Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFamily Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13487. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Family Court Proceedings Reform BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 3 September.Part 2 Amendments to Domestic Violence Act 1995(continued)Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):Thank you for the opportunity to complete the call that I started a few weeks ago. Part 2 of this bill the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill now clarifies that the Ministry of Justice has responsibility for the approval of providers of the non-violence programmes. The legislation needs to be sufficiently flexible for the future to ensure that appropriate providers can deliver safe and effective programmes to the people who need them. If they are required regulations can be made to prescribe the approval process as well as the criteria for making these decisions. Overall the amendments to the Domestic Violence Act will give effect to the Government’s aim of ensuring ongoing safety and protection for children and for vulnerable people. The changes will improve the Family Court’s responsiveness to domestic violence ensuring that it is more focused on safety.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): The issues in Part 2 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill are not extensive. It is a very important rewrite of crucial parts of the Domestic Violence Act and in principle there can be no objection to that. This part of the bill and the changes that it makes to the Domestic Violence Act include—which the Minister of Justice seems to have omitted in her comments—an amendment to the definition of “domestic violence” to now include “financial or economic abuse” as a new form of domestic violence. I think there is justification for that addition or at least for a clarification of what constitutes a form of violence.The redrafted provisions make a distinction between safety programmes that are programmes for victims of domestic violence and the part also provides for what are called non-violence programmes for alleged abusers or those who commit violence or domestic violence. As the Minister correctly pointed out there is now a registration process for service providers.The reason I wanted to take this call was to just make this point. This is not to detract from these elements of the bill but to say that there is a real risk under the redrafted provisions—as in fact there is today—of the credibility of these provisions being undermined if the District Court is not properly resourced to exercise its jurisdiction not only in granting protection orders and making orders in relation to safety programmesbut also in its safety valve role in ensuring that objections to the granting of protection orders can be properly heard.I simply want to relate the facts of a case that is known in New Zealand—and is in fact known to the Minister—where a man who was the subject of a protection order following an altercation between him and a former partner was then under police investigation for assault. He was the subject of an application for a protection order without notice which was granted. He was ordered to attend a non-violence programme. There was a 10-day objection period but because this was around Christmas time he missed the 10-day cut-off. He said that it was partly because of bad advice but in any event he missed it. It was then 4 months before he could have his objection heard. By that time the police had concluded the investigation into the alleged assault and found that not only was no assault committed but in fact the antagonist was the former partner who was held responsible for the altercation that occurred.By the time his objection was heard he was part-way through the non-violence programme having been told that if he failed to attend he would be subject to arrest. He is still to this day waiting for the court’s decision on whether or not the protection order was properly granted and whether he was required to attend a non-violence programme.I might add that he has completed the programme. He is a supporter of the Domestic Violence Act. He is a supporter of protection orders and the orders contained in the Act. But he has been dealt an unfair deal and been given a dirty blow because of the lack of resourcing of the courts and this Minister as the Minister of Justice is responsible for that. She has to understand that if the courts are not properly resourced then this sort of legislation which she sponsors will not be regarded with any great credibility. The credibility will be undermined. She needs the confidence and the support of the community for these sorts of measures to be properly supported and to work.I simply ask the Minister to please give us an assurance that when these sorts of applications are being provided for—when people’s liberties have the potential to be constrained—let us have the judicial safety valves in place properly resourced and able to deal with those sorts of objections. At the moment clearly there are people who are being treated unfairly and who are victims of injustice if those resources are not there in place. This provision of the bill these redrafts of these parts of the Domestic Violence Act will be given scorn and derision if those safety valves are not put in place. I simply ask the Minister to give us an assurance that people will not be treated unfairly when they are faced with these orders—these very important orders that are about securing people’s safety—if indeed the resources are not there.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The amendments to the Domestic Violence Act 1995 in Part 2 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill are generally appropriate in my view looking at the evidence but I want to talk about the general point of how the Government has gone about putting this part together because when I read the bill I see that there are no less than 20 pages of deletions in the—Tim Macindoe: No fewer.Hon PHIL GOFF: No fewer if you like—no fewer. There are probably more actually—more than 20 pages of deletions in the bill that the Minister of Justice brought to the House. Any bill that a Minister brings where one part is almost entirely deleted and has to be replaced is a suggestion Minister that it was ill-drafted ill-prepared and ill-researched.There is no better authority for those accusations than your own regulatory impact statement which you delivered late to the House—after in fact the first reading of the bill had taken place. It said that although there had been some research done the research was limited. You looked at other countries—the United Kingdom andAustralia—despite the differences in the systems. The regulatory impact statement then said: “There is insufficient historical fiscal and statistical data to accurately predict the average costs of performing some of the tasks associated with … processes. There was insufficient time for piloting proposed processes or for undertaking an historical file review … to obtain further data”. It also said: “because of the time frame there has been limited opportunity to discuss the final proposals with stakeholders.” All of those criticisms Minister are from your own Ministry of Justice. When you bring a bill to this House where Part 2 of the bill is almost entirely deleted and rewritten that suggests poor preparation on your part. It suggests a bill that is half-baked in this part and unfortunately even more so in some of the other parts of the bill that we most object to.The other worry I have is that the previous Minister of Justice set up an expert reference group to give advice on this. Its members were people who on average had done 20 to 30 years either as Family Court lawyers or as psychologists. These were people who were enormously experienced in this area and the report from the Minister’s ministry says that it followed the advice of the expert reference group. Well the expert reference group was highly offended at that statement in the report and said that in key areas of that report in fact you Minister entirely ignored their advice. This is what its submission says about domestic violence—the very part of the bill that we are looking at. It said: “The hidden dynamics of domestic violence and abuse will mean that many women will be at risk from a new family justice system”—that is the system the Minister is introducing in this bill—“which creates barriers of costs rights to representation and legal aid and early intervention in cases by Judges.”—barriers in terms of costs barriers in terms of rights to representation barriers in terms of more restricted legal aid and barriers in terms of the judges being able to intervene before the dispute becomes nastier and more difficult to resolve.It also says: “It is the two tier justice system created by this Bill which significantly increases the risk for victims of violence.” So according to the experts appointed by your predecessor the effect of this part of the bill which purports to actually improve the situation for victims of domestic violence and the overall effect of the bill are to worsen the impact of violence to increase the risk to victims whatever happens in terms of the technical changes in this part of the bill. It is almost without precedent that a Minister sets up an expert advisory group that group is ignored and then that group says that the bill will do exactly the opposite of what the Minister comes to the House and purports that it will do. We are very concerned about whether the overall effect of the bill on domestic violence will be helpful.I want to look at the specific provisions of this part. The current legislation in terms of domestic violence allows for the issue of protection orders and the respondent under those orders is generally required to attend a domestic violence programme. The difficulty with the status quo—and this is where I do agree with the detail of this part of the bill—is that the programmes are heavily prescribed in regulation and the attendance by the other party which is not the violent party but the respondent is also very low. That suggests that the nature of the programmes that are being run for both the perpetrators and the victims of domestic violence needs to change. Many respondents do not complete the programme and the answer to that including in this part of the bill is simply to increase the penalty that applies. It goes I think from 2 years of imprisonment up to 3 years if I recall that rightly. Well I do not think that imprisonment because you failed to attend a programme is actually the effective answer. A more effective answer in this part of the bill would be if the programmes were designed to actually meet the real needs both of the respondents and of the perpetrators of the violence.So I think it is a good thing that we will improve the format and delivery of the stopping violence programmes. You need to assess it and that is provided for in this part of the bill. The assessment is a good idea. You need to tailor the services to more effective responses. I think that is good. The risk Minister—and perhaps you would like to comment on that—is that with the greater variety of programmes you may well have some inconsistency in programme delivery. I would like to know from the Minister what she intends to do to ensure that while you have diversity of programmes you also have a consistency in terms of the outcomes of those programmes that are sought.The second thing that occurs in this section of the bill as I have mentioned is increasing the sentence for breach of the protection order. The difficulty with doing that is that in many cases increasing the penalty could make victims actually more hesitant to report breaches of the protection orders. That again would have the perverse effect of achieving precisely the opposite of what you want to do in this section of the bill.The final thing I just want to comment on briefly is clause 35 of the bill which changes the definition of domestic violence adding financial or economic abuse to psychological abuse. The sort of thing that I guess we are trying to get at in this part of the bill is where one partner denies or limits access to financial resources or prevents or restricts employment opportunities for the other party. I think it is important that those things are taken into account as reflective of the sort of psychological abuse that can happen in a relationship and that part of the bill is helpful.So in summary the detail of Part 2 is actually quite good. I think it is responsive to a particular need and we are not opposing that part of the bill. But if you look at the wider impact of the bill because of the denial of access of people to proper justice procedures to resolve family disputes it will be as the expert advisory committee said to probably increase the risk of violence not reduce it.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I will take just aquickish call on Part 2 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. I want to start off where the Hon Phil Goff finished and that is on clause 35 which extends the meaning of domestic violence. I am taking the opportunity here to pose a question to the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice. For the benefit of those watching I say that this bill changes the meaning of domestic violence to include “financial or economic abuse (for example denying or limiting access to financial resources or preventing or restricting employment opportunities or access to education);”. I am pretty sure that a number of us in this Chamber may have had constituents come to our offices about this. I think this kind of thing is happening more and more—I guess more in the case of denying or limiting access to financial resources. We are seeing much much more of that. It is more common in my experience with women where their former partners are not giving them access to the money they had together or any other kind of property and they find themselves in a situation where they are trying to get access to that.Although we on this side of the Chamber think that it is generally a good thing to be able to include that meaning of domestic violence within this bill when you couple that with other things that happen in this bill we do have some serious concerns about the ability of those people to get access to some of those financial resources. I have had someone come into my office who is in the situation of trying to get access to money from a relationship she had and if she had to represent herself which is one of the options available to her within this bill she would be at a considerable disadvantage. So a question that I would like to put to the Minister in the chair is how we can help people like that out there who are trying to get their hands on money who do not have the money to be able to fight to get that money and who are going to be forced to represent themselves and may not have the knowledge of the systems within the courtproceedings to be able to do a decent job of that or a job that might be able to get them access to what they think they are rightfully owed.We do have concerns around the resourcing as Andrew Little said and the cost cutting that is going on in this situation because in another area where there is the ability to self-represent in the aspect of care of children there looks to be a saving of about $41.3 million over 3 years according to the numbers here in the regulatory impact statement which I have before me. If the Government wants to set out to save money in this area around self-representation I think a fair enough question to ask the Minister in the chair is whether we are going to expand the definition of what family violence is and that includes financial abuse and denying financial resources. I think we are going to find predominantly women in the situation of trying to get their hands on that financial resource. They are going to come from a very low financial basis. They are trying to get hold of that money. How are they going to effectively represent themselves to be able to get their hands on those resources for which the definition in clause 35 expands the meaning of domestic violence? I know there are certainly some people whom I have met who would be in that situation so if the Minister sees fit and is able to respond to that question I would appreciate it.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I will take just a brief call on this part to add a little bit more to what my colleagues have just spoken about. Certainly I am particularly pleased to see in clause 35 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill financial or economic abuse being added to the definition of psychological violence because indeed as we go around in our constituencies and in our own communities we see this hidden aspect of violence where on the face of it much is fine and there is a home and other resources but when it comes to taking away from a person the ability to be financially independent to the extent possible that is something that has very caustic effects on psychological well-being. It is a hidden type of abuse and sometimes difficult to prove as well. Some people are quite happy to provide the physical resources but when it comes to finance and the independence that comes with it that becomes a major difficulty. So my first point is that I am glad to see that in the definition and it is something to be supported.But this part of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is like the rest of the bill. It is like the curate’s egg: some parts of it are very good and other parts of it are not. The second point that I do appreciate is Part 2A inserted by clause 52A—the codification if you like of domestic violence programmes. I think it is a good piece of work where indeed a lot of thought has gone into setting out the definitions of family violence programmes the codification of how they are to work. I particularly like the expectations as to how those programmes are to work.Indeed there are any number of programmes where you can refer somebody to a programme not knowing and not having any idea of what is to happen when that person who is to receive assistance gets there. It is quite frustrating because if the expectation is not clear the service is not provided properly and what is needed to address the violent behaviour is not provided in the end a very good opportunity is lost. The person can sign off and say “Yes I’ve gone into this programme and have experienced it.” but indeed nothing much changes. So it is good to see the kinds of expectations that are laid out in new Part 2A. It is quite satisfying for me personally.How referrals are to be made is also much better clarified. Finally judges maintaining a watching brief is also quite important and that is something that we see in the Family Courts already. So those aspects of this part are quite good.But I do want to also add my weight to what my colleague Andrew Little was saying: that if the courts are to provide these services in what is a difficult area of relationships then they also have to be serviced particularly when protection orders are grantedand—probably as important—when an appeal against them takes place. So Part 2 is good in parts and I am really pleased to see those two parts of it but I certainly have a caution that resources also need to be provided. Thank you.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes60New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Part 3 Family dispute resolutionANDREW 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.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Far be it from me to sit back and be lectured on peace breaking out by a member of the Labour Party. Andrew Little by the way has used his 10 minutes to do nothing other than to insult to insinuate and to show why he is likely now to be the second justice spokesperson about to be followed by the third in the Labour Party whom I have had to deal with in the last 2 years. Let us just give him some facts. It is not at all abnormal Mr Little for people involved in matrimonial disputes or family disputes to reach agreement regarding their children without going to court. If we listen to Mr Little we will hear that it is absolutely ridiculous—and he went on to call me all sorts of insulting names—to think that people should put their children first. Actually that is just not true. Only 20-odd years’ experience in the real world in legal practice tells me that it is absolutely normal and usual for people to arrange these situations and resolve them themselves. What is abnormal is rushing into court to talk about where a child is going to spend Christmas or a weekend. That is abnormal. But if you listen to Mr Little you would think that that is the normal behaviour and what is abnormal is expecting loving parents to put their child first. That is a very very dim view of the world that Mr Little has and I have to say that if I was sitting on the backbenches of the Labour Party at the moment I would be feeling a bit dim too. But there you go. Mr Little does so I forgive him those awful insults because I am that sort of a person. But I am sure he knows that he will get it back double one day.Chris Auchinvole: Forgiving.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: And forgiving. I can see Phil Goff wants to be forgiving too.The other issue that Mr Little raised was the issue of accountability. He said that the Secretary for Justice could appoint anybody whom he wanted to have the role of a family dispute resolution service provider. He went on to say essentially that I as the Minister should be making those appointments—that I should be accountable for that. He said that on that basis then I could appoint anybody I like. But what he has failed to recognise—and if he only turned up to the Justice and Electoral Committee a bit more often he might know this—is that there is in fact a select committee process around the estimates around the financial review where the Secretary for Justice is in fact absolutely accountable to members of Parliament and to members on that select committee and can in fact be questioned about that. At the same time there is this thing called written questions where Mr Little could write to me about this issue if he was so concerned about the appointment of a provider. And there is this other thing which he is not allowed to use at the moment and that is oral questions to me about this issue if he is so concerned about someone being provided with a contract that they should not have. Well quite clearly we want to be able to leave the Secretary for Justice the ability to use his or her discretion to get the best providers of this service. The last thing that I want to see as the Minister is to have the Secretary for Justice tied up in judicial review from disappointed providers of services who do not get what they want. I want all the money in this area going to the people who need it the people trying to use the services.There is another thing that Mr Little could use and that is this thing called an Official Information Act request. He could use that too but it is not for me to tell him how to do that. He should get advice from his new senior whip who I am sure will be able to help him. She is doing a much better job in ACC these days than he ever did.But anyway the critical element in family dispute resolution is something that actually says: “Let us create a system that provides a faster less adversarial resolution of parenting issues.” because for most people this is what they want. Most people do not want to spend years in court going in and out of court regarding their children’s issues. But Mr Little has also said that some people will not be able to access this because of various reasons. I think it is very important to note that under the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill—and the question that was asked in the previous part by Mr Faafoi was about violence and how people would be able to access the courts and I would suggest that he reads the bill too—if there is an accusation of violence or any evidence of violence which of course also involves the economic violence that we have now brought into the definition of domestic violence then this issue will be fast tracked. Mr Little has also raised an issue that people will claim domestic violence or might make claims on this to get into court before a judge. Well under the bill as amended in Supplementary Order Paper 349 a judge will be able to if they see any evidence of the courts being misused in this way get that matter back into the family dispute resolution service.I believe it is absolutely crucial that we enable people to make good decisions. It is all very well to say that people are upset and yes they are—yes they are—but ultimately most people already resolve these issues themselves the vast majority. But I have certainly seen instances where people have been encouraged in a family dispute issue into court when the best thing for both of those people and their children is for them to be able to sit down with somebody who is absolutely neutral to help them to resolve the issues. That is where people’s focus and their attention should be—on their children and how to resolve these issues.Only people appointed as family dispute resolution providers by an approved dispute resolution organisation or the Secretary for Justice will be able to provide family disputeresolution. So it is not the Secretary for Justice just sitting there deciding this person and that person; it is actually an approved provider. The Government Supplementary Order Paper 349 sets out what will happen to family dispute resolution providers when their dispute resolution organisation’s approval is suspended or cancelled. Where a dispute resolution organisation is suspended the organisation will continue to be responsible for its current family dispute resolution providers and the family dispute resolution providers will continue to be recognised.Part 3 defines the duties of a family dispute resolution provider. Part 3 also provides for a number of regulation-making powers. Dispute resolution organisations will be approved in accordance with criteria which Mr Little has forgotten set out in regulations that still need to come into force. So it is not that there will not be criteria but the criteria will be in regulations. I think that is a very sensible thing because we know it takes a long time for legislation to come through the House and it may be that the criteria need to be changed more quickly to better suit the circumstances of what we have found. So there will be criteria. It is not willy-nilly as Mr Little says. But if he was at the select committee a bit more often he would know. In fact they will be set in regulations and if he wants me to let him know what they are I am sure I will because I am just that sort of person really.The suspension or cancellation of approval must also be in line with grounds set out in those regulations and likewise regulations will outline the qualification and competency requirements for family dispute resolution providers and the matters that disqualify a person from being appointed as a family dispute resolution provider. So all of the talk that we have heard this afternoon about how it is just going to the Secretary for Justice willy-nilly appointing anybody whom he wants with no accountability is utter rubbish Mr Little. Read the bill. Read the amendments.Andrew Little: Thank you MarjorieProops.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Where the family dispute resolution provider—well Mr Little wants to call me whom? Marjorie somebody? No my name is Judith Collins Mr Little. But anyway having said that he is into insults. Where the family dispute resolution provider determines it is inappropriate to start or continue family dispute resolution it will provide the parties with a form stating its opinion as to why family dispute resolution is inappropriate. It may be inappropriate because the parties are unable to take part effectively or because at least one party or the child has been subjected to domestic violence by the other party. Family dispute resolution may also be inappropriate because one party refused to attend or continue family dispute resolution and that is absolutely crucial. We cannot have one party holding up the other or holding up resolution of these matters for their children. Thank you.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Thank you Minister of Justice for another friendly engagement! I really find it outrageous though that the Minister would claim that it is inappropriate for an Opposition spokesperson to use the Committee stage to ask questions of the Minister in the chair. That is the purpose of this stage of proceedings yet the Minister instead chose to stand up and rattle off all of the other ways that the Opposition spokesperson could ask questions of the Minister. That is why the Minister is here at this point of the proceedings. I would have hoped that we would have an answer to the really reasonable questions that the spokesperson Andrew Little asked of the Minister in the chair. I do not feel that she fully addressed those questions. I am likely to raise them again because the notion that simply asking a question of the Minister through written questions will produce an answer is also a bit of a misnomer. I have asked questions of that Minister in writing. It is rare that you get anything otherthan a sarcastic response back. To get anything of substance is quite a challenge as the Minister has once again proved from the chair.I think we have lost sight of the fact that Part 3 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is not just about setting out a new dispute resolution process. Part 3 is a fundamental shift away from the notion that the State does play a role in assisting people to resolve disputes when they reach a certain point. The Minister seemed to imply that every couple with children that has a dispute ends up in the Family Court and that that is what she is trying to prevent. Of course they do not—of course they do not. But there are a number of situations where things escalate to a point where they are unable to be resolved even through the kinds of mechanisms that she is proposing as a first stage. But they are not really a first stage; they are a blockage to resolution—a costly costly barrier to access to justice to access to a service that previously the State has always acknowledged that it plays a role in.The Minister’s implication that anyone who ends up in the Family Court somehow does not have the best interests of their child at heart does not seem to acknowledge the fact that that is why they have a dispute. They have differing views about what is in the best interests of the child. That is often why they end up there.Rather than actually enforcing the one voice that should be stronger the voice of the child that voice in this process is actually weakened. We have seen a change in the way that lawyer for child is used in this process and yet my understanding is that many of the submissions pointed out that the best advocate through this process often was that voice or indeed the voice of the child. I want to reflect on that as I go through some of the elements of Part 3 and the way that the dispute resolution organisations are structured which ultimately undermines that voice. As I have said this is a departure from the practice we have already had in New Zealand. We had a specialist Family Court established more than 30 years ago for the purpose of addressing that there are some disputes that simply cannot be resolved effectively without it.Of course there will be changes over time and it is important that we reflect on whether or not our court is working efficiently and effectively. It is fair to say that PeterBoshier for instance has talked about some of the delays in the Family Court. In fact when the Justice and Electoral Committee carried out a review—I believe it was last term—into child offending it found that one of the causes of significant delay is often the role of Child Youth and Family in the Family Court. Constant change of practitioners and not fulfilling the requirements set down by the Family Court on behalf of Child Youth and Family are the kinds of things that actually are causing the delays in the Family Court. Instead the Minister has decided to upset this part of the process. It seems that some of the causes of delay have not been fully explored. There has not been enough evidence and advice sitting around that. Instead we have gone straight to this part of the Family Court process.One of the issues that we in Labour have raised of course is that bringing in this family dispute resolution process is not necessarily going to improve access to justice—in fact there is a $900 cost. I would not mind hearing more discussion about this because I was not a member of the select committee. Is it a confirmed cost? Is it likely that that cost would change? It strikes me as something that could escalate quite easily. Are there any regulations to set down that that can be capped? Will the Regulations Review Committee have any role in overseeing the levy that is set or will that be set by the Secretary for Justice? Are there parameters around the way that levy is set?I would not mind hearing from the Minister in the chair as to the parameters that sit around that compulsory fee for the private process to resolve disputes. The Minister raised that she sees cases where for instance there are issues around where a child willspend Christmas being escalated to the Family Court. There are some parents who certainly can use orders as a bit of a weapon in that way. Are you sure Minister that they will not use every time as an alternative form of weapon the fact that this cost will be prohibitive for the other partner to access this dispute resolution? That therefore needs to be resolved. I certainly know of parents who will not be able to afford this process—not just once but the multiple times they would potentially be required to go through it. That is something I would like to hear the Minister’s view on—the clear access to justice issues.I want to come specifically to subclauses 56(a) and (b) which set out the requirements for the family dispute resolution process and the provider. It says that their two primary purposes are “(a) assisting parties to a family dispute to resolve the dispute without having to pursue court proceedings; and (b) ensuring that the parties’ first and paramount consideration in reaching a resolution is the welfare and best interests of the children”. I want to know from the Minister if it is up to the Secretary for Justice to define who will undertake these services what requirements there will be for those services to have an understanding of child well-being to have a background in this kind of resolution process and specifically to have the kind of expertise and specialist knowledge that parents were previously accessing through this process. The Minister shakes her head but I think it is a fair question to ask. If it is in almost a purpose clause how will the Minister ensure that that is being enacted when she refuses to give us any criteria around what these providers will look like or any detail whatsoever on what her expectations are for what will become the very very critical service that sits in front of the Family Court process? Also what right of review will there be if there is an unfavourable process and people feel that the provider has not acted in a way that is appropriate or provided the kind of service that it is expected to provide for the $900 that a parent is paying for that service? Is there any alternative system that they can access to raise those concerns?I also want to come to subclause 60B(5). It says: “Subsection (6) applies when a family dispute resolution provider decides that a family dispute with which the provider is dealing is unable to be resolved within a reasonable time.” So of course that is setting out the parameters when you might see an escalation of that family dispute process when it might move on from being dealt with by that private provider. I would like to know whether or not the select committee or indeed the Minister has a view on what a reasonable time is. If indeed as the Minister claims this is all about resolving disputes in a timely fashion earlier and with less cost to the Crown—because it is not about less cost to families that is for sure—then what is a reasonable amount of time? What is considered to be reasonable in that context? Did the committee discuss parameters? Will those providers be contracted to provide the service within that reasonable amount of time? Because this is also about access I wonder what the time limits for those waiting lists might look like for those private providers how quickly they might need to move through those just what the expectation of the Minister is generally and whether she believes that this will improve the system. Surely she has in her own mind some expectations over what that would look like.I would invite the Minister in the chair to answer what I think are some reasonable questions rather than delaying our ability to have a full debate on this topic by instead asking members to access a process that she knows full well she does not respond to properly.ALFRED NGARO (National): I am happy to take a call on this Part 3 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill especially in particular where Miss Ardern talked about wanting to be informed as she was not part of the Justice and ElectoralCommittee. Those of us who were heard submissions and I can talk about the family dispute resolution process. In particular I want to acknowledge the Hon Lianne Dalziel who was part of that. We had a good working relationship. I think we worked well in hearing the submissions and working through and I think we actually came to a good resolution here.I want to talk in particular about how Miss Ardern talked about the voice of the children. Well in actual fact if she had read the back part of the story and if she had been part of the select committee she would have known that Parenting through Separation which is the parenting programme absolutely focuses in particular on ensuring that the voice of the children is heard. But I also want to remind her that she may not have read the back part of the story and I can understand that because she is only reading off the speech notes that she has been given. She was not part of the select committee.So here is the thing. I just want to inform her that in response to serious concerns raised by the court users which included the public the judges the lawyers and counsellors Cabinet directed a review of the court in 2011. Here are some of the key issues that were found. The review found that in addition to the concerns about rapidly rising costs the court lacked sufficient focus on meeting the needs of children and on achieving sustainable durable outcomes for families. This in particular Miss Ardern is the focus of the bill. It found that the court was adversarial placing additional stress on already strained relationships. It was negative for children and not focused enough on the serious cases spent too much time on simple matters and was too complex and this is the essence of this review and in particular this bill as well.I want to focus on the family dispute resolution process. What I think in particular is that this bill establishes a family dispute resolution process that particularly focuses the family justice system towards supporting people to resolve their disputes. It has been unfair—the concerns that have been raised that there is a lack of concern for the needs of the children. In fact this bill does that. It talks about this.I want to pick up on the point around the providers. Mr Little made I think some unfair comments when he was actually there at the select committee. We heard from providers. We had a New Zealand mediation services association come. It talked about its experience its expertise and said that good mediation truly does make a difference. Again all the evidence shows us that in this case we can ensure that families do not need to go through this and as we are saying in this bill it is not for all people. But where there are some who can actually move out of the court process then absolutely the family dispute resolution process can be very beneficial to them as well. We are hearing from officials that there are around about 4000 court applications and roughly around about 2000 children in particular who could benefit from this.I want to also pick up some comments around the issue for family dispute resolution providers. The family dispute resolution providers are very clear that they will be expected to screen parties for safety risks. I know from the Green members that there was some concern about the issue around family violence. We want to ensure that the power imbalances or inability to participate due to illness or disability will be screened and will be picked up as well. Where the family dispute resolution is unsuitable or unsuccessful for people they will still be able to access the court system to resolve their disputes.I also want to pick up that the family dispute resolution will be subsidised for those who meet the financial eligibility threshold. There was some concern that they would not be able to access this. That is not true at all. In fact it is really clear that where they are unable to meet the financial eligibility threshold they will be subsidised in thisconcern as well. For others the cost of the family dispute resolution is likely to be lower than the cost of employing a lawyer and making an application to the court.We think that the family dispute resolution process is a good process. We think that it is not only a process that will help support children and families but in particular this process will be beneficial for the Family Court system.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members the Committee of the whole House is suspended for the valedictory speech. The Committee will resume at 7.30 p.m.Debate interrupted.House resumed.