Little Andrew: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 19 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13562. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a great pleasure of course to address the people’s House on this very important legislation arising from the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill—legislation that will affect many people. I address the people’s House not in purple as the Minister of Justice has done but indeed with a heavy heart nevertheless because these are not good bills. This is not good legislation. In spite of the Minister’s best hopes for it or the marketing spin that she at least puts on it we do not anticipate that it will have any of the effects that she anticipates for it. I find it interesting that the Minister says that the legislation will put the interests of children at the forefront of the Family Court’s consideration of family dispute issues. When there was a Supplementary Order Paper that proposed exactly that phraseology to make the interests of children paramount Supplementary Order Paper 254 it was rejected by the Government—rejected by the Government members. This is not legislation to put the interests of children first. It is not even legislation to put the interests of separating couples first. It is about putting the Government’s balance sheet first and foremost. It is about putting the Government’s income and expenditure accounts above all else. It is about cutting cost. That is what has driven this.This legislation started with very noble intentions. It started out as a reform process to address the quite legitimate and well-expressed concerns about the Family Court particularly concerns about delay—we know that there were delays in some cases—and about the fact that more court time and more judge time was being tied up in what might otherwise be described as trivial matters. They were matters as the Minister of Justice described them in some of her contributions to the debate on the legislation of where little Johnny or Jane should spend a particular weekend or a particular Christmas. It was quite proper for the then Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power to convene a process which was a very good process. It started with a meeting of interested parties here in Parliament in 2011. It followed that with a consultation process with those working in the field and those working in the court: the lawyers judges specialists and families as well—those who had used the system—and it also included an expert advisory group. That was a very robust process.But what a pity that the outcome once there was a change of Minister—once there was a new Minister of Justice and Judith Collins took over—was that the legislation did not reflect the work that was done through those very important consultative processes. What came back was a piece of legislation focused on the care of the children issuewhich is important—and it is nearly 40 percent of the Family Court’s work—but it was also about removing the responsibility of the State to ensure good and fair outcomes between couples who were separating and for the management and custody of their children.It not only removed the State’s responsibility but beat up on the lawyers and the professional advisers who have been involved in that process. How interesting it was that probably 80 percent of the submitters whom we had before the Justice and Electoral Committee were lawyers judges and also users of the court. Mums and dads and former partners came to the select committee and said that the person who got them through and who enabled them to understand what was happening who enabled them to understand the agreements they were entering into and the orders that were being made by the court was the lawyer—the large number of parents who came and said that the person who was the most helpful was the lawyer for the child because they were not wrapped up in the emotions of their client they could hear and understand the children and they could assist the lawyers representing the parents to come up with a sensible set of solutions. That is why the evidence before the committee was that between 75 percent and 80 percent of family disputes were resolved in discussions between the parties and their lawyers.And what has this Minister done with the legislation now? In her desperate bid to get lawyers out of the picture and to prevent users of the court from having access to legal advice including by screwing down the right to legal aid—and that is getting harder and harsher even for those who get it—the Minister thinks that suddenly miraculously couples who are in dispute will quite happily sit with each other and one other person in a room and will resolve their issues. It is a Pollyannaish view. We had a sort of address by MarjorieProops from the Minister as part of the debate who said that people should pull up their socks pull themselves together and sort it out. It is completely unreal and unrealistic and it simply does not allow couples going through the devastating time and process of separation to deal with their issues. When people are making agreements that are lasting a lifetime or at least lasting a large chunk of their lifetime and lasting for the period of a child’s life until they enter into young adulthood then actually parents are entitled to have access to advice and to understand the legal ramifications of the agreements they are entering into.This legislation will deprive them of that. They will be expected to participate in a forum where they will not have access to legal advice. They might have had a small amount of advice beforehand but not when they are going through the actual issues and wanting to know the legal impact of what they are agreeing to. They will not have access to that. They will be expected to deal with the person with whom they want to end the relationship or about whom they are grieving at the end of the relationship with only an independent facilitator present whose job then is to help them understand what they are doing and to also represent the best interests of the children. It will be an impossible task. It does not matter what accreditation regime the Minister puts in place through the ministry or anything like that. It will not be a satisfactory situation for those who are reliant on the system to come up with an agreement to resolve their very difficult problems.I think it is a great shame that on a day when we are celebrating such an important anniversary as the emancipation of women the entry of women to the franchise and the beginning of the process of empowering women in our communities we are passing legislation whose most deleterious effects will be felt by women who will lose the voice they have had and the assistance and the support they have had to deal with one of the most difficult situations in any person’s life—man or woman. They will lose that support. Not only that; they have already lost access to legal aid to get assistancethrough that sort of process and many women will be left vulnerable and exposed and on their own. This is a shameful day. It is a shameful day for the Government and frankly it is embarrassing to be member of a House that is passing legislation like this on a day like this.So that is why we remain implacably opposed to this legislation. This is not about effective dispute resolution; this is about a Government desperate to cut costs so that it can bail out its rich corporate mates. TheTīwai Point aluminium smelter Warner BrosSkycity and all of the rest of them are lining up for a handout. This is a Government that is quite happy to take money out of the back pockets of the most vulnerable in our community—to take resources out of those processes and forums and institutions that support ordinary people going about their daily lives—so that it can present a surplus next year and look after its corporate mates. That is how cynical this Government has become. Well mark my words it is coming to an end. Our leader David Shearer has said that the train is leaving the station. There is a song about that. There is another song—there is another song. The world is changing. There is a new world a-coming and we are part of it. We will bring it about and it will be about fairness and equity and a community that cares about its people that looks after its people and that uses the resources of the State wisely and to empower people. That is what we stand for. That is why we are implacably opposed to this dreadful legislation from this shabby tawdry Government. We look forward to the day when this will be tossed out and we will have better legislation that will look after families and look after people in their most difficult times and at their most difficult moments.