Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4476. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What assistance will be available to families unable to afford the fee of over $900 she proposes to introduce in order to access the new Family Dispute Resolution Service? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The premise of the member’s question is incorrect. The fee for the new Family Disputes Resolution service is not over $900. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek to table a document from the Minister’s office released 2 weeks ago indicating that the fee to access— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Is this a press release though? 
Charles Chauvel 
: No it is a Q and A issued by the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document from the Minister’s office. Is there any objection? 
Charles Chauvel 
: To be clear— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have put it to the House. I have put the leave. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask that you review the systems within your office that allowed this question to be accepted if in fact it was not properly authenticated. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The issue is an interesting one. Indeed information for authenticating a question is often accepted as information in a press release and that is often what is supplied. Just because a question is authenticated to be within the Standing Orders for it to be asked does not automatically mean that information contained in it is correct. I draw that distinction to the attention of members of the House: authentication does not of itself imply that the information contained in a question is correct. There is no way that my office can identify whether or not—it is beyond our means to be able to ascertain whether or not information is correct. We can only authenticate it in terms of the information provided and that is what was done here. The Minister it appears is refuting the accuracy of the information provided and the Minister is at liberty to do that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Now that the Family Court review has been completed will she reconsider the proposed restrictions in the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill on entitlements to civil legal aid including its requirement that the parties should meet the costs of counsel for the child? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That bill is currently being considered and of course with the Family Court review and hopefully the shifting of many applications into Family Disputes Resolution so that they do not need to go court there are expected to be some more changes coming to the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill. 
Charles Chauvel 
: In addition to the 1200 New Zealand families every year that her officials say will be deterred by the new $900 fee from using the Family Court what modelling has been done on the deterrent effect of requiring families to pay for the cost of counsel for the child and the new legal aid entitlement threshold of an income of only $22000 per annum? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: In fact the advice from the officials was that about 1200 families would be able to have their matters dealt with in the Family Disputes Resolution service—in other words preventing them from having to go to the Family Court to get their matters resolved. I would have thought that most people would think that when we had 26000 applications to the Family Court in the 2010-11 year and they involved only 8000 families that tells us that there are an awful lot of applications and repeat applications from the same families whose matters have simply not been resolved to their satisfaction. Family Disputes Resolution will be about helping them to come to the right conclusions. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister addressed the premise of my question but not the substance of it. The substance asked her about the modelling that has been done if any on the deterrent effect of requiring families to pay for the cost of counsel for the child and also being met by a new entitlement to civil— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! To save time I will allow the member to repeat his question because I sense that there is some validity to his point. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Thank you. The question is: in addition to the 1200 New Zealand families every year that her officials say will be deterred by the new access fee from using the Family Court what modelling has been done on the deterrent effect of requiring families to pay for the costs of counsel for the child and the new legal aid entitlement threshold of an income of only $22000 per annum? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The member has again put statements in his question that I do not believe give the full and right context. The officials have indicated that around 1200 families will not need to go to the Family Court because they will be able to have their matters resolved by the Family Disputes Resolution service. I would have thought that every responsible member of Parliament would think that was a good thing. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry but I am renewing my objection— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Order! On this occasion having listened very carefully this time to both the question—the member will resume his seat—and the answer I think the Minister’s answer was a perfectly valid answer. The member made a statement at the start of the question. He did not ask what modelling had been done; he made a statement about advice around deterrents to use if I remember correctly. The Minister in her answer argued that that statement was incorrect and she is at liberty to do that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a further point of order? 
Charles Chauvel 
: Yes. I am just trying to understand your ruling. I did— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The ruling is very simple to understand. If the member goes back and looks at the question asked he made a statement before asking about modelling. He said “given”. When members do that they run a risk. There have been some Speakers who have not allowed that. I allow that because I think it is quite important because sometimes that “given” might be “given the Minister’s previous answer” and I think it is good that members have listened to answers. The risk is that if a member makes a statement like that prior to asking the substance of the question the Minister is at liberty to dispute that statement. That is what the Minister has done and that is a perfectly fair answer. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to be very clear. I did not begin my question with “given that”. I did make a statement: I said “in addition to”. But surely if the Minister disputes the statement she is entitled to do that but she is still required to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Not at all. Not at all. If members include statements in their questions Ministers are perfectly at liberty to dispute the statement made and that is the end of their answer. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What advice has she received about how the closure of the Manukau Counties Community Law Centre next week and the threatened closure of other community and specialist law centres around New Zealand will affect the ability of family members to get access to the advice and representation they need to resolve domestic disputes involving vulnerable children? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am fully aware that there are in effect better services being put in place to deal with the situation in Manukau. If the member would like I am very happy to provide him with a briefing. It is quite a sensitive matter but actually better steps are being put in place. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked what advice the Minister had received about the effect of these closures on family law services. I do not think that was addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said that better services will be provided. She did not clarify whether that was the advice she had received. I will give the Minister the opportunity to clarify that. The question did indeed ask what advice she had received and I think that should be answered. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The supplementary question is a very long way from the primary question and if the member wanted to have very detailed information he could have put it down as a primary question. But I have already offered the member a briefing which is quite sensitive given the fact that there are some— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister is going on beyond what is necessary for a point of order right now. I accept the point the Minister is making that we have gone from Family Disputes Resolution services to the Family Court but it is not unrelated. That is why I do not think it would be fair to rule out the member’s supplementary question. I believe that would be unfair. But the question asked what advice the Minister had received on that matter. Maybe the Minister does not have that information with her today and that would be a perfectly fair answer given the distance from the primary question asked. But I think it is unreasonable to ignore the question and because of the time that has passed I invite Charles Chauvel to repeat his question. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What advice has she received about how the closure of the Manukau Counties Community Law Centre next week and the potential closure of other community and specialist law centres around New Zealand will affect the ability of family members to get access to the advice and representation they need to resolve domestic disputes involving vulnerable children? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I do not have that information with me and I invite that member to write to me about it because so far I do not believe I have received any communication from him. 
Charles Chauvel 
: In respect of civil legal aid and the Family Court as well as access to justice in that court what has changed since the President of the New Zealand Law Society Jonathan Temm said that the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill and related measures were misleading about the savings they would deliver would have an impact on child poverty would make savings in one place but result in cost blowouts in others and would fail to serve New Zealand’s most vulnerable people well? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I suggest for a start the period of time because there has been a lot of water gone under the bridge since Mr Temm made those comments and he is certainly very pleased with some of the work that we have been doing on this. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: If whanau do not have access to the new Family Disputes Resolution service or any form of dispute resolution in the event that they cannot afford the fee what proposals will she be putting forward to ensure that whanau are able to access these services without income limitations preventing them from being able to do so? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That is a really good question and the answer in fact is that families that cannot afford the fee or their share of the fee will be able to be subsidised so that they can access the service. We are very keen to get more people out of court and get these matters sorted out in a family situation.