Goff Phil: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13514. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Part 4 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is amendments to the Legal Services Act 2011 and the bill makes it very clear what the effect of this is. The effect of new section 7(3A) and (3B) in clause 71 is to limit the availability of legal aid in proceedings under the Care of Children Act 2004 in the Family Court. This is part of the guts of the bill which says that we are going to stop lower-income people who cannot afford to be represented from getting justice in court. That is what this bill means.It is really interesting reading what the regulatory impact statement says about this bill. Actually my favourite sentence is this. You have got to listen to this Minister—you will really appreciate it. It is: “This option only affects those parties who because of their low income are eligible for legal aid.” Yes. Is that not obvious Minister? This part of the bill affects only those on low incomes who cannot afford legal representation. If this Minister on $250000—a quarter of a million dollars—needs help she will not need to worry about it. People who are really well off will do just fine but the families who are struggling to have representation will be denied representation by this bill and by other pieces of legislation that you Minister have passed.You know it says here that the real justification for this is that family legal aid went up by 93 percent between 2006-07 and 2010-11. Do you know why it went up Minister? Because for the first time in 20 years the rates of payment for legal aid were adjusted to bring them into line with the rate of inflation over the intervening period.Legal aid is about ensuring justice for people who need to be represented and this Minister says no. Why does she say no? It says why in the regulatory impact statement: “The fiscal constraints faced by government mean that there is not currently sufficient … funding”. Well Minister there was sufficient funding to pay the costs of RioTinto—$30 million. That was not a problem. Corporate welfare—no problem at all. Warner Bros—“Come in yeah. Add another $16 million to the $40 million or $50 million you’re already getting in subsidies. No problem at all.”Corporate welfare is OK apparently but allowing people to have the funds to have justice for themselves and their kids is the first target. Do you know why they are a target Minister? Because they are vulnerable because they cannot fight back and because they cannot articulate their case. They cannot stand up for themselves. But RioTinto? RioTinto—yeah well it says: “Well look OK. We’ll keep on going just until you can sell Meridian Energy and then we’ll pull out anyway and the jobs will be gone. But in the meantime yes we’ll take $30 million of the taxpayer’s funds.”That is not all Minister is it? You do not have the money you say in this document to fund legal aid for kids—you do not have the money. But you did have the money to give yourself a fat tax cut and the Prime Minister probably walked away with $150000 a year in tax cuts. There was no problem with the money there. No the money was available but if you get some struggling mum with her kids trying to get justice in the Family Court—oh no that is not a priority. That approach I think is absolutely appalling. It stinks. It stinks that we cannot provide justice for our kids but we can provide tax cuts for the wealthiest people in New Zealand. Well maybe they did not get quite that much because most of them are not paying their share of taxes anyway.It is about priorities. Politics is the language of priorities and what you are telling the Committee Minister is that you do not have money to give legal aid to those who need it but you do have money to look after the fat cats. It is as simple as that.Look your own regulatory impact statement made those comments. OK it said that the opposing party may have a lawyer as opposed to the party that cannot afford a lawyer: “This could lead to the represented party’s view being put more strongly and create or exacerbate power imbalances between the parties.” So the party who has got money will be able to push their case hard and effectively and the party who is already disadvantaged because they do not have the resources will be pushed into a position where their case is not heard on equal terms. Everybody in the Chamber—you can tell from the National backbenchers with their heads down—knows that this is wrong. They know that this is fundamentally inequitable. It is unfair it is unjust and this National Government is doing it because it does not care about the people who cannot afford representation. It does not care about the kids already in emotional turmoil because their family has broken up and where their case cannot be put because there has been a cut in legal aid.What this regulatory impact statement said was: “With no legal assistance for applying some cases may not be considered by the Court that should be.” Minister your own regulatory impact statement said that cases that should be considered by the court will not be considered because there will be nobody there to raise those cases to point out the injustice and to ensure that a fair deal is done. That is not right.It also said: “Some lawyers may not continue as legal aid providers reducing the pool and quality of those available for other legal aid work.” We were worried Minister about the quality of legal aid work. There were reports on the quality of legal aid work and by taking away the funding the help that is available to people will be of an even lesser standard.Let us have a look at what the Minister’s expert advisory committee said the risks of this would be: “Most Family Court cases involve high stress to parties and for a widevariety of reasons parties struggle to advocate for themselves in the legal process. The risk to vulnerable adults and children from a limited right to legal representation will be significant because in the absence of legal representation:” and then it runs through about eight different factors. So again the expert group was telling you and your own department was telling you that this will result in injustice and Minister you do not care do you? You do not care. You will not even take a call to justify your action. Well I think that you should do that because this bill is about Robin Hood in reverse: taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich.David Bennett: You would know about Robin Hood.Hon PHIL GOFF: David Bennett knows that. David Bennett knows how much of a tax cut he got on his income albeit as an insignificant backbencher. He got thousands but the people who need the money are being denied it.It says here in the expert advisory committee’s response that there are “ ‘hidden’ risks in what may appear to otherwise be a straightforward case [that will not be identified]; … cases will be more rather than less adversarial;”. Minister you were telling the Committee earlier this evening that this bill is about helping families. The experts have told you that by taking away legal representation there will be a more adversarial rather than a less adversarial position. The expert advisory committee said: “It will be more difficult to focus on the relevant factual and legal issues in cases and where there is risk for adults and children;”—more difficult to focus on the key things that should be before the court so that justice can be done a fair settlement can be reached and people can move on in their lives. This bill stands in the way of that.It repeats: “The power imbalance between parties which [permeates] cases under this Act is more entrenched if parties do not have legal representation;”. What is it about that Minister that you simply do not understand? You increase the power imbalance in the cases where you are trying to find justice and justice will be denied. “There will be great direct and indirect costs to the public purse”—the experts said—“and also to society generally if there is a restriction on the right of a party to legal representation (and with it to a grant to legal aid for that representation) …” and the legal aid of course is being taken away.The expert advisory committee said: “There will be additional administrative resource required in Court registries to deal with enquiries by parties by phone and in person;”. So you will take away justice but you will actually add to the cost of the courts. So despite the many savings—the $12 million a year of savings that you are lauding with the price being kids getting a decent settlement because their parents can sort out their differences—those costs will be there anyway.The expert advisory committee said: “Family Court Judges will need to spend longer on each case to identify the issues risks and optimum outcomes;”. This will not speed up the court process; this will slow down the court process and that will cost more money. We are spending more money but not getting justice. Why not just give them justice and allow the case to proceed in a swifter more effective and more efficient way?The committee said: “There will be more final hearings because parties will not have had the assistance of a lawyer to assist in negotiation of a resolution;”. Everything about this bill is bad—