Dalziel Lianne: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7040. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I believe that a very good process was begun by the former Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power in respect of instigating the Family Court review but that process has somehow got sidetracked into this efficiency drive and it has become a drive to save money. The concerns I believe that we are raising on this side of the House are that in fact this may have unintended consequences so significant that they could place at risk some of the people whom we all in this House seek to protect. 
I want to read out 12 key points that were set out in a very important document and I want to explain where that fits within the context of this legislation the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill that we are debating this evening: “That the Family Court and its processes warrant review and reform is unarguable.” Everybody agrees with that. “The problems of cost delays inefficiencies and ineffectiveness are easy to identify. The Family Court of 2011 is not what was envisaged by the Beattie Commission and that model has never been effectively implemented. There is a fundamental confusion of roles. Is the Family Court a court or a social agency? This confusion inhibits a rational examination of the Family Court. The Care of Children Act 2004 is the most significant source of pressure on the court. That is where the focus of this review properly lies.” I would add to that the Child Support Act because I believe it is a silent player in all of the dynamics that occur in a breakdown of a relationship involving children. No. 6 states: “Reform does not need to jeopardise those who can be properly categorised as vulnerable. The role of the State in private disputes needs to be revisited.” When I use the word “revisited” I would say “re-examined”. There needs to be a better understanding of the role of the State in the settlement of private disputes because there is a public interest. I want to come back to the public good when I go through the regulatory impact statement which of course I want to do. 
It continues: “Reforms should be governed by an overarching strategy.” That is a very good idea to have an overarching strategy when considering reform in such a fundamental area of the law. “Focusing solely on economic fiscal factors may give rise to untended negative consequences.” I really do urge the House to think very carefully about that. “An effective simple and accessible pre-filing pre-court process is called for. Use of the court as a court of law should be a last resort and where use of the court as a court of law is called for efficiencies are available in the form of the laws of evidence Family Court rules case management programmes and assured competencies. These may need refinement but the tools are already there. Less not more process is called for.” This was from the family law symposium held in June last year by the family law section of the New Zealand Law Society. I believe that the lawyers of our country have actually come under some unfair criticism from the Government tonight in relation to this particular piece of legislation. All of the advocacy that they have put into this area of law has been firmly founded on principle in my view and I think we should be very grateful that they took the opportunity to bring together some of the greatest legal minds in this country and also some of the people involved in counselling and in the social work fields in order to debate the fundamental issues that underpin the Family Court review. So it was a very good process—unfortunately now thwarted by an efficiency-driven Government. 
That leads me to the regulatory impact statement and the agency disclosure statement at the beginning prepared by the Ministry of Justice. One of the members opposite spoke of the statement about consultation but before I get to consultation I just want to highlight for the House the constraints that were highlighted in the report. “Given the overall fiscal situation urgent steps must be taken to lower the cost of the current justice system while at the same time delivering more effective and efficient court services. This means the options we have considered must be able to be implemented quickly.” So the driver is cost. That is it and I think that the House should be very wary of the driver being costs when we are talking about such a major reform. For the sake of speed and cost and efficiency it has meant that the ministry has been prepared to accept gaps and uncertainties in the policy analysis—and a consultation period. 
I want to continue to read the section that one of the colleagues on the other side of the House referred to where he talked about “extensive consultation … meeting with stakeholders a public consultation paper and an online questionnaire for court users.” He went “full stop” there. Let me read the rest of the sentence: “However because of the timeframe there has been limited opportunity to discuss the final proposals with stakeholders. There will be an opportunity for consultation at the select committee stage of the future legislation.” Can I just remind this House that consultation is not receiving a submission in a public hearing. That is not consultation. It cannot be even regarded as a substitute for consultation. We have had hearings in front of select committees where we have told submitters that because they are an individual they have 5 minutes to present their case and could they leave a little bit of time for questions and we have had major organisations given 10 minutes maybe 15 minutes and sometimes we stretch to 20 minutes—usually the Law Society on a bill like this would get half an hour. But that is not consultation. That is about persuading the numbers of members of Parliament who are sitting there and the officials who are advising them and supporting them that their case has some merit. 
I want to remind the House what the Minister said in introducing this legislation and I am quoting now from Judith Collins who is the Minister in whose name the bill is introduced: “Our reforms will ensure the Family Court renews its focus towards those who need it most.” said Ms Collins. “The Court must put the needs of children first rather than those of private couples with relationship issues.” That is the fundamental flaw in her thinking and it is the fundamental flaw in the legislation. It explains about how we can privatise the cost because we can say that this is just about the private interests of couples. But can I say that the speedy sensitive judicious settlement of disputes that involve the care of our children actually has a huge public interest that must be met and it is not met by a piece of legislation that will drive the cost into this Family Disputes Resolution service—a solution that we support. We support the concept of the Family Disputes Resolution service. 
Can I just say what the family law section of the Law Society said in response. It was not consulted on the proposal that the parties would have to meet the full cost of Family Disputes Resolution unless they were exempt on the basis that they were eligible for legal aid and this is its quote: “Our recommendations were made on the presumption that parties would make a contribution to costs of professional services.”—so that is the profession to the lawyers—“but on the basis FDR would be predominantly funded by the Ministry.” You know it is over $900 and it is a cost to be split between warring parties in some instances if they agree. And what if they do not agree? How is that going to resolve things? I think that we have to think very carefully about the impact of this. 
I just want the House to hear another thing from the expert reference group: “Hidden power and control dynamics in relationships will mean parents are intimidated into agreeing to settlements which disadvantage them or their children … Also there will be delays as the Court will not have the proper information needed for making decisions with the result that the conflict between parties will intensify and those cases where a parent is consciously alienating a child from the other parent will be harder to resolve.” That is the problem that these hidden dynamics in these private relationships get exposed only when there are people independently acting in the interests of children. So I believe very strongly that we need to proceed with great caution but we will not be supporting this bill to the select committee and we will have to see significant change before we would change our mind further.