Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. The Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill as the Minister has outlined is an item of work that fits within a broader context and I think that she's made some very sensible points in relation to that. I'll delay no further before advising that the National Party does support this legislation and I'll explain why we think that it's a useful step in the right direction as I go through this 10-minute contribution but I will of course also note areas in which we'll be really interested to hear discussed at select committee to understand the extent to which it may be useful and to consider what other measures might also assist to solve the same problem.First though I think it's worthwhile to acknowledge that making legislation in the area of the way that the courts operate is something that we should do carefully in this House. I don't mean to suggest that the Government isn't doing it appropriately in this case but I will say that I think it's always fair to acknowledge that the courts in a way are a separate realm—they're certainly a separate branch of Government. Mostly there's a degree of separation in terms of policy matters; you know we make the laws they apply them or interpret them and thereby also make them I suppose. It's worth acknowledging that. But I think in terms of the operation of the courts while we don't interfere with the decisions of courts at a day-to-day level it's appropriate for this branch of Government the legislature to give courts the tools that they need to be able to carry out their job independently. So one of the tools that can be offered to them we've heard from the Minister through her presentation now in the form of the legislative statement and indeed the bill itself is the creation of a role known as Family Court Associate. The problem that needs to be solved is—I suppose the first question—the Minister has rightly pointed us in the direction of the independent panel that was established to understand some of the failings of the current justice system—more particularly the court system and more particularly than that of course the Family Court. It's well known in the legal fraternity—but sadly all too well known among those who have had the unfortunate experience of interacting with the Family Court in the way of their ordinary lives necessitating that dealing in a non-professional context—that the Family Court has been beset by difficulties over many years. I think it's fair to acknowledge that these are longstanding issues that we're discussing effectively tonight and no Government has exactly got it right. I think that it's important for all parliamentarians to take very seriously the problems that we face and commit ourselves to trying to help to solve them. So what then are the problems? Well as outlined by that independent panel one of them is the delay of resolution of issues in court that is a widespread problem that impacts on most other areas in the family justice system. I think most importantly it contributes to a deepening family and whānau conflict including with parents but involving of course sadly in a lot of cases children being the pawns in the game of chess that is conflict played out in the Family Court and that's deeply unfortunate to say the least for the young lives involved. Delay will often exacerbate existing divisions or break down relationships that should otherwise exist between parent and child notwithstanding the other parent may have different ideas about how things should proceed. So that was one category of problem. It's easy to be glib and use expressions like justice delayed is justice denied." and it seems so obvious to say and we say it a lot but we say it because it's true and in the Family Court particularly quite tragic consequences oft in times of these delays.The second half of the problem that's sought to be remedied by this bill is the high administrative workload of judges. That's a contributing factor to delays. So these things are not entirely independent. But I think we should ask ourselves as we go through whether there are opportunities to reduce the administrative burden as well as doing the thing that this bill is looking to do which is to share the burden by creating a Family Court Associate who can help the judge with her or his work and so share that burden in a way that's set out by law as prescribed pretty tightly as we'll see with the detail about the particular Acts of Parliament that are being amended in this way.So the Family Court Associate is a new creature I suppose of statute—a judicial officer we will call that person—and will have what I'd be tempted to call quasi-judicial roles—I suppose actually technically they are judicial roles; they're currently conducted by judges and so it's appropriate that they won't be able to be dismissed readily; there would need to be good cause for that. Their pay can't be reduced while they're in office and so on. So there can't be political interference whether that's in this place or indeed politics with a lowercase "p" perhaps being exercised in a court context. So we would see that they would be appointed for a certain period of time with an opportunity for renewal and they would fulfil various functions of the judges themselves including that they would be able to transfer a preceding to a judge proper if the matter is too complex for the associate himself or herself.So all this is very well but it's worth noting and I did foreshadow this at the start even as I said that National would be supporting the bill that there are issues that we in this House and the select committee—and I note that its chair is present tonight and other members of that committee are present so I ask them to take on board the questions that National has in this space. The first of which would be: the extent to which other measures are going to be needed in this as well. Now the bill only has a certain scope but we have to see these things in context. We have to acknowledge this is something of a band-aid solution to a gaping wound. The court system is in turmoil. It's been exacerbated by COVID-19. Yes that's there to acknowledge. But we do need more imagination creativity and urgency to be applied to the solutions to these problems. So this is a step in the right direction but it's a small step and we need to bear that in mind.Second we need to have some understanding of the extent to which this is going to help—in the eyes of the Government or those who are advising them to what extent can we expect delays and processing times and so forth to be reduced? That's something that we won't know with exactitude and it's an exercise in making a prediction and therefore trying to look into the future but to at least have some sort of feel for what the Government is aiming to achieve by this legislation would be very helpful in terms of ensuring its continued support not only in this House but actually more importantly in the courts themselves.Next we also need to acknowledge that these are measures that won't be able to be undertaken immediately. The Family Court Associates need to be recruited—that's an issue in itself; we'll come back to that—and trained and then start operating in a way that is knowable and accountable in terms of the rules of the court. That's probably with the courts more so than the Parliament or the relevant Minister. But these procedures need to be developed. The recruitment needs to be taking place. The related point there is that we will be recruiting from a pool of people who are already practising in this space. If we're to have family lawyers who are experienced to the tune of at least seven years in this jurisdiction then that means that these will be practitioners who aren't able to operate on the other side of the bench so to speak. So there'll be an element of robbing Peter to pay Paul—that's probably inevitable to set up such a system; I wouldn't suggest or want to be misinterpreted as suggesting that we should have people who are inexperienced. So it's probably a feature of the system rather than a bug but nevertheless there is a cost to these things. It's not a silver bullet as I say that we'll be able to establish this role appoint people to it and be out of the woods entirely in terms of the delays the processing difficulties and so forth.And finally—and it's a very mundane point perhaps but actually I think an important one—the physical spaces the courtrooms themselves. I think it's been acknowledged in the supporting documentation provided by the Government these areas need to accommodate the fact that there'll be this additional person or persons conducting this role; they need a degree of independence. They certainly need to be able to have a workable situation to be able to perform these various functions.So for all these reasons we're cautious. We don't think it's a silver bullet but we do think it is in itself a useful measure. So I say National will continue to support the bill as long as we have a good-faith engagement from the Minister the select committee and others who are like us committed to the ideal of a fast fair and efficient justice system including and especially the Family Court which has been left for far too long to languish as a very unhelpful institution. We certainly hope that it can be better in that and we commit ourselves to that purpose."