Hutchison Paul: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18566. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I speak on Part 7 of the Family Courts Matters Bill a bill that I think I recall the Hon Rick Barker saying was purely a technical bill but one that clearly extends to much more than matters of pure technicality. In fact I note that the Hon Rick Barker has put forward Supplementary Order Paper 202 which proposes to divide the bill into 12 bills.  
With regard to Part 7 the proposal is to have the title of the Act as the Family Proceedings Amendment Act 2008 and have the commencement come into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. Part 7 deals particularly with counsellors and mediation and the roles they play in this matter of the Family Court which are absolutely vital and fundamental.  
I think it was Principal Family Court Judge Boshier who said in his submission on behalf of the Family Court just how absolutely vital it is to ensure that the help from counsellors psychologists or mediators is of the highest quality because there has been variability in the past and the negative consequences of this help not being of the highest professional standard can be considerable. Nevertheless over the years a high professionalism has developed in this area and I understand that several organisations are particularly representative of mediators and counsellors.  
I see that the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand and LEADR an association of dispute resolvers also submitted. They also stressed just how vital it is to have professionalism within their ranks and to be consistent to be available and of course to be able to provide a rapid response if necessary. Nothing is worse than having long gaps between making the order to have counselling or mediation and it finally coming about because when the parties are ready to embrace it it is important to get on with it while one can. I note that section 12 which is to be substituted in the Family Proceedings Act by clause 54 and is entitled “Duties on counsellors” states in subsection (1) that a counsellor “(a) must explore the possibility of reconciliation between the parties; and (b) if reconciliation does not appear to be possible must attempt to promote conciliation between the parties.”  
In their submission the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute and LEADR spent a lot of time defining the difference between counselling and mediation. They stated: “Counselling is a process in which an individual client is assisted by a counsellor to consider their internal and emotional responses to the external world with a view to improving their own emotional and psychological health and their ability to respond to external stimuli in a more constructive manner.” Undoubtedly this requires enormous professionalism and skill. On the other hand they said that mediation is a process “where an independent mediator works with parties to identify issues between the parties explore options and try to agree to outcomes”. Clearly again the potential of their being successful is incredibly important.  
I note that in those organisations’ submission they also make an appeal to be recognised in terms of their pay. They say that they have not been appropriately rewarded particularly for some of the longer and more complex cases. They feel that their skill level makes it necessary for them to be paid at a similar rate to that of lawyers and I wonder just how my learned legal colleagues around me would feel about such a proposition. I will end by saying that there is no doubt that skilful mediation wide mediation and counselling are very very important.