O'Rourke Denis: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7037. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 The Government was right this year to review the Family Court and the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill as we know is the outcome. It is an omnibus bill amending several Acts dealing with children and families. 
Family cases especially those dealing with the custody of children and related issues are taking up a rapidly increasing amount of court time and they are taking up a very large share of the legal aid vote. Many cases are not really suitable for the court and do need mediation rather than determination if possible—if practicable. There is very little benefit for families or children where there is unnecessary resort to the courts where the family itself can best sort out its issues with some help. Some separated spouses by the way not entitled to legal aid are being intimidated by the other spouse who can get legal aid resorting to the Family Court when a dispute can be better resolved by mediation and agreement where appropriate and practicable. 
The thrust of the bill therefore is to encourage faster and less expensive resolution by requiring parties to participate in a new out-of-court resolution process and in a parenting information programme before going to the Family Court for a parenting or guardianship order. But that will work only if these services are well resourced are accessible and in particular are not too expensive. That is the challenge for the Government to demonstrate through the next phases of this bill. 
It is wise however to focus the Family Court on matters genuinely needing a court decision where protection of vulnerable people and children can be properly prioritised. It is also positive that an objective of the bill is that Family Court cases be less adversarial in their proceedings but that is easily said; it is not of course quite so easily done. It is right and more beneficial for parties to take responsibility for their own arrangements with the assistance of the court concerning the care of children where possible and this also has upsides for the children and the family. Children never profit from sometimes acrimonious and pointless family disputes especially over parenting and guardianship. Family disputes can be easily entrenched and worsened by making it too easy to get to the court. Requiring a genuine resolution by way of mediation will help that situation but of course the court must always be there as a backstop. 
Another objective is to try to make the Family Court more responsible to victims of family violence and that is a worthwhile objective. The new requirement for a mandatory out-of-court resolution process does not apply to family violence cases so they can still go straight to the court and that is necessary and a good use of the court’s time. Also the bill expands the definition of psychological abuse increases maximum sentences for this from 2 to 3 years and improves delivery of mandatory non-violence programmes. I think those are welcome measures. 
Overall the result should be to make the Family Court more efficient and cost-effective by refocusing its resources in those ways and it should speed up court applications by reducing the court’s rapidly increasing workload. But this must never be at the expense of access to the court or because of excessive expense. 
Of the issues and matters that I believe still require discussion in the next stages of the bill the first and foremost will be the cost of the out-of-court resolution processes. As I have said this must not be an excessive barrier. It should be reconsidered by the Government because $1000 is far too much as a cost for those alternative processes even if legal aid is available for that purpose. 
Secondly the bill targets the use of professionals especially lawyers for the parties and lawyers appointed to represent children separately. That is also going to need further investigation and New Zealand First will never agree to penny-pinching resulting in lack of adequate legal representation where it is really needed. The legislation must be even-handed and not unfairly empower a party that has greater economic resources than another. I therefore welcome the Minister Chester Borrows’ commitment to get it right and I hope he will listen to some of these concerns. 
The bill requires parties to contribute to the cost of expert reports and witnesses in some circumstances and I agree that it is currently too easy for parties especially those on legal aid to get expensive and sometimes unnecessary expert reports but this has to be balanced against the cases where such reports are really needed. This too needs further discussion so that where a matter goes to the court it is not hamstrung by inadequate expert evidence. 
The bill requires the court’s leave for new proceedings where it has been less than 2 years since the last similar application. This is to discourage repeated applications for parenting and guardianship orders especially when a party can get legal aid. I am personally aware from my own experience and practice and as a previous member of the Legal Aid Review Panel that this has been a problem and so New Zealand First will certainly support this aspect of the bill. But this is a large bill with many technical issues to examine in the latter stages. 
We think that overall it is a good bill. The devil will be in the detail and in particular in the costs that it will impose for those out-of-court processes. The bill will fail if that is not reviewed because $1000 is grossly too much and that is not good enough. New Zealand First would have to reconsider its support if that were persisted with. We wish to examine all of the detail of the bill in its later stages but we are happy to support the bill at this stage because of its overall thrust. But that will be on the condition that the issues I have mentioned are adequately and sincerely dealt with by the Government which must listen to some of the concerns that we and these parties on this side of the House have expressed. So with those conditions with those reservations New Zealand First will at this stage support the bill.