Ardern Jacinda: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13496. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Thank you Minister of Justice for another friendly engagement! I really find it outrageous though that the Minister would claim that it is inappropriate for an Opposition spokesperson to use the Committee stage to ask questions of the Minister in the chair. That is the purpose of this stage of proceedings yet the Minister instead chose to stand up and rattle off all of the other ways that the Opposition spokesperson could ask questions of the Minister. That is why the Minister is here at this point of the proceedings. I would have hoped that we would have an answer to the really reasonable questions that the spokesperson Andrew Little asked of the Minister in the chair. I do not feel that she fully addressed those questions. I am likely to raise them again because the notion that simply asking a question of the Minister through written questions will produce an answer is also a bit of a misnomer. I have asked questions of that Minister in writing. It is rare that you get anything otherthan a sarcastic response back. To get anything of substance is quite a challenge as the Minister has once again proved from the chair.I think we have lost sight of the fact that Part 3 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is not just about setting out a new dispute resolution process. Part 3 is a fundamental shift away from the notion that the State does play a role in assisting people to resolve disputes when they reach a certain point. The Minister seemed to imply that every couple with children that has a dispute ends up in the Family Court and that that is what she is trying to prevent. Of course they do not—of course they do not. But there are a number of situations where things escalate to a point where they are unable to be resolved even through the kinds of mechanisms that she is proposing as a first stage. But they are not really a first stage; they are a blockage to resolution—a costly costly barrier to access to justice to access to a service that previously the State has always acknowledged that it plays a role in.The Minister’s implication that anyone who ends up in the Family Court somehow does not have the best interests of their child at heart does not seem to acknowledge the fact that that is why they have a dispute. They have differing views about what is in the best interests of the child. That is often why they end up there.Rather than actually enforcing the one voice that should be stronger the voice of the child that voice in this process is actually weakened. We have seen a change in the way that lawyer for child is used in this process and yet my understanding is that many of the submissions pointed out that the best advocate through this process often was that voice or indeed the voice of the child. I want to reflect on that as I go through some of the elements of Part 3 and the way that the dispute resolution organisations are structured which ultimately undermines that voice. As I have said this is a departure from the practice we have already had in New Zealand. We had a specialist Family Court established more than 30 years ago for the purpose of addressing that there are some disputes that simply cannot be resolved effectively without it.Of course there will be changes over time and it is important that we reflect on whether or not our court is working efficiently and effectively. It is fair to say that PeterBoshier for instance has talked about some of the delays in the Family Court. In fact when the Justice and Electoral Committee carried out a review—I believe it was last term—into child offending it found that one of the causes of significant delay is often the role of Child Youth and Family in the Family Court. Constant change of practitioners and not fulfilling the requirements set down by the Family Court on behalf of Child Youth and Family are the kinds of things that actually are causing the delays in the Family Court. Instead the Minister has decided to upset this part of the process. It seems that some of the causes of delay have not been fully explored. There has not been enough evidence and advice sitting around that. Instead we have gone straight to this part of the Family Court process.One of the issues that we in Labour have raised of course is that bringing in this family dispute resolution process is not necessarily going to improve access to justice—in fact there is a $900 cost. I would not mind hearing more discussion about this because I was not a member of the select committee. Is it a confirmed cost? Is it likely that that cost would change? It strikes me as something that could escalate quite easily. Are there any regulations to set down that that can be capped? Will the Regulations Review Committee have any role in overseeing the levy that is set or will that be set by the Secretary for Justice? Are there parameters around the way that levy is set?I would not mind hearing from the Minister in the chair as to the parameters that sit around that compulsory fee for the private process to resolve disputes. The Minister raised that she sees cases where for instance there are issues around where a child willspend Christmas being escalated to the Family Court. There are some parents who certainly can use orders as a bit of a weapon in that way. Are you sure Minister that they will not use every time as an alternative form of weapon the fact that this cost will be prohibitive for the other partner to access this dispute resolution? That therefore needs to be resolved. I certainly know of parents who will not be able to afford this process—not just once but the multiple times they would potentially be required to go through it. That is something I would like to hear the Minister’s view on—the clear access to justice issues.I want to come specifically to subclauses 56(a) and (b) which set out the requirements for the family dispute resolution process and the provider. It says that their two primary purposes are “(a) assisting parties to a family dispute to resolve the dispute without having to pursue court proceedings; and (b) ensuring that the parties’ first and paramount consideration in reaching a resolution is the welfare and best interests of the children”. I want to know from the Minister if it is up to the Secretary for Justice to define who will undertake these services what requirements there will be for those services to have an understanding of child well-being to have a background in this kind of resolution process and specifically to have the kind of expertise and specialist knowledge that parents were previously accessing through this process. The Minister shakes her head but I think it is a fair question to ask. If it is in almost a purpose clause how will the Minister ensure that that is being enacted when she refuses to give us any criteria around what these providers will look like or any detail whatsoever on what her expectations are for what will become the very very critical service that sits in front of the Family Court process? Also what right of review will there be if there is an unfavourable process and people feel that the provider has not acted in a way that is appropriate or provided the kind of service that it is expected to provide for the $900 that a parent is paying for that service? Is there any alternative system that they can access to raise those concerns?I also want to come to subclause 60B(5). It says: “Subsection (6) applies when a family dispute resolution provider decides that a family dispute with which the provider is dealing is unable to be resolved within a reasonable time.” So of course that is setting out the parameters when you might see an escalation of that family dispute process when it might move on from being dealt with by that private provider. I would like to know whether or not the select committee or indeed the Minister has a view on what a reasonable time is. If indeed as the Minister claims this is all about resolving disputes in a timely fashion earlier and with less cost to the Crown—because it is not about less cost to families that is for sure—then what is a reasonable amount of time? What is considered to be reasonable in that context? Did the committee discuss parameters? Will those providers be contracted to provide the service within that reasonable amount of time? Because this is also about access I wonder what the time limits for those waiting lists might look like for those private providers how quickly they might need to move through those just what the expectation of the Minister is generally and whether she believes that this will improve the system. Surely she has in her own mind some expectations over what that would look like.I would invite the Minister in the chair to answer what I think are some reasonable questions rather than delaying our ability to have a full debate on this topic by instead asking members to access a process that she knows full well she does not respond to properly.