Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It is a privilege to be able to speak to the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill because it is such an important area for our country and of course most particularly for our country's children.The bill is well intentioned as indeed are those who work in this crucial sector. I haven't met a person involved in the provision of justice for young people and others in the Family Court arena who is not motivated by good intentions. It is worth noting—and I do so in an entirely non-cynical manner—that for a lawyer to zealously represent the interests of their clients in a courtroom may result in a more lengthy more adversarial process than would otherwise be the case if for example there were out-of-court settlements. That is a feature of that system not a bug. So the question then in the background to this bill and indeed any changes that may be made in the Family Court and children-affected system in particular is whether there's a better way. Is there an opportunity instead to have disputes or scenarios resolved other than by involving lawyers and adversarial court processes? The answer of course is yes and notwithstanding that our court system as it currently operates is not perfect we have an opportunity every time we stand in this House to speak on a piece of legislation or Government policy to suggest a way that things could be done better than is being proposed which is not of course the same thing as to say that the system as it currently exists is perfect—frankly it is not. I was not a member of the Justice Committee for all of the deliberations and the hearings and so on but I do join others—and I note the chair of the committee has quite rightly thanked those who have participated in that process. I followed this issue with some interest including as the court spokesperson for my party.The background to the review that was commissioned in 2011 and ultimately crystallised in the form of law changes in 2014 was that the system as it existed then had major problems. The problems were those of delay and of course it's such a hackneyed phrase as to be almost in the category of truism that Justice delayed is justice denied". I think we can all agree in this House that more speedy resolution of matters before courts is in the interests of all concerned including again and particularly the children involved. The reasons for this—if they're not instinctively obvious to anyone listening or those who have been unfortunate enough to have been personally involved in such matters—include that tensions tend to be entrenched and increase rather than reduce over time where protracted disputes take place. So for that reason any time that we can avoid protracted delays in court processing times or legal processes in general then that's something that we should aim to do as a Parliament.The very worthy intentions principles and various other additions that are made in this bill before us—and to amend the Care of Children Act—are in the category of things that should be happening anyway or that could or should be improved where improvement is needed by ways other than legislation. So for example we see that a new principle related to a child's welfare and best interests is to be added to say that a child should have reasonable opportunities to participate in decisions affecting their care and welfare and that their views should be taken into account commensurate with their age and maturity. Well the reality is that if any lawyer is not taking into account the interests needs and ability to the extent that it exists for their clients to participate in decisions then he or she is not doing their job very well at all and of course that more general principle that a child's interests are the paramount consideration in such matters should apply I believe to the way that any lawyer would approach their task in such matters.Similarly to appoint a lawyer who is going to be able to represent the child best taking into account the various factors and the point that was made by Ginny Andersen regarding training for lawyers representing a child. For more training and more expertise to be provided is very worthy and I don't think anyone could argue with her or indeed the Children's Commissioner on that. Indeed I'd strongly agree. But again that is not a matter that needs to be legislated. It should not need to be legislated; in fact it does not need to be legislated. Allow me to conclude my remarks by noting that the error that the Government makes—and I make this comment respectfully because I do believe that they wish to have a better system of justice for the Family Court. But the error that they make in the reforms that they are undertaking whereby they are essentially reversing the 2014 reforms without saying "Is there another way to improve upon them?" is to conflate access to justice as a phrase with access to lawyers. The purpose of resolution being sought in these matters is of course that the parties are able to get on with their lives in the most reasonable way that causes the least damage to those involved—including the children but not only the children—and to allow our system to have out-of-court settlements wherever possible. That is not in the case where there is family violence at issue because we agree with the Government that in such matters they are naturally adversarial and it is important to have lawyers to protect the fundamental trial rights of those involved. But wherever possible this Parliament and indeed the Government should be looking for ways to improve access to justice in the holistic sense of that phrase—less of the delays in the justice system that we're seeing increasingly across the sector. For this reason as others have said we do not support this bill."