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:13518. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I am very happy that the other side is very happy that I am taking a call on Part 4 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. Just to respond to some of the performance from the Minister of Justice because that is all it was—it was just a performance. Do not believe the hype from that Minister when she says that this bill is about the care and protection of kids. It is not about kids; it is about cutting costs—pure and simple. That is what this bill is about. The Minister said in her contribution that this bill is about kids and that there will be fair representation for them but the Christchurch Family Court judges in their submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee did not think so.I would like to quote from their submission to the select committee about the representation of children. I quote from the Family Court lawyers representing children:“In fact those lawyers representing children are the single most effective agency in the entire Court system in achieving solutions for children. They are mobile intervene rapidly are well trained and experienced in the field gather information give directive advice to parents and have earned the confidence of parents.” The judges go on to say at the end of their submission: “They are the machinery which enable us to make safe and appropriate decisions for children. They are the eyes and ears of the Court. Without full participation when needed of the child’s lawyers Judges will not be confident they can make decisions which keep children safe.” That is a submission from Family Court lawyers in Christchurch.This bill is not primarily about the care of children; this is about the cutting of costs. As a number of my colleagues have already alluded to in the regulatory impact statement which the Minister referred to in her contribution on page 11 on the financial implications of restricting the legal aid available to Family Court proceedings it says that it will reduce “the cost of legal aid in care of children cases by $41.3 million over 3 years.” This will save $41.3 million over 3 years by restricting legal aid not to those who are rich but as the regulatory impact statement says this option affects only those parties who because of their low income are eligible for legal aid. That regulatory impact statement goes on to say about the impacts of this policy a couple of sentences later: “This could lead to the represented party’s view being put more strongly and create or exacerbate power imbalances between the parties.” So basically it is saying that there will be an imbalance in the representation between the parties in care of children cases and family dispute cases. I do not think that is a very good thing and certainly the family lawyers in my patch do not think that is a good thing either.Another practical impact that the officials whom the Minister asked to give her advice said is a very simple thing is that “Some people may have difficulty completing the forms [when they are representing themselves] proceedings may take longer and a judge may feel he or she needs to see the parties in court more often.” So what we are having here is that although the Government says it wants to save $41.3 million over 3 years we are going to have a false economy because the cases that come before the judges are going to be much more protracted and much more complicated the Family Court system is going to get caught up in itself and things are actually going to be more expensive by this Government wanting to cut costs.There has been a lot of talk about self-representation and the inability of some parents to do it in an informed way. The Family Court judges from Christchurch had more to say on that. They say: “Many of our litigants are disempowered in their relationships highly anxious suffer personality disorders are not fluent in English or are consumed by anger or frustration in the context of the breakdown of their relationships. We are concerned that without the benefit of the moderating effects of their lawyers there may well be an increase in violent behaviour by frustrated litigants.” I think I have made this point already in a debate on an earlier part. What is going to happen is that by leaving parties to their own devices and not giving them the same access to legal aid that they may have or the counselling services that they may have the issues between those parties end up getting worse.I want to quote from that submission again: “We are concerned that without the benefit of the moderating effects of their lawyers there may well be an increase in violent behaviour by frustrated litigants.” So here we are with Christchurch Family Court judges warning the MPs on the select committee that if they leave this as it is things may actually get worse in the homes of Kiwis out there. For the Minister to sit there in the chair and to take a call and say that this is actually going to make things easier or better for families is a complete farce because we have got people who dealwith this on a daily basis—they see the families; they know the issues—and they are warning us that if we leave this as it is if we have people representing themselves if we do not give them the fair access to legal aid that they have had in the past if we are not going to give children the representation that they have had in the past things could get worse. I do not think that we want to have that on our heads as parliamentarians.Can I also look at some of the other options that officials looked at and gave advice to the Minister on around the restriction of legal aid. On page 12 of the very helpful regulatory impact statement in the impacts they also said and this echoes what the judges in Christchurch said about self-representation: “Judges are likely to spend more time on proceedings in which parties are not represented including managing any power imbalances between the parties.” Again we have got the officials who are advising the Minister and we have got judges who are dealing with these issues on a daily basis warning us that if we do not do something about this and the changes that this Government is going to introduce to cut costs—not to make the Family Court process any more effective or efficient but wanting to cut costs—things are actually going to get worse for the day-to-day running of the courts.OK that may make things worse for the day-to-day running of the courts but what impact does that have in the homes in the families of the people who are involved here? We have got separations a very difficult time for families. Tempers are high. We may have as was mentioned in Part 2 some kind of financial abuse some kind of physical abuse that is also in the mix here. We have obviously got children and when you do not have a level of representation that we have had in the past that could make things much much worse as the judges and the officials have warned the Minister of.I just want to make this final point because the Minister in her submission in her last contribution to this bill said that this was not about cutting costs; this was about the care of children. To the Minister—all the people who are giving us advice and have submitted to the select committee say the complete opposite thing. They are saying that what you are trying to do is siloed is about only cutting costs and is going to make life much worse for families and the kids in those families if you go down this path. Not only will it make life more difficult for those families but you are going to exacerbate problems that already exist in the Family Court. Things are going to be much more protracted cases are going to be much more protracted and those cases are going to be much more complex.So in essence what they are saying is that you are creating a bigger mess than you are trying to clean up. I would hope that the Minister might take that message other than just cutting costs and think about the families that are in play here think about the access to justice that is in play here and maybe she might want to make a contribution. Probably not. Maybe someone from the other side of the Chamber might want to make a contribution and tell us how that plays out for Kiwi families because at the moment we have got a Minister in the chair who is saying that this is all about the care and protection of children but all the evidence even from the judges who are dealing with this daily and her own officials say this is about cutting costs. That is what this bill is about—cutting costs—not making life any easier for those families who are going through this very very difficult time.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 4 be agreed to.