Little Andrew: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13492. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Part 3 really is not so much the meat of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill as the meat and potatoes of it. It is a crucial section that establishes a whole new regime of dispute resolution in the family jurisdiction. Aside from the MarjorieProops rendition we had when we had the Committee stage of Part 1 where the Minister of Justice admonished every couple in New Zealand and told them to pull their socks up behave themselves and sort out their difficult affairs this is the part of the bill that is apparently meant to deliver this whole new outbreak of peace in family circles particularly for those families who are having difficulty keeping their relationships together. And if MarjorieProops is going to be our guide when it comes to resolving family disputes then we had better get it right.The problem with the regime that is set up now is that there are very few safeguards for couples who have difficulty understanding the magnitude of the decisions they are being called upon to make particularly in relation to the care of children who are the subject of a marital dissolution or a marital dispute. This regime depends upon couples acting like very comfortable middle class rational sensible people who have got their emotions under control have got their sense of grief under control and can make perfectly sensible decisions. Pollyanna would have difficulty finding those couples when they are going through a marital dissolution. MarjorieProops would as well. We will now have a regime that was no doubt drafted by well-meaning officials and a well-meaning Minister in the comfort of leather-bound and leather-clad chairs but it is a regime that actually bears very little relation to the reality of marital dispute and that is the disappointing thing about it.So going through some of the key aspects let us look at clause 60 of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 349. Clause 60 requires the facilitators who are to be appointed to conduct these dispute resolution procedures to be accredited by the Ministry of Justice and no doubt they have to meet criteria. But when you have a look at clause 60(3) you see that any appointment can be made on any conditions whatsoever. There is no oversight by the Minister—no oversight at all—and therefore no grounds for accountability. So the question to the Minister is this: what accountability is there going to be when it comes to appointing people who will be playing this crucial role of assisting separating couples to deal with their outstanding issues? What accountability is there going to be? How do we know that these people are going to be fit for and suited to the task?How can couples who are going through this emotional turmoil be assured by those who give them advice whether informal or formal if they can afford it that the people who are going to be entering the most intimate and delicate parts of their lives are fit and up to the task? They can be appointed on any terms and conditions that the Secretary for Justice thinks fit. I simply say that that is not good enough. A Minister who was giving proper thought to the drafting of this bill would not allow a power to be given against which there can be no accountability. We do not want lazy drafting from lazy Ministers. We do not need the MarjorieProops view of the world that we all just pull up our socks and behave ourselves. We actually need proper accountability.We come to the crucial part which is clause 60B but before we get to that I just want to make this point—and a hard-working Minister would have picked this up. It is the drafting in clause 60A that provides the indefinite article before the abbreviated term FDR. It should be the proper indefinite article “A” not “An”. It should not be “An FDR”. That is the oral version—that is what you say when you are reading it out. If it was properly drafted we would have “A FDR provider” referred to there not “An FDR provider”.But I want to come to clause 60B(5) because this is really where the rubber meets the road. This allows the family dispute resolution provider—this person who is accredited by the Secretary for Justice on no conditions at all that we are ever going to know about because there will be no accountability—to terminate a facilitated or mediated session if they decide that the dispute cannot be resolved within a reasonable time. I just wonder what that really will mean in practice.It will mean that once the family dispute resolution provider having been paid their $900 out of the pockets of the couple in dispute—they have to pick up that cost; there is no assistance for that—is satisfied that their $900 worth of value has been exhausted what are they going to do? They have no interest in carrying it on because remember these facilitators are all private providers. They get their 900 bucks up front and what are they going to do?Well it is very clear what they are going to do. When it gets just too hard and time runs out that is it. They are “outski”. They are off. They will write to the Family Court and say: “That’s it. I’ve done my bit. These are too hard for me. Look these are people with real emotions. They want me to deal with that. These are people with children who actually need to know that they are being given a proper resolution. It is all too hard and I have given $900 worth of my time and I’m out of here.” That is what that will mean. That is what that will do.This is not about resolving family disputes in the spirit of proper mediation and resolution and conciliation—even reconciliation if possible. This is an economic transaction. Couples will be forced into it because this is mandatory and there will be no way out. It is the facilitator who can decide when they have had enough—when they have had $900 worth. That is the insidious thing about it and it goes on of course in clause 60B(9). That clause says “An FDR provider”—once again the indefinite article wrong; it should be “A”—“cannot be required to attend court to explain” their opinion about why it should all come to an end. So they have absolute carte blanche control and they are not called to account. There is no accountability around the appointment of them. There is no accountability around their decision to terminate a mediation process.What sort of process is this? It is a moneymaking scheme for those who get accredited by the Secretary for Justice and unfortunately the track record of this Government in looking after its mates when it comes to these sorts of things gives me no reassurance at all that we are going to have a quality system of family dispute resolution. This is the shameful part of it—this is the shameful part of it.We are concerned about this process. This is a process that will be compulsory for couples. There is very little accountability around it. They are expected according to our MarjorieProops Minister to be totally rational to be totally sensible to be in full grip of their faculties and to resolve the most difficult and the most emotional dispute that any couple any person would ever get into—the separation of their marriage or their partnership. That is an impossible ask. And then we are going to put in place these people who are not equipped to give legal advice but will be asking couples to make decisions that will have a significant legal effect and a huge impact not only on them but on any children of the partnership or the marriage. And couples are expected to do that in a process in which those mediators those facilitators have no accountability at all—and they are expected to stump up $900 to boot.Part of the process of agreement can be that a mediator if they do get to the end of resolving the dispute can order how much of that $900 can be apportioned between the couple. This is not a recipe for finding a resolution. This is a recipe for disaster. This is the distressing thing about it. Actually what I predict we will see is that more couples will find a reason to get before a judge because people want to know that they are dealing with somebody who is not only independent dispassionate and understands these things and has a background in it but also understands the legal impact of what they are doing—because the facilitators will not have that.The Minister’s regime under this bill is to deprive people of legal advice. Those who need legal aid—and we will come on to that in a later section of this bill because that is being whittled back as well—will get very little legal aid and assistance before they get into this process and none while they are in it. This is setting us up for a regime of failure despondency despair and I would say more use of the Family Court and judicial resources than we have ever seen before. That is the failure of this bill. It is a disgrace and that is why we are opposed to it.