From our perspective, the inclusion of the escalator and tying it to CPI and saying that unless a department has in its own enabling legislation with a built-in escalator, in which case it was set through their legislative process...was basically to say that at a minimum we want to make sure that the gap in the public-private split—the difference between the fees collected and the cost of delivering those services—remains static. As costs go up, by CPI and so on, the fee should then go up accordingly.
Looking at it from an individual fee perspective becomes part of the discussion for the departments that are looking at their fees—raising, modifying, potentially even reducing them as efficiencies or whatever come through, but looking at their fees in terms of what or how these come into play. The experience since 2004, with only 18 fees coming through, either by being introduced or renewed, means that we have literally thousands of fees that have not had any increase in decades, in some cases. As a result, the departmental appropriations—general taxpayer dollars—are being used to subsidize those specialized services.
From our perspective, then, putting the CPI in the legislation is really to keep that gap, so that the broader policy discussion can happen where it should happen, which is with the responsible ministers and their departments.