Goff Phil: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11564. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):The Labour Party will be strenuously opposing this bill the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill which far from achieving the objectives set out in the bill does exactly the contrary. It is damaging to equity it is damaging to the interests of children it is damaging to the ability of parents who have separated to reconcile their differences and to find a way through and it has nothing to do with improving the quality of the Family Court process in this country. It is inherently dishonest in what it says it sets out to do when it is absolutely clear and set out in black and white in the regulatory impact statement that this bill is all about cutting costs.In her comments the Minister of Justice said that this was the biggest change that has ever been made to the Family Court system since 1981. You know the experts who appeared before the Justice and Electoral Committee did not deny that comment but they added this—and this comes from five people four of whom have 30 years’ experience and professional expertise in the Family Court. They said this about the bill: “If this Bill proceeds as drafted the very fabric of the New Zealand family justice system will be destroyed.”Hon Bill English: Rubbish.Hon PHIL GOFF: Continuing the quote: “The Bill is based on flawed policy development without a statistical or research base justifying such fundamental and radical changes.”A member of the Government side said just then that that was rubbish. These people—these five practitioners—were not simply the most experienced and expert barristers before the court and psychological experts; they were so well regarded for their expertise that the then Minister Simon Power appointed them to the experts reference group. The National Party says that it is rubbish but this so-called rubbish is actually the advice of very experienced very professional people appointed by Simon Power to advise him on the bill. And they say that this bill is a disaster.You know when I picked up this bill I thought that this might be a piece of legislation that I could support. I looked at its objective which was “to ensure amodern accessible family justice system that is responsive to children and vulnerable people and is efficient and effective.” What do I find when I read the submissions and I read the detail of this bill? That that is a truly Orwellian quote because the bill does exactly—exactly—the opposite of what it purports to do.I want to actually again take some of the evidence that was received by the Justice and Electoral Committee and refer it to the House. You know Judith Collins said that this bill would make it easier to understand and navigate the court system. Her namesake Garry Collin Chair of the Law Society family law section says that this change will actually “create a more complex system than we currently have … The new system is a complex maze of procedures with different entry points criteria and exemptions.” He says that this will cost more rather than save money. And when he says that it will cost more he is talking not only about the financial cost but also about the basic costs to the most vulnerable people in this system who will lose their right to legal representation and will lose the ability to go to the dispute on an even footing with the opposing party who may be well funded who may be educated and who may be articulate.What we find is that the lawyers who have watched the way this system has evolved over decades say that this will be damaging to the interests of the child. For heaven’s sake the bill reduces the funding available for counsel for the child. So the child may be in a situation where nobody is representing his or her interests and the funding will be taken away from a person who has the professional expertise and the knowledge to actually ensure that the interests of the child are well looked after.The other thing that worries me most about this bill is when I read from that submission it says this about the bill: it is not based on empirical evidence. This is the biggest change in the Family Court’s history and it is not based on any empirical evidence. It says that in fact it is contrary to extensive existing evidence of best outcomes for families and children. Not only is it not based nor does it even pretend to be based on factual evidence but it runs contrary to the wide body of research that has been done on family law and what would be good for the interests of families and children.The submission says the bill will create a two-tiered family justice system: “The more vulnerable members of society will have limited access to services to assist them in the resolution of family disputes. For those who do have access to the services the services will be of lesser quality.” It goes on to say: “It is entirely foreseeable that inequalities arising from gender socio-economic status and ethnicity will become entrenched resulting in increased costs to the health education child protection and criminal justice budgets.”That evidence from people who ought to know from people who were appointed to advise the Minister of Justice shows that this bill is a disaster. But for any doubting members on the National benches all of whom have their heads down at the moment what that expert evidence showed was actually what was put into the regulatory impact statement by the Government’s own advisers. As well as saying that this is driven by the overall fiscal situation and the need to lower the costs of the current justice system—they were honest. At least the officials were honest about it; not so the Government members who have spoken on it. They also said that the bill was based on “limited” research which is exactly the point that the submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee were making in their evidence. The regulatory impact statement said that “There is insufficient historical fiscal and statistical data …”. It said: “There was insufficient time for piloting proposed processes or for undertaking … ([a look] at court documents) to obtain further data ...”.All of the evidence on this bill points to the fact that it will be an absolute disaster. It is about cost cutting. It is not about equity it is not about fairness and it is not about getting a good outcome from the bill. It is about saving the Government money. The Government’s own advisers and the experts warn the Government that it will not save it money; it will cost it more money and worse still it will cost those families and particularly the vulnerable children of those families unnecessary misery because the situation will not be resolved as quickly or as fairly as it could be.It was not time that prevented the Government from going back to its expert advisory group. First of all the Government claimed that the bill was consistent with the expert advisory group. The group in an outraged statement said: “That is simply not true. It couldn’t be more inconsistent—on four key points of what the Government is doing.” It was not time that stopped the Government from going back to its expert advisory group. It was the knowledge that this bill is dishonest it is fraudulent it will not do what it claims it is setting out to do it is not even motivated by what it sets out to do and it will be a disaster for the New Zealand courts system.The Minister says that it will save money. I want to remind the Minister of the change that was introduced by I think the Minister for Courts for processing Family Court cases in Auckland. What did the Principal Family Court Judge say about that botch-up? He said that urgent custody cases involving domestic violence previously dealt with in 14 days were now taking 2 months. Was it saving money? No it was costing a million dollars more. The Government has made one disaster in the Family Court system it is compounding it with another disaster and it is not even honest enough in this House to admit that it is doing it for purely fiscal reasons and that this bill will be a disaster in terms of the principles of justice.