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:13523. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Talohani Mr Chairperson. Thank you very much for the chance to take a very quick call on Part 5 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill because I do not want to delay the proceedings of the Committee too much. That would be unfortunate. Just looking at Part 5 it does refer to the appointment of lawyers to represent children in proceedings. I thought that it would be a shame to have a part in this bill where the Labour Party does not refer to the regulatory impact statement because it has been a very important document to prove our argument that this bill is not necessarily about making life easier for Kiwi families but is actually around the cutting of costs. Page 13 quite helpfully helps us illustrate that because it does talk about the targeted use of lawyers for children. In a very kind of bureaucratic way—I do not mean to say that to the detriment of any bureaucrats—it talks about changing “the way the Court appoints lawyer for child”. Moving along from the description of what they are trying to do and going straight to the financial implications because that is what this is all really about for the Government at least the statement says that the estimated cost savings for changing the way that the court appoints lawyers for our children is $12.4 million per year based on 2010-11 expenditure. So there you have it—another big whack of cash that the Government has saved. I guess if you think about the motivation for the Government and for the Minister of Justice it has done its job because $12.4 million has been saved by cutting children’s access to legal representation.We have already heard from the submission of the Christchurch Family Court judges in the previous part but I did want to just take another part of their submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee because I think it is very telling what these judges were saying about the changes that are contained in this bill. I am quoting from their submission now where they said: “Although the Bill contains reasonable powers for a Judge to appoint a lawyer to represent children our concern is that control of their role and remuneration is transferred from the Family Court to the Legal Services Agency. We foresee they will be confined by regulations which are not part of this Bill but which would be enabled by it.” I just want to repeat what they said about the role of children’s lawyers in Family Court disputes. They said that the lawyers are “the machinery which enable us to make safe and appropriate decisions for children. They are the eyes and the ears of the Court. Without full participation when needed of the child’s lawyers Judges will not be confident they can make the decisions which keep children safe.”One of the more crass things that I have heard from the Minister this night is an attack on lawyers—about this being some kind of gravy train for them. When this piece of legislation was introduced lawyers in my patch in Porirua were very very fast to come to me and say: “We have grave concerns about what is in this piece of legislation.” not because they thought their incomes were going to be affected but because they knew that the changes within this bill would adversely affect the people that the law is meant to help: Kiwi families. They knew that the fee of $900 for the family dispute resolution service would be restrictive and would stop people accessing justice at one of the most vulnerable times of their lives. They knew that restricting thesituations where children can have lawyers appointed for them would also take away the children’s voice in these disputes.I did just want to—if I can find it in time—take a quote from a story that was in the media when this bill was first introduced. It is a very quick quote from Professor MarkHenaghan from Otago University. He said around reducing the access to lawyers for children: “If we take their representation out [then] we doom them not to be heard.”—then we doom them not to be heard. I think that is a very telling statement from someone in the legal profession who has got a lot of credibility about what this Government is doing for the voice of children in the legal process. The Government knows that children will not necessarily have a voice in this place. They will not necessarily turn up to make a submission to the select committee so the Government is quite happy to take away their legal representation to save per year $12.4 million to meet the requirements of the Government’s motivation around this piece of legislation. I say to that Government: shame on it. If it is quite happy to take away the voice of the children—[Bell rung]—I said it was going to be short—in the Family Court proceedings then I say the Government should front up to the Law Society and to those people who have submitted against this bill say why it is quite happy to do that and say why it is quite happy to take away their representation and doom their children not to be heard.Again—I want to stress this point because the Minister has made this point a number of times when she has made contributions to this debate—she says that this bill is about the care and protection of children. Well I am not buying that. A lot of people who have submitted to the Justice and Electoral Committee are not buying that. This bill is not about kids. It is about cutting costs. It is about cuttings costs and $12.4 million has been cut from the bill to make sure that there is legal representation for the kids by making these changes. We are very concerned about the access to justice for those kids and their families because this Government seems to think it is OK to take money away from low-income families as the regulatory impact statement has said who need to access justice and it is quite happy to give it to big business when it suits it with the likes of RioTinto and with the likes ofSkycity and to also hock off our State-owned assets. It is all fun and games when there are millions concerned and it is bringing the money in but for the little people out there who need some help in tough times this Government does not care about them. It is quite happy to penny-pinch when it is people who are vulnerable and in difficult times going through separations but when it is big business it is quite happy to write out the big cheques.That is the kind of Government we have right now. That is the kind of Government we have right now. It will quite happily nip and tuck at people who are in vulnerable situations who are on low incomes—[Interruption]—sorry I will take that back—who are in Family Court disputes but when it comes to big business and that comes knocking the Government will quite happily write out the cheques. Mr Tau Henare probably is not happy about this privately. He is not happy about it privately but he is going to have to go along with the flow because he knows that the people that he represents as a list MP in West Auckland will come to him and say: “Tau this is not on. This is not on.”Hon Tau Henare: Oh that subtle put-down eh? That subtle put-down.KRIS FAAFOI: Oh just being factual. They know—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member must use the honourable member’s full name.KRIS FAAFOI: Mr Tau Henare will know that he will have people coming to his office saying: “Tau why can’t my kids access legal representation in this situation?” and Tau will have to front up and say: “Because we are cutting costs.” They will say:“But we read the paper and Judith Collins said this is about caring for kids.” Well the truth of the matter is that it is not. It is about cutting costs not caring for Kiwi families. I think that is borne out by the fact that this Government seems to care more about corporates than it does about Kiwis. Thank you very much.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 5 be agreed to.