Faafoi Kris: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13528. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Talohani. Thank you very much. It sounds like my mother telling me off.The debate on clauses 1 and 2 when bills are debated in this Committee is an opportunity from time to time for members of Parliament to have fun with the title of a bill. But I am not going to do that tonight because this bill the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is simply not funny. It is not funny that this Government under the guise of making life easier for Kiwi families and protecting kids is slashing millions of dollars out of the Family Court budget and has claimed it is going to make things better. It is simply not going to make things better. As my colleagues have said it is going to make things much worse—not for those people who have plenty of money who might find themselves in the situation but as the officials in their regulatory impact statement said it is going to make life much worse for those low-income families who find themselves in the tricky position of separating.As the regulatory impact statement says on page 11 under the heading of reducing legal aid: “This option only affects those parties who because of their low income are eligible for legal aid.” So not everyone is going to be affected by this—not those who have lots. Those who have a bit will not be affected by this but it is the people on low incomes who are very vulnerable in these situations who are going to be the ones most adversely affected. We are going to find ourselves in a situation where those people who probably are not well-equipped to represent themselves in the Family Court are going to be asked to do that. We have already been told by many submitters and hadadvice from the officials that this could make things much worse and in fact could make situations within those families much much more dangerous.I have quoted almost ad nauseam from the submission from the Christchurch Family Court judges but I just want to point this out to the Minister in the chair—and to those on the other side of the Chamber who have taken zero calls in this debate because they are so proud of this bill—“We are concerned that without the benefit of the moderating effects of the lawyers in these situations there may well be an increase in violent behaviour by frustrated litigants.” So we have got ourselves into a situation here that those people who deal with these families every day who deal with the issues that they see with these families who are breaking up are saying that if you remove the legal representation that these people have available to them at the moment and the legal representation that they have for their children the violence in the families could actually get worse.Is this what this Government is after with these reforms in this legislation? I am not sure that it is—I am not sure that it is. What it is after though is cutting costs—it is after cutting costs. And I guess you could say that the Minister has achieved that but to what effect? The representation of the families is shot. We no longer have effective representation of children in our Family Court and the access to justice for families who are in these situations is much much harder.Part of this bill refers to family dispute resolution. Much has been made of the cost that it is now going to impose upon families to access that. It is $897. To parliamentarians that might not be a lot of money—Andrew Little: Hey?KRIS FAAFOI: —to some parliamentarians. But those families out there who are struggling on low incomes whom the officials have talked about are really going to struggle to get across that first hurdle. That cost is very restrictive for those low-income families. I have many low-income families in my electorate and that is why I praise the efforts of the family lawyers who came to me almost instantly when this was mooted. It is going to be very restrictive on those families to access what in the past has been a service that has helped them get through a pretty tricky situation.In the past they have had access to six free counselling sessions so that it could prevent them from getting to the point where they may have to go to the court. They could sort things out before they got to that situation but under this legislation that has gone. What they have to do is stump up close to $900 to get their foot in the door to start resolving their dispute.As the Law Commission said in its submission or its opinion on this bill when it was introduced: “Imposing a large fee puts a big barrier in front of those who want to resolve issues that they are unable to resolve themselves. Access to justice is a fundamental mark of a democratic and fair society.” And by introducing this fee: “That access will be impeded in New Zealand ...”. So there we have it. The Law Commission is saying that those people who cannot afford this fee to start a family dispute resolution are going to be seriously impacted in terms of their access to justice.The regulatory impact statement—I think it is the third or the fourth sentence—sets out that the Government wants to reduce costs and have a much more efficient and effective Family Court process. Well you are certainly going to reduce the costs but is it going to be more efficient and more effective? On this side of the Chamber we do not think so.The Law Commission asked itself the question of what should really happen then and we agree with this statement wholeheartedly. It went on to say that “New Zealand families will benefit from the introduction of Family Dispute Resolution if it ispresented as an accessible and equal opportunity. Charging people a large fee is a huge barrier.”So as I said at the beginning I am not going to try to make up some funny title for this bill because this simply is not a funny issue. This is going to impact on the daily lives of children and parents who are going through a pretty tough time and who are probably on low incomes. It is all right if you have got money in your back pocket but it is not going to be all right if you do not. It is not going to be OK if you do not.I think the reason we have had no calls from the other side of the Chamber is that those members want this bill to go through very quickly and for no one to notice. Well it is going to get noticed OK because there are family lawyers out in every community in New Zealand who hate this legislation. It is not because as was proposed by the Minister their legal bills or their salaries are going to go down. Some of these lawyers or most of these lawyers actually care about the families that they represent. They know that in many cases there are kids involved and that what this Government is planning to introduce with this legislation will make their lives worse—not for everybody but probably disproportionately for people who do not have enough money.If that Government is OK with that then pass the legislation. But we in the Opposition are going to fight this tooth and nail because we care about those people whom this Government has forgotten. It is quite happy to give money to big corporates to the likes of RioTinto the likes of Warner Bros—give them tens of millions of dollars. But it is going to nickel-and-dime people with kids who are going through relationshipbreakups to save money in the Family Court. If you are OK with that vote for it. But we are not OK with it on this side of the Chamber. In the communities where lots of these people cannot afford to access justice this bill is going to make things worse for them. There is almost silence from the other side of the Chamber.Hon Member: He’s repeating himself. Repetitious.KRIS FAAFOI: Oh now they start up. There is almost silence from that side. Not only do they know but they have been advised that this is going to make things worse. They have been advised that this is going to make things worse.Those Family Court judges from Christchurch—[Interruption] Oh those members on the Government side think it is funny. They think it is funny. Just put it inHansard that they think this is funny. They think that reducing representation for families that are going through tough times—low-income families—is a funny issue. Put that inHansard. There is no laughing now. But let it be known that we on this side of the Chamber fought this and there will be a price to be paid. When things go haywire when costs go up when things get worse as predicted by the Family Court judges and Kiwi families that Government is responsible—that Government is responsible not the Opposition. That Government is responsible. It has been warned that costs are going to go up and things will get worse with violence in families and this Government has done it.