Penk Chris; Rurawhe AdrianCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe this is the first opportunity I've had to speak in which you are in your current role. As I have said to your fellow presiding officers you are my favourite of them. Hon Members: Oh! CHRIS PENK: I hope they're not watching Parliament TV but I will repeat the favour: first among equals—how's that? The Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill touches on pretty important areas of course for the lives of many New Zealand families and indeed children. I'd like to make a contribution that talks about who this legislation affects what it's about in terms of the context of previous reforms and of course the situation that preceded those reforms because it's important to acknowledge that those were not made in a vacuum either lest we think that a perfect state of the world can be returned to simply by undoing that which was done in 2014 or thereabouts. I'd also like to touch on the mechanics of the bill and how it seeks to achieve its various aims—some of which are very notable and worthy—and talk about shortfalls of course in the way that it approaches the subject as well that I'll essentially weave throughout my contribution. First looking at the title of the bill we've got in brackets—other than acknowledging we've got Family Court legislation—(Supporting Children in Court)". That's actually a pretty important thing to focus on because it indicates—and I appreciate that a title has to be brief by its nature—that the way that the Government is viewing the matter is to support children in court as opposed to saying "(Supporting Children Through a Dispute Resolution Process Whether or Not That is Most Appropriately Taken Care of in Court)". Of course it may well be the case and often is and I'd even go so far as to say that it usually is the case that supporting children through a process to be resolved outside of the court by a family dispute resolution which is of course a defined term in the sector if not in the legislation—he said checking on that point—but it might often be the case whether from a point of view of timeliness as the Hon Simon Bridges has noted or from a point of view of the stress and uncertainty and the difficulty of involving more players and a more litigious process that resolving these matters outside of a court preferably before even a courtroom is entered in the first place is going to be the most beneficial thing for the child herself or himself. As I've promised I do want to focus on who this legislation should benefit. Of course children are in the context of a family as a whole but as those who are familiar with this area of the law know and as those who have been unfortunate enough to have to experience the system from the perspective of their own family situation know the interests of the child must be paramount. That's a matter of law as well as I would suggest morality and so we must consider all the way through as we look at this legislation whether or not it will solve the problem it is designed to solve whether or not the rights of the children are being put first and whether that can be said to be likely to be achieved. No one doubts the good intentions—and again I refer to my senior colleague who has referenced that—but of course that's not the same thing as to say that it necessarily will achieve those aims and so let's look at that. The context of the reforms of 2014 was that the system was broken. It did need fixing. If it were a matter merely of saying "Well it ain't broke don't fix it." back then and it was merely a case of change for change's sake then of course we would say in 2020 "Well we can simply go back to the utopia that existed before 2014." But the fact of the matter is that it is a longstanding problem in our court system or in our justice system more generally—again de-emphasising the role and centrality of the courts as much as is reasonably possible—of a lack of timeliness and of the stress and burden of procedures relating to disputes of family situations as much as the families' situations themselves and the underlying difficulties in any given family's state of affairs. The rationale for those reforms is actually expressed pretty well and I think it's unhelpful that the explanatory note does set out the case for those having been made. Permit me please Mr Speaker to quote directly: "These reforms were intended to encourage individual responsibility and shift the focus from in-court resolution to encouraging parents to reach agreement themselves through out-of-court processes." Now in a number of cases—a large number of cases I acknowledge—families through their lawyers were able to circumvent that process by making what were known as without notice applications of course and have the legal representation that obviously they desired. Now of course there is a balance to be struck because it might be in some cases that legal representation is indeed helpful to unpick a particularly difficult set of issues and sometimes external help is going to prove of great assistance and value but at other times it's not. One doesn't need to share quite the level of cynicism of the Hon Simon Bridges in relation to the incentives or the motivations of our Family Court lawyers. Myself I would simply speak from personal experience of family law practitioners I have known and say that to a man and to a woman they are upright people who are in the profession and indeed in that particular area of the law for all the right reasons. They do work hard in a difficult system that places great constraints upon them and it is in the nature of the work that it is difficult and demanding. So one doesn't need necessarily to take a cynical view about the desirability from a lawyer's perspective of proceedings that are more lengthy and indeed if anything I would suggest that some of the provisions of the bill almost state the obvious in terms of a requirement for example that the lawyer must "promote conciliation and … enable the issues in dispute to be resolved as fairly inexpensively simply and speedily as is consistent with justice." Well that's surely a requirement on every lawyer in every case so if that's not already being observed then stating that again in this particular form as supplementary to ethical obligations of the profession I don't think it's going to make much difference. So it's disappointing to think that the Parliament could be believing itself to be providing some kind of remedy or solution to a problem that exists when in fact little more is being done than simply restating an existing obligation. The bill is quite right again in its explanatory note and I quote from the general policy statement to emphasise that "children can experience immediate and long-term consequences if they are not listened to". That's a really worthy sentiment—quite true I'm sure. I don't think anyone in this House or perhaps throughout New Zealand would disagree that failing to take into account the views and the wishes of a child will be detrimental to them and probably to the resolution of the process as a whole. But we've also got to consider the fact that delaying the resolution in the way that's been described again by the Hon Simon Bridges is itself injurious to the wellbeing of a child and I expect that every member of this House will know—through their professional dealings with constituents and perhaps even personal experience or other professional contexts and background they will know of cases that have taken years that might otherwise have been resolved much more quickly and therefore much more satisfactorily in terms of the right of the child to have his or her interests considered paramount and indeed to be acted upon in that way. So the existing expectations about the children's rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child—and that's a UN document or instrument to which we are signed up to as a country—again it's worthy but again it's something that already exists as a matter of obligation. Laws should be applied consistently with international instruments to which New Zealand is a signatory. There's nothing to suggest in the current legal framework that that shouldn't already be the case and where in individual cases that's not being applied then the fault lies with anyone who is so cavalier in their disregard of the rights of the child and the interests of the child and indeed of the family. So worthy as it is this legislation doesn't fit its own bill in terms of making a change that's so desperately needed. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired."