Simpson Scott: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 19 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13564. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Kia ora. It is a pleasure to rise in support of the third readings of these bills now divided from the former Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. I also thank the member Andrew Little for what may have been his final speech as Labour’s justice spokesperson and I remind him that yes his leader has said that the train is leaving but the leader is actually David Cunliffe as I understand it not David Shearer as he mentioned. It just goes to show the depth of confusion and malaise and concern that exists in the Labour caucus when the justice spokesperson stands up a week after a change of leadership and still refers to the old leader once removed as the current leader. That just shows the mess that the Labour Party is in.I want to thank the Minister of Justice Judith Collins for bringing this legislation to the House. I would also like to thank the officials who worked very hard and diligently on this piece of work for us at times under great time pressure to achieve deadlines. I would also like to thank the hard-working and diligent members of the Justice and Electoral Committee who across the party divides of the House actually worked I thought in a very collaborative and useful way on this legislation as it went through the deliberations before the committee.It is quite a complicated piece of legislation. It amounts to the first real full reform review of our Family Court justice process since its inception some 30 years ago. The legislation now falls into the omnibus of divided parts. I am not going to go through those individually but in preference I would like to just acknowledge the 386 written submissions that the committee received and also the 217 oral submissions that the committee heard in various places around the country.Many of those submissions were from people who had personal and absolute horror stories to tell us. They told us for instance about the expensive slow drawn-out ineffective and stressful process that the Family Court system had provided for them. Changes made during the select committee process mean that as a result of the work of the committee the legislation is I think better legislation than it was when it came before us at the first reading.The people who come before the Family Court—those who told us their stories at the select committee—often are people who are stressed who are emotional and who are at a vulnerable point in their lives. A relationshipbreakup and the subsequent sorting-out of details can be one of the most difficult things that people can confront in their lives.But that said the vast majority of couples who do go through a relationship split and the fallout that occurs as a result of that actually do sort out their affairs without the need to go to the Family Court. They do so because they are able as adults to come to terms with the changed situation in their relationship and they can work out a way through it—the vast majority do. On this side of the House we take the view that where people can sort things out for themselves they should. Recourse to State-provided services and facilities should not be a course of first action for people who are going through relationshipbreakups. We do not subscribe to the view that the Family Court should be the first option in resolving relationship issues.The reforms that we are considering today mean that the Family Court will be a better more efficient provider of a service for those who actually need it. Let us have a look at why those changes are needed. The Family Court has for a long time been criticised by people who were involved with it as being adversarial and for placing additional stress in already testing circumstances on people who are already vulnerable and under stress. People complain that it is not focused enough on the most serious cases such as domestic violence and people complain that it is negative for children who are subjected to the process.So these reforms being considered today establish a new family dispute resolution process that will absolutely focus our family justice system very clearly towards supporting people to resolve their disputes outside the court system where appropriate. I think that is a good thing. Couples will be required to go through a Parenting through Separation programme and at least attempt a family dispute resolution before applying to the court for parenting or guardianship orders unless there is an exemption such as what might apply where there is a case of violence being involved. I think that is right and appropriate.These reforms will support people to resolve disputes out of court where appropriate and they will ensure that the court when it is needed is focused on the most vulnerable. This legislation and these divided bills are good pieces of reform. They are needed pieces of reform. I thank the Minister for bringing them to the House. I commend these bills wholeheartedly for consideration by the House.