SpeechFAMILY COURT (SUPPORTING CHILDREN IN COURT) LEGISLATION BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 24 June.HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on this third reading of the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill—and it's in the area that I'm well-versed in having practised as people know as a child advocate for a number of decades.So in taking this call I reflect that when I last stood in the House on a similar bill which was the supporting families in court legislation I spoke and said that it was a done deal. This is a done deal as well. The reality is that the Labour Government has a majority of 65 votes their view has been well canvassed and expressed in the Justice Committee report and it's going through. So when I spoke on the supporting families in court legislation bill—this now being the supporting children in court legislation bill—I indicated that our children deserve better. And I speak from that point of view having been a child advocate a court-appointed lawyer for a number of decades. I say the same thing again: the last bill was rushed through under urgency without the opportunity for a full thorough robust debate and contribution from those who know full well about the implications of such law to be.I say that again because the National Party quite rightly and properly opposes this bill at this time. One of the core reasons why it's opposed is that those who advocate from a specialist practice and expert position point of view as advocates representing children in the court—that is the family law section which represents some 11000 practitioners half of whom have more than 20 years' experience—made a submission to the Justice Committee saying that this bill should be deferred until there has been not just anecdotal evidence provided but thorough research around the how to" the methodology on the best practice for representing children in the court. That view has been dispensed with because why? It would seem that the Labour Government knows better than the specialist practitioners who represent children in the Family Court.I've returned to this House; I wasn't a member of the Justice Committee at that time. But I am I believe the only member in this House who has been a Family Court child representative for almost 30 years. This bill is a done deal because it's doing over what would be the best practice for children in terms of their representation and the model for that. That is clearly the evidence that was put by the family law section of the New Zealand Law Society to the select committee. But for some reason the Labour Party the Government knows better than everybody else and this is being rushed through. The recommendation was to defer it until such time as not just the national evidence but the international modelling—because New Zealand is well known as being an international leader in terms of child advocacy.Another example of that is our system in the Youth Court. Why are we short-changing the best representation for our children? And I also share with you in the short time that I have left for this call that even absent such legislation we have Family Court practice guidelines that have been well-researched well-provided not just by the judges but senior counsel for all the years of our specialty of practice. But also the other specialty of practice that's been overlooked in this bill is the significant role that psychologists have that counsellors have that those other experts and specialists have in terms of the advocacy and representation of children—not just their views not just their best interest but the paramountcy of their welfare.So it's regrettable that again for some reason this Government seems to think that they know best they know better than what the experts and specialists do in this field and in so doing it's a done deal and again our children are going to suffer the consequence of being done over. I don't commend this bill to the House."