Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a real pleasure to speak on the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill a bill introduced by the Labour Party in the last Government. So it's no surprise to the last speaker Cameron Brewer I hope that the Labour Party is supporting this bill. He makes it sound like we've suddenly come to our senses when in fact of course this cracking good idea came from the Labour Government and also from the advocacy and knowledge of Dr Emily Henderson a Labour MP in the last Parliament. I want to recognise the work that she did.The overall scheme of the bill has been well traversed. Can I just thank the people who did come to the Justice Committee to submit both those experts the advocates and also those who had real personal experience of litigation abuse. I think it's one of the real conundrums of the court system that we hold very dear this almost ancient concept of free access to the courts and the idea that any person can come to the courts to air their grievances and seek redress. But in throwing the doors of the court wide open that right that entitlement can be abused. Whilst in some contexts it's perhaps not too harmful—in commercial law perhaps even in the law of political questions that the courts might be considering we can put those vexatious claims to one side. But when we've got people who are vulnerable—they're not necessarily victims here in the sense of criminal law and I was bit perplexed by the last speaker's constant reference to victims. These are disputants largely to family proceedings. And yet it is the case that those proceedings can be used to harass annoy—and as we noted in committee that doesn't really pitch it high enough. I can assure you that legal proceedings are annoying at any time but the concept of abuse of that harassment and annoyance reaching a level where it is intended to cause actual harm psychological harm to the other party. I just want to touch on one other thing and that is it's actually quite an important point that hasn't really been focused on. Traditionally vexatious litigants have been seen as abusing the process of the court and the kind of party that is wronged has generally been considered the court or even the justice system or whatever. On reflection that's not really appropriate in the modern world because the real person who is harmed is the litigant who is being harassed. That's why the language was changed away from it being an abuse of the procedure of the court or an abuse of the court to being an abuse of the other party to the litigation. I think that's a really significant and important shift. It's actually a shift of the philosophy underpinning this kind of vexatious litigant or abusive litigant problem. Now the question isn't How is the court harmed?" or "How is the administration of justice harmed?" At least in respect of this piece of legislation the question is "What is the degree of harm being caused to the other party to the litigation and does it reach an appropriate threshold?"Look it's worth noting that it has to be significant; it has to be more than just annoying because the consequence is a very significant limitation on the right to go to court and ask for a remedy and to raise concerns of breach of rights or law. I think we've struck the right balance and obviously from here this bill will be discussed further and may be subject to further improvement. But it is good that this is a bill which has crossed Parliaments crossed parties and is still being supported around the House.So with that I've identified those matters I did want to highlight. Once again thanks to Emily Henderson for the work that she did and I think she should recognise this as a legacy that she left the last Parliament and this Parliament. I commend the bill."