Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair and can I start by thanking the Minister in the chair Kris Faafoi for the initial exposition that he's given us in relation to the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill obviously geared towards Part 1. I thank the Minister for acknowledging the fact that likely everyone in this House and certainly speaking on behalf of National we on this side of the House does support the intent that he's articulated: of course to reduce the stress including as to time frames faced by those in the Family Court including and especially children. It's not one of the areas of policy where different sides of the debate I think would have different aims that they want to achieve ultimately so we're discussing really different ways to achieve that. So that's a positive start I think to tonight's discussion of Part 1 and beyond.I did not personally have a hand in writing the minority view on behalf of National within the select committee report—indeed I didn't sit on the select committee that considered the bill. However I've read and understood those points and I think that the Minister has done a pretty reasonable job of acknowledging those points. Obviously he's begging to differ in terms of the emphasis that he on behalf of the Government would place on those various points but I think that they're worth traversing nonetheless so that all involved in this area of policy and practice can understand the good-faith intent of the Parliament as a whole to trying to improve the situation of the Family Court.Looking at some of the particular matters that are being amended within Part 1 the first relates to clause 4 which would amend section 5 of the Care of Children Act 2004. I'd just like to draw the Minister's attention to the wording of the bill as it's now back before the House and just give him an opportunity to speak to the amendment whereby the Parliament will be saying that a child must be given reasonable opportunities to participate in any decision affecting them." I think as far as it goes that's all pretty straightforward and hopefully non-controversial of course the big-picture context being that the decisions should reflect the best interests of the child not only in terms of their legal representation but of course ultimately the outcome the substantive matter that's been brought before the Family Court.I presume in saying that that the reasonable opportunities that are to be given—that that should be seen in the context of the circumstances that apply. Most obviously the child themselves may or may not be capable of forming a view or it might be a pretty limited view reflecting the fact that they might be young or at a particular stage of learning development. If I understand correctly the annotation of the bill some wording around that about a child who is capable of forming their own views about a matter that's been struck out. So just seeking in the first instance some reassurance from the Minister that his policy intent is that the child be given a reasonable opportunity to participate but in a way that's appropriate to them in the circumstances that he or she—that is the child—finds himself before the court.So at that point I'll pause and reflect on whether the Minister's in a position to answer but I think he's indicating that I should continue to speak—yeah OK—and maybe raise a couple of other points that he might care to respond to at the same time.One of the points that the National Party members of the committee have raised in this differing view is to do with the ability of other players for want of a better phrase in the context of a court case or outside a court case potentially—and that's really the point. So talking about overseas jurisdictions using psychologists or social workers and other professionals who are not in the position of being lawyers per se but nevertheless having an understanding of the legal process but more importantly an understanding of what might be happening in a family and what might be happening inside the head of a child who finds themselves—or children indeed—in the situation of having to navigate this complicated and no doubt often distressing scenario in which they find themselves.So I'll be keen to know if the Minister can reassure us that as a matter of policy intent to match what appears to be in front of us within Part 1 of the bill there's some thought being given to resourcing the court or again the legal system or the dispute resolution system more broadly to have such people able to feed into the system. The point that the Minister makes is noted and understood and to some extent reflected by the profession that to avoid having lawyers involved might be a worthy aim but of course there are ways to circumvent that. He's spoken about the without notice applications. That's all fine as far as it goes but if we do not replace that expertise and that involvement by non-lawyers then the fear of course is that we simply revert to the situation that in 2014 had needed some amendment albeit not the kind of amendment that the other side is now approving of.So I think at that point I'll see if the Minister will respond to those points and if he will then I'll look forward to those. If not I'll continue but he is indeed."