Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak in respect of the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill and to speak in opposition to this bill. The National Party is proud of its record in taking extensive reforms of the care of children regime in 2014. Those reforms were intended to shift the focus from in-court resolution to encouraging parents to reach agreement for themselves through out-of-court processes. Fundamentally the focus must be on what is best for the child and children and the key question is how to get there. The key concern that the National Party has with this legislation is that it is bringing lawyers back into the process and involving them in the court process to a degree which will actually have an adverse effect on children. The National Party believes that other professionals with other skills more relevant to issues such as child development psychology or sexual violence would be better placed to address and deal with this. I understand that other comparable jurisdictions were looked at. With this law New Zealand will see more cases in court with more primacy provided to lawyers than in any of the several comparable jurisdictions that were looked at by what I understand the select committee looked at. Following the reforms in 2014 concerns were raised that some reforms have had a negative impact on children parents and whānau and have exacerbated existing issues. The final report of the independent panel examining the 2014 reforms found that while the system on the whole is sound there is limited participation by children in issues that affect them and there's concern as to whether their voices are heard and whether their views are taken into account both in and out of court. In court a lawyer for a child is appointed to determine and represent the child's views. The independent panel found that there was considerable variation in how lawyers for children approached that task. This is the second of two Government bills which form part of the legislative phase of a long-term programme to change the family justice system. This is contrary to findings of the Ministry of Justice which has been monitoring and researching the 2014 reforms since their implementation. The evaluation by the Ministry of Justice found that the system was fundamentally sound—i.e. that out-of-court processes are the most effective and sustainable solution. Reintroducing lawyers will reinstate children's adversarial experience of the courts which the 2014 reforms aimed to stop. Out-of-court resolution is by far the most effective method of resolving disputes between parents and when the matters are brought into court it necessarily involves an adversarial process particularly when lawyers are engaged in that process. It is our deep concern that it will not ultimately be in the best interests of the children involved and it will not minimise harm to children from court delays and adversarial processes. A significant concern having been a lawyer in the courts is the length of time it takes for hearings to happen and I know from my own experience that many many many months and sometimes much longer than that can be involved for children and other participants in the court process in waiting for matters to be resolved. This unfortunately will not be solved by this bill and having more lawyers and ultimately more court hearings will inevitably entail more delay and a longer time until children's need are met. I'll just say that I wasn't a member of the committee that looked at this but I understand that in relation to child participation the committee heard from multiple submitters that it's not in every instance in a child's welfare and best interests to actively participate. For example where it involved confronting trauma or significant family acrimony it could in fact be harmful. Additionally overexposure to multiple professionals and to the court case can lead to a sense of responsibility for the child for the decisions made and ultimately that should not be a burden borne by children. So regretfully it is our positon that this is not the right approach to solve the issue for children and it will ultimately lead to an extension in the court process that will not be helpful to solving issues in disputes between the parents over the best care and welfare of the children involved. So we do not support this bill.