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:13521. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I do not want to unduly delay the Committee and dwell unnecessarily on parts of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. These are largely technical provisions here. I think what is clear from the provisions and what they illustrate is the continuing transfer of the cost of the administration of family justice to the participants themselves. It reflects a flavour that is going right through this bill—and it has been commented on already in the debate on the bill today—and that is the departure from the principle that the State has a stake in the effective administration of family disputes and that the State has an interest in ensuring that family disputes are resolved to the best degree possible in a way that preserves and protects the interests of children and in a way that preserves the dignity of the parents or the separating couple.This bill is all about transferring cost. In all the pieces of legislation referred to in Part 5 which is all about applications relating to aspects of a family separation—so that is the Child Support Act for example and other aspects of the Family Courts Act—any time the interests of a party particularly children need to be represented and there is the power to appoint counsel to assist there is now an accompanying provision to effectively transfer or at the very least share the cost of that. That is the whole flavour of this bill.So when my colleagues said in their contributions much to the chagrin of the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice that this bill is about cutting costs to the State and about transferring costs and transferring risk this part of the bill bears that out. That is exactly what this piece of legislation is all about. It is about the State saying irrespective of the increase in the costs of family dispute resolution that it does not want to take responsibility any more. It is not good enough for the Minister to say “Oh there’s been the huge blowout in costs.” without explaining actually what has happened. There are more parties to family disputes and separations participating actively in that process.Once upon a time even 10 years ago very few men actually actively participated in a lot of these proceedings and exercised their rights of representation whereas now that is happening. There is a fathers’ rights movement a men’s movement that has become more active—some would say more aggressive—in ensuring that men as partners in dissolving relationships start to get heard in some cases make a fuss and in some cases which I think is what the Minister was adverting to in her comments make what somemight describe as an unnecessary fuss or to at least be litigious. Whatever the reason—and it is not for us gainsay the motives of people who are asserting their legal rights want to have an active role to play in their children’s lives and are taking steps to ensure that that happens—that largely explains what has been happening in the Family Court jurisdiction over the last 10 years and why the cost has blown out.That is why this legislation is passed with this kind of headline motivation which is “We’ve got to cut costs.” without actually looking at what those costs have been going into. It has seen more family separations resolved in the interests of both parents and of the children and that is the difference. This part deals with ensuring that the cost of any other application under any other piece of legislation that involves representation of the children now be shared. So impecunious parents who might otherwise rely upon legal aid at least for their own representation may now find themselves saddled with the cost or the share of it for counsel for the child or even counsel assisting the court. There is that right if the court is concerned that any party is unrepresented and the court needs assistance or if the issues are complex.I know the Minister said that the issues of family law are not that complex. But actually the legislation says yes there are complex issues and the court might need assistance which is why a lawyer might be appointed to assist the court. Well this says that that cost will be apportioned between the parties as well. This part of the legislation Part 5 is all about demonstrating that whole thing about transferring the cost to the parties. I do not know what the Minister is doing whether she is playingAngry Birds orgoogling MarjorieProops or what it is but she might listen to hear—Hon Judith Collins: That’s insulting. I don’t do that.ANDREW LITTLE: I am not quite sure what the insult is in playingAngry Birds. I am sure at least half the members of the Committee probably do it at some stage if they were honest with themselves. If the Minister admitted to playingAngry Birds she would go down at least with some part of the population as hip and with it. But if she does not want that that is all right. If she wants to present a different image that is entirely up to her.Dr Rajen Prasad: What’s the image?ANDREW LITTLE: Well I can have a guess as to what the image is. I want to say this about MarjorieProops because I do not want her name insulted. I do not want MarjorieProops’ name insulted in this Committee. She was a long-standing—over many decades—contributor to theDaily Mail. I do not think it wasThe Daily Telegraph; I think it was theDaily Mail. She dispensed advice to couples and to others for many many years and was highly regarded at least in the United Kingdom. I do not think anybody should take her name in vain nor should anybody who is likened to her think that that should be regarded as an insult.Hon Ruth Dyson: Was someone doing that? Was someone taking her name in vain?ANDREW LITTLE: Her name was mentioned and somebody took offence. I think that was a problem.Hon Ruth Dyson: How could you take offence?ANDREW LITTLE: I do not know how you could possibly take offence at being compared with dear old MarjorieProops. But that gets off the point—only a little bit but it does get off the point.The point that I wish to make is this. Part 5 is really the culminating aspect of the entire bill. It is all about cutting costs. It is about transferring costs to the families at a time when they are distressed when they are in emotional trauma and when they need assistance the most. They need a court that does not just know the law but is empathetic and sympathetic to those who are coming before it. That is what defines the Family Court. That is why it has been a good court for the last 30 years and why the measuresin this legislation which are about gutting the important role of the court and transferring the costs to parties who are facing the trauma of a dissolved relationship mean that life is just going to get much harder. That is why we are deeply distressed at the provisions in this bill why we are opposed to it and why we will continue to oppose it. It is disappointing that the Minister in spite of all the good advice she has received including from the expert reference group and indeed from members of this side of the Chamber persists with a piece of legislation that is going to be bad for families and bad for New Zealand as a whole.