Prasad Rajen: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePrasad Rajen: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13510. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I am pleased to take a short call on this part Part 3 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. The argument of the Minister of Justice around Part 3 of the bill is based on this premise: that people should work out their problems themselves when it comes to separation and disputes around children. They should be able to do it themselves. In order to force that to happen the Minister has come up with what really is a Draconian set of rules and changes to the current rules.In fact it has already been shown that there is a fundamental flaw in the Minister’s basic argument. Most people do work it out themselves. That is a fact. Any practitioner will tell you that and most lawyers will tell you that. When separation occurs and when disputes occur they actually work it out. So who are the ones Minister who end up in court? They are the ones where their cases are much more difficult they are much more complex and they require a lot more assistance which is why they come to court. They do not come to court just for the hell of it; they come because they require the assistance of the court.To take away the provisions that are there at the moment which Part 3 does is actually denying a fundamental right to our citizens and that is to access justice. So at that point it becomes an access to justice question. It is a bit like many other areas where this Government has made it much more difficult for a section of our population to access services. Whether it is in social development or in a whole range of areas a number of punitive laws have been passed by this Government that are punishing the most vulnerable and the Government couches it in language that it is strengthening our families. Well it is not. This will actually make it worse.There is any amount of evidence that has been presented to the Justice and Electoral Committee and in the documents that my colleagues have talked about to show that this is a mistake and yet the Minister has got it in her head that this is the only way to do this. One wonders why. One wonders why it is. What has the Minister got against her own former profession which actually does want to provide and enable services to be offered to our most vulnerable?Not only that but it is actually taking away from our most vulnerable the responsibility of the State to provide some assistance—in the end it will probably be cheaper to do it that way—and imposing in its place an $875 cost to families to access counselling to access the family dispute resolution service. What is the logic behind that? This becomes cheque-book access to services for those who are the most vulnerable. Why is the Minister doing it that way? Why is this Government so heartless in doing it in this particular way and then going even further—making it a mandatory requirement? Before you can go any further you actually have to go and access the service at your own cost.The Minister has not explained to us the question proposed by this side of how the family dispute resolution service is going to decide that a case cannot be resolved in a short period of time or within a reasonable period of time. That is not defined either. This is all designed to make it a lot more difficult and perhaps designed to save some money and the figures have been quoted by my colleague Kris Faafoi.Why is the Minister so heartless? Why is the Minister making it—[Interruption] Well Minister it is. The Minister should get up and say how some of these families aregoing to find $875 to get this service. And when it does not work out they will have to go to court and there is no access to legal aid at that point. They are on their own and of those who separate this is the most vulnerable group—the most difficult cases—and through these provisions the Minister is making it much more difficult for them to do so. It is not just my word; it is the words of all those who have presented. There have been no explanations from the Minister as to why it is being done in this particular way. Perhaps the Minister is simply trying to promote access to private family dispute resolution services. In a way the prices are guaranteed. They have to use those; otherwise they cannot go any further.There is a lot with this series of provisions in Part 3 of the bill that fundamentally this side of the House is opposed to because there is a better way of doing it. There are much better ways of accepting this responsibility and providing a better service. What are the difficulties in this particular area if it is not just costs? What has the Minister identified as a major problem in this particular area? It is only that ideology that people should care for themselves and that if you separate you must go and find solutions yourself.What kind of solution is that? The Minister does not drive that and the Government does not drive that in other areas of problems whether it is in the economy or whether it is in business etc. The Government is very very willing to use large dollops of public moneys.Tīwai Point is a case in point. And yet when it comes to our most vulnerable families this Minister and the Minister for Social Development are making it much more difficult for our most vulnerable. Why is it Minister? Is it because this group does not vote for that side of the House? Is it that? Or is it just some perverse—Andrew Little: Pleasure.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: —pleasure that the Minister takes as an ex-lawyer. There is no logic. The Minister has not explained the logic.We can conclude then at the end of it and alongside a whole series of other laws that have been passed by this Government over the past 4½ years that although the Government pretends to be pro-family it is actually anti-family. Many many laws have been passed by this Government that are actually anti-family anti - keeping the family together and anti - trying to give families assistance. The Government is simply saying: “The State has no responsibility. We’ve got to cut the welfare budget. We’ve got to cut Government spending.” And yet the other side of the equation is that others are advantaged.This is what creates the unbalanced society that Labour Governments have to come and fix up and we will. When in Government this side will fix up these kinds of problems. Anybody who works in this field—any practitioner counsellor lawyer and perhaps judge as well if they are asked—will tell you that this particular set of provisions is not likely to work. Those whom I have spoken to say that this will simply make it worse. And yet here is a Minister who sits there and simply says that we have got it all wrong that everybody is wrong and that the Minister is right. Well this side will not be supporting this bill and when the time comes we will make the adjustments that need to be made. Thank you.