McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. There were 31 submissions received on this bill and 14 of those submitters had an oral hearing. I'd like to acknowledge and thank the Ministry of Justice for their support and help in understanding this piece of legislation as it worked its way through the Justice Committee. We know that the delays in the entire justice system are so bad now that we have families caught within the system who are at breaking point. None of this is good for any child or children that are caught within it.The purpose of this bill is to reduce those delays by creating a new role within the Family Court—that of a Family Court Associate. Their job is to take on some of the minor and administrative tasks of a Family Court judge so that proceedings can start to move at a faster yet reliable pace. The Family Court Associates will be judicial officers and they will have some but not all of the powers of a Family Court judge and extra powers additional to that of a registrar of the Family Court. More importantly they will have the ability to use some of the functions that a Family Court judge uses that allow some minor determinations to occur hence getting the Family Court process moving and actually considering some cases. It means that the Family Court Associates can assist with decision-making needs as each case works its way through the Family Court system. This will benefit those that are caught in a waiting game within this system and those that are about to enter it. It is unfortunate to note that it isn't unusual for Family Court proceedings to increase after the summer holidays so the timing of this bill unfortunately is good.Having the Commissioner of Police telling us that domestic violence is on the rise by as much as 60 percent in areas like the East Coast and Hawke's Bay is not actually surprising after the sort of natural disaster that these communities have experienced. Sadly we will see an increase in Family Court proceedings just because of that. The timing of this bill will therefore be beneficial for families wishing to sort out their issues and those that are seeking help in a timely manner for those issues.Once implemented the role of the Family Court Associate will be mainly administrative and this should free up a Family Court judge's time to work on the more substantive matters that he faces within the cases that come before him. A Family Court Associate will be appointed for seven years and can be reappointed only once more after that term. On the flip side though they can resign at any time as well.The bill inserts new section 7B(2) in clause 4 which provides that the Governor-General can remove a Family Court Associate on advice from the Attorney-General if the Family Court Associate becomes bankrupt is found guilty of misconduct is neglectful or simply just can't do the job. We had to think about this role and how to effect removal. This is new—the creation of this role. There is no other role that directly compares to it. The Family Court Associate is not a judge so doesn't have their full responsibility but does have more responsibility than that of a court registrar. So we considered that really the removal of a Family Court Associate should align with the same reasoning behind the removal of a Family Court judge. This means that they need to come under the same removal regime which is actually prescribed and for which there is a commissioner the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. So we've inserted a clause that means the Judicial Conduct Commissioner would need to get involved and the Family Court Associate could come under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. The commissioner's report would then go to the Attorney-General to remove the Family Court Associate.We also carefully considered what immunity we should give a Family Court Associate. Originally we said that no proceeding could be commenced against a Family Court Associate unless that associate had exceeded their jurisdiction or acted outside of it. In light of the changes we made to how a Family Court Associate can be removed we decided to ensure that the Family Court Associate actually has the same immunities as the Family Court judge. To keep that balance and that fairness that had to be there for this new role.The committee also recommended a review clause be added to this bill. So we have instructed the Parliamentary Counsel Office to include replacement section 7K set out in clause 4 stating that a review must be held within five years of the commencement of the Act and reported to the Ministry of Justice. The review is to determine whether or not the establishment of the Family Court Associate has reduced the delays that we are seeing in the Family Court and also whether or not any changes need to be made to the Act as to the Family Court Associate appointment process. We need to question whether the functions the duties and the powers of the associate are adequate enough and what else the associate can do.Clause 6 of this bill introduces a new Schedule 2 into the Act which sets out the powers that they have. The Family Court Associate can appoint a lawyer to assist them under eight different Acts. These are listed on page 4 of the commentary on the bill in the footnote. The committee could see that under seven of those eight Acts a Family Court judge can direct a registrar to appoint a lawyer to assist the court. The Family Violence Act is an exception to that. So we've asked for the same conditions to be available to the Family Court Associate and as a result clause 1(ga) has been added to Schedule 2 of the bill.We are making changes to other Acts as well including making amendments to the Care of Children Act 2004 where currently a judge can direct a registrar to convene a settlement conference before a proceeding is heard. The committee concluded that a Family Court Associate should be able to do the same and they have asked for that to be added to the bill in clause 18 which inserts section 46Q(1).Section 141 of the Care of Children Act is about vexatious proceedings. If the court is satisfied that a person is persistently bringing vexatious proceedings before them then they can order that any proceedings can commence only with the leave of a Family Court judge. The bill as drafted would have given a Family Court Associate the same power but the committee were worried about this because denying someone the ability to bring a case before the Family Court has the potential for the court to be accused of denying access to justice and this is quite serious. We were not confident that we should be putting a Family Court Associate into that position where they deny a case to be heard. So we asked for that to be removed from the bill. The flip side of that is that we do want the Family Court Associate to be able to commence proceedings for a person who's deemed to be vexatious if they feel this is a relevant case to be heard without taking up a Family Court judge's time. So we've asked for section 141(2) to be amended to reflect that.There are changes to the Status of Children Act 1969 where there is a question over paternity. The bill as drafted initially gave a Family Court Associate the same power as the judge to make declarations of paternity or non-paternity. As drafted it would allow the associate to make these declarations on both defended and non-defended applications. The committee agreed that a defended application would be more complex and because of that we did not want an associate to preside over such complexities. So we've asked for an amendment so that the associate can make needed declarations as to paternity only in undefended cases.There's also a piece near the end of the commentary on the bill about the Family Court panels that three submitters discussed and said were urgently needed. However it was outside of the scope of the bill.I'd like to thank those particular submitters for bringing fresh ideas. The bill has a review scheduled and we believe it's good that the select committee report has mentioned the proposals from submitters as there may be a case to include this at that time. This initiative along with similar initiatives for the coroner's courts will help to immediately address the backlog that these courts are facing backlogs that are essentially denying—by delaying—justice to the people. We on this side of the House support this bill.