Little Andrew: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13224. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I just want to conclude the comments I started making before and just say this: the last thing that we need in order to understand what is going on with this bill the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill and with the changes to the Care of Children Act is finger-wagging piety from the Minister of Justice. It does not help families particularly those who are going through a very stressful and very difficult time to hear from the Minister that they should pull their socks up and sort it out themselves as if it was some sort of Gary McCormick pull-yourself-together party arrangement. That does not help. The stark reality is that family separation is one of the most stressful and difficult experiences not only for the couples involved but also for any children involved.It does not help for the Minister simply to say: “People are grown up and they should sort it out.” The truth is that they do not. They did not before 1981. The problems were getting worse and worse and it was clogging up the High Court. Different parts of the problems were being sorted out in different parts of the court. It will not fix it up now if we take away the very things that have actually assisted a lot more families and a lot more couples to sort out their problems because that is what this bill is doing. Simply telling folks to grow up and sort it out does not fix the problem in front of them. People when they are in the process of making arrangements that have legal effects and a legal impact are entitled to and must have legal advice. People generally know—or perhaps they do not understand the extent of it—that when you get married or get into a long-term relationship in the nature of marriage you are creating legal consequences for yourself and your partner. When that unravels and comes apart there are legal effects that have to be taken care of as well.That is why we have the Family Court. That is why we have a family law framework. When we make changes to it we had better understand that those aspects that are driven by and surrounded by natural human emotion need to be treated very carefully especially when there are children involved. It is the height of patronising nonsense for the Minister to say: “Oh well they loved each other enough to come together and they loved each other enough to have a child; therefore they can sort it out.” That is ridiculous—that is ridiculous. It is because they once loved each other so much and it is because they both committed to a child or children that when that unravels it gets very difficult to hold on to a sense of perspective. That is why people go to sources of independent advice. Those who do not have the means need to look to legal aid to get access to that advice so they can make decisions so they can get perspective and so they can help themselves and their children and the community at large. It does not serve the interests of the community for there to be families who are in constant disputation with each other.If there is any further evidence required that this bill is totally about transferring the cost of family disputation—from those bits picked up by the State at the moment—to families you have only to look at clause 21. We already know that the cost of counselling is being reduced. We already know that there is a new charge being introduced for mandatory family dispute resolutions for cases not involving allegations of violence. We already know that legal aid is being cut and now we also know that when the court feels it has to appoint a lawyer to assist families in the final settlement of the issues before them those costs will be apportioned between the couple themselves. The exclusion is not just if the court finds there is hardship but only if there is serious hardship—and serious hardship is defined in the bill. It sets a very high threshold. This bill is all about the costs being presently and correctly picked up by the State because the public have an interest in effective and efficacious family dispute resolution and all those costs now being landed back on to the parties themselves irrespective of their means to pay.That is the insidious nature of this bill. It will drive families to agree to settlements that do not suit them and that are not suitable for their children. It will drive couples to enter into these processes without the benefit of legal advice and assistance and that will cost the community in other ways. That is the dreadful thing about this legislation. That is why we remain opposed to it. I think the one redeeming aspect of all of this is DavidClendon’s Supplementary Order Paper 254 which confirms at least the priority and the paramountcy of children’s interests in the principal part of the bill. That is the only thing we can bring ourselves to support. The rest of the bill is a dog and we are opposed to it.