the reprioritisation of resources to required areas, reporting and monitoring systems improvements and a concerted effort by staff to implement changes and exceed targets.
74% Percentage of written enquiries to the Māori Land Court completed within 10 working days of receipt 80% 81%  
5,809  Number of applications received by the Māori Land Court  5,500  5,728 
 
4,685  Number of applications disposed by the Māori Land Court  5,500 5,538  
Judicial officers        
100% Percentage of judicial officers surveyed that rate case management/file preparation and presentation as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 17) 90% 83%  
83% Percentage of judicial officers surveyed that rate hearing and hearing room support as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 17) 90% 72%  
Disputes Tribunal        
20,419  Cases received by the Disputes Tribunal  22,300  17,986  The number of cases received by the Disputes Tribunal was lower than anticipated. The forecast was based on an expected increase in cases owing to the extension of the jurisdiction limit in 2009, which has not eventuated.
19,419 Cases disposed by the Disputes Tribunal  22,500  18,741  The number of cases disposed by the Disputes Tribunal was lower than forecast owing to significantly fewer cases being received than expected.
80%  Percentage of Disputes Tribunal pending cases under three months old  80% 75%
Weathertight Homes Tribunal        
100% Percentage of Weathertight Homes Tribunal cases resolved within statutory timeframes  100% 100%  
219  Cases received by the Weathertight Homes Tribunal  240  148  The number of cases disposed is lower than forecast as many potential claimants were awaiting full details of the Department of Building and Housing's financial assistance package. Details of the package were released in July 2011.
114  Cases disposed by the Weathertight Homes Tribunal  240  105  Cases disposed by the Weathertight Homes Tribunal were lower than forecast owing to the difficulty in getting dates for mediation that were agreeable to all parties and because some claims were put on hold to await full details of the financial assistance package.
Tenancy Tribunal        
38,316 Cases disposed by the Tenancy Tribunal – cases determined and mediation orders sealed  37,000  37,323  
3,363  Number of Tenancy Tribunal sitting days supported  3,328.5 3,455   
Legal Complaints Review Officer        
237  Cases received by the Legal Complaints Review Officer  250  296  The number of cases received was higher than forecast owing to a greater consumer awareness of the Legal Complaints Review Officer, which is now in its third year of operation.
158  Cases disposed by the Legal Complaints Review Officer  230  172  Disposals were lower than forecast owing to reduced judicial capacity in the early months of the financial year and an increased complexity of cases that meant cases took longer to dispose. More judicial resource is required, however, the Legal Complaints Review Officer is currently at the limit allowed by legislation. The Ministry is seeking to amend this through the Statutes Amendment Bill.
56  Legal Complaints Review Officer sitting days supported  60  42  Sitting days supported were lower than forecast owing to reduced judicial capacity in the early months of the financial year and the increased complexity of cases received.
Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal        
28  Cases received by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal   30   23  The forecast for cases received by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal was based on the 2009/10 figures, which were higher than the number received in 2010/11. The forecast for 2011/12 has been reduced.
20  Cases disposed by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal  24  21  Cases disposed were lower than forecast owing to the lower number of cases filed, which resulted in fewer decisions being issued.
24.5 Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal sitting days supported  60  21  Sitting days supported were lower than forecast owing to fewer cases being filed and more cases being dealt with on the papers, without the need for a hearing.
Liquor Licensing Authority        
New measure  Number of Liquor Licensing Authority cases filed  1,400-1,500  1,724  The number of cases filed with the Authority was higher than forecast owing to a 30% increase in the number of Police-initiated enforcement applications.
New measure  Number of Liquor Licensing Authority cases disposed  1,400-1,500 1,617  The Authority has exceeded its forecast for disposals and has largely managed to keep pace with the increase in cases filed.
New measure  Percentage of Liquor Licensing Authority pending cases less than six months old  80% 69% There was a 5% increase in cases filed with the Liquor Licensing Authority (enforcement applications), which had an impact on hearing time availability. Enforcement applications are generally more complex and take longer to dispose. However, the overall impact on the Authority has not been significant and caseloads are being managed effectively. The forecasts for the 2011/12 year have been updated to reflect the increase.
Immigration and Protection Tribunal        
New measure  Sitting days supported for the Immigration and Protection Tribunal   60  113  The number of sitting days for the Immigration and Protection Tribunal was above forecast owing to a higher number of cases being filed with the Tribunal. The Tribunal has improved its operating procedures to ensure cases are being cleared as quickly and efficiently as possible.
New measure  Number of cases filed with the Immigration and Protection Tribunal  50-60  628  The year end target is incorrect, as it only includes cases filed with the Deportation Review Tribunal, as opposed to all four of the authorities that the Immigration and Protection Tribunal replaced. The target for 2011/12 has been amended to accurately reflect the number of cases expected.
New measure  Number of cases disposed by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal  70-75  458  The year end target is incorrect, as it only includes cases filed with the Deportation Review Tribunal, as opposed to all four of the authorities that the Immigration and Protection Tribunal replaced. The target for 2011/12 has been amended to accurately reflect the number of cases expected.
Real Estate Agents Authority        
New measure  Number of cases received by the Real Estate Agents Authority  50  137  The number of cases received by the Authority was higher than forecast owing to a large backlog of cases before the Real Estate Agents Authority's Complaints Assessment Committee being cleared, leading to an increase in the number of appeals to the Authority.
New measure  Number of cases disposed by the Real Estate Agents Authority  45  63  The high caseload resulted in a higher than expected disposal rate. The forecasts for 2011/12 have been amended to reflect the higher caseload.
New measure  Sitting days supported for the Real Estate Agents Authority  40  16  A total of 41 sitting days were scheduled over the course of the 2010/11 year but only 16 sitting days were used owing to withdrawals, matters being resolved by Chair-led discussion and a number of matters being heard on the papers, without the need for a hearing.
Real Estate Disciplinary Tribunal        
New measure  Number of cases received by the Real Estate Disciplinary Tribunal  50  134  The number of cases received by the Tribunal is owing to a large backlog of cases before the Real Estate Agents Authority's Complaints Assessment Committee being cleared, leading to an increase in the number of appeals to the Tribunal.
New measure  Number of cases disposed by the Real Estate Disciplinary Tribunal  45  64  The high caseload has resulted in a higher than expected disposal rate. The forecasts for 2011/12 have been amended to reflect the higher caseload.
New measure  Sitting days supported for the Real Estate Disciplinary Tribunal  40  16  A total of 41 sitting days were scheduled over the course of the 2010/11 year but only 16 used were owing to withdrawals, matters being resolved by Chair-led discussion and a number of matters being heard on the papers (without the need for a hearing).
Deportation Review Tribunal        
New measure  Number of cases filed with the Deportation Review Tribunal   15-20  25  The Deportation Review Tribunal became part of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal as of 29 November 2010.
New measure  Number of cases disposed by the Deportation Review Tribunal  20-30  17  The Deportation Review Tribunal became part of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal as of 29 November 2010.
Human Rights Review Tribunal        
New measure  Number of cases filed with the Human Rights Review Tribunal   35-45  46  The number of cases filed with the Human Rights Review Tribunal was one case above the expected forecast range. The Tribunal has achieved a 100% clearance rate for 2010/11 and the number of cases filed is driven by demand.
New measure  Number of cases disposed by the Human Rights Review Tribunal   45-50  45   
Social Security Appeals Authority      
New measure  Number of cases filed with the Social Security Appeals Authority    160-165  192  The number of cases filed with the Authority was higher than forecast owing to an increase in the number of people receiving financial assistance from Ministry of Social Development.
New measure  Number of cases disposed by the Social Security Appeals Authority   130-140  147  
Accident Compensation Appeals        
New measure  Number of Accident Compensation Appeals cases filed  900–1,000  892   
New measure  Number of Accident Compensation Appeals cases disposed  450-460  691  The number of cases disposed was 52% higher than forecast owing to approximately 200 cases being withdrawn as a result of precedent set by a Court of Appeal decision in August 2010.

OUTPUT CLASS STATEMENT

Actual
30 June 2010
$000

 

Actual
30 June 2011
$000

Main estimates
30 June 2011
$000

Supplementary estimates
30 June 2011
$000
 

 

Revenue

     

72,300

Crown

69,029

69,874

69,029

953

Departmental  

1,737

2,509

2,509

5,091

Other  

5,825

4,325

5,382

78,344

Total revenue  

76,591

76,708

76,920

76,731

Total expenses  

74,976

76,708

76,920

1,613

Net surplus 

1,615

 -

 -

Footnote 13: Judicial satisfaction is measured by an annual survey of Environment Court, Employment Court and Māori Land Court judiciary and coroners, which is conducted in July. The performance measure standard is the percentage of judges who rate case management, file preparation, file presentation and courtroom and hearing support provided as ‘meets expectations’ or better. The scale for responses is: far exceeds expectations, above expectations, meets expectations, below expectations and well below expectations. Formal and informal feedback processes are used to manage the quality of support that the Ministry provides in all jurisdictions. The 2011 Employment Court Survey had a response rate of 75% (3 out of a possible 4 respondents).

Footnote 14: Judicial satisfaction is measured by an annual survey of Environment Court, Employment Court and Māori Land Court judiciary and coroners, which is conducted in July. The performance measure standard is the percentage of judges who rate case management, file preparation, file presentation and courtroom and hearing support provided as ‘meets expectations’ or better. The scale for responses is: far exceeds expectations, above expectations, meets expectations, below expectations and well below expectations. Formal and informal feedback processes are used to manage the quality of support that the Ministry provides in all jurisdictions. The 2011 Environment Court Survey had a response rate of 40% (14 out of a possible 35 respondents).

Footnote 15: Judicial satisfaction is measured by an annual survey of Environment Court, Employment Court and Māori Land Court judiciary and coroners, which is conducted in July. The performance measure standard is the percentage of judges who rate case management, file preparation, file presentation and courtroom and hearing support provided as ‘meets expectations’ or better. The scale for responses is: far exceeds expectations, above expectations, meets expectations, below expectations and well below expectations. Formal and informal feedback processes are used to manage the quality of support that the Ministry provides in all jurisdictions. The 2011 Coroners’ Survey had a response rate of 65% (11 out of a possible 17 respondents). The 2011 Māori Land Court Survey had a response rate of 70% (7 out of a possible 10 respondents).

Footnote 16: Customer satisfaction with the Māori Land Court is measured on a monthly basis by both electronic and manual means. The performance result is calculated from the percentage of Māori Land Court users surveyed (using a scale of one to five, with one being the lowest and five being the highest) who rated the service provided by the Court as three or higher. 

Footnote 17: Judicial satisfaction is measured by an annual survey of Environment Court, Employment Court and Māori Land Court judiciary and coroners, which is conducted in July. The performance measure standard is the percentage of judges who rate case management, file preparation, file presentation and courtroom and hearing support provided as ‘meets expectations’ or better. The scale for responses is: far exceeds expectations, above expectations, meets expectations, below expectations and well below expectations. Formal and informal feedback processes are used to manage the quality of support that the Ministry provides in all jurisdictions. The 2011 Tribunals Survey had a response rate of 33% (70 out of a possible 215 respondents).

Output class four: Waitangi Tribunal services

SCOPE

This appropriation covers the provision of research and administrative services in relation to the management of claims through the Waitangi Tribunal.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

Actual
2009/10
Performance indicator  Standard
2010/11 
Actual
2010/11 
Variance explanation
100%  Percentage of Waitangi Tribunal judicial officers surveyed that rate case management/file preparation and presentation as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 18) 90% 91% 
 
100% Percentage of Waitangi Tribunal judicial officers surveyed that rate hearing support as ‘meets expectations’ or better (see Footnote 18) 90% 91%  
90%  Percentage of research and report writing outputs provided by due date  85% 89%  
23  Number of new claims lodged 15  17 There were more claims lodged than forecast in 2010/11. This increase was owing to the demand-driven nature of this measure, which is governed by the claimants' desire to lodge claims. It is difficult to estimate how many claims are likely to be lodged, as many claimants prefer to amend existing claims rather than lodge new ones.
171 Number of new claims registered  65  55  Fewer claims were registered in 2010/11 owing to a number of claims not meeting section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi, therefore being unable to be registered.

OUTPUT CLASS STATEMENT

Actual
30 June 2010
$000

 

Actual
30 June 2011
$000

Main estimates
30 June 2011
$000

Supplementary estimates
30 June 2011
$000
 

 

Revenue

     

10,297

Crown

10,396

9,777

10,396

96

Departmental  

101

83

83

9

Other  

12

40

40

10,402

Total revenue  

10,509

9,900

10,519

10,301

Total expenses  

10,092

9,900

10,519

101

Net surplus 

417

 -

 -

Footnote 18: Judicial satisfaction is measured by an annual survey of the Waitangi Tribunal, Environment Court, Employment Court and Māori Land Court judiciary and coroners, which is conducted during July. The performance measure standard is the percentage of survey responses that rate case management, file preparation, file presentation and courtroom, hearing or mediation (where applicable) support as ‘meets expectations’ or better. The scale for responses is: far exceeds expectations, above expectations, meets expectations, below expectations and well below expectations. The 2011 Waitangi Tribunal Survey had a response rate of 65% (11 out of a possible 17 respondents).

Output class five: Collection and enforcement of fines and civil debts services

SCOPE

This appropriation covers the provision of services in relation to the collection and enforcement of fines and civil debts.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

Actual
2009/10
Performance indicator  Standard
2010/11 
Actual
2010/11 
Variance explanation
84% Percentage of court-imposed fines collected or placed under arrangement within four months  82.5% 85%  
71% Percentage of infringement fines collected or placed under arrangement within four months  70%  70%  
93% Percentage of civil enforcement applications actioned within 28 days of receipt of court  90% 93.3%  
New measure  Percentage of offender levy collected or placed under arrangement within four months  25% 76.1%  More offenders than anticipated have been paying the levy immediately. 
New measure   Amount collected from the offender levy  $2 million   $3.7 million   More offenders than anticipated have been paying the levy immediately. 
$254.6 million   Total amount collected   $262 million  $252 million  Although the target for fines collected was higher for 2010/11 than that collected in 2009/10, a decrease in impositions has contributed to collections being 4%, or $10 million, below target.

OUTPUT CLASS STATEMENT

Actual
30 June 2010
$000

 

Actual
30 June 2011
$000

Main estimates
30 June 2011
$000

Supplementary estimates
30 June 2011
$000
 

 

Revenue

     

63,693

Crown

64,428

66,794

64,428

602

Departmental  

675

1,010

1,010

1,846

Other  

1,776

3,641

3,641

66,141

Total revenue  

66,879

71,445

69,079

65,746

Total expenses  

67,571

71,445

69,079

395

Net surplus 

(692)

-

-