Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2808. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What decrease if any in the use of the Family Court after 1 July is expected to result from his decision to introduce fees of $700 plus a daily hearing fee of $1812 for applications for divisions of assets and fees of $220 for childcare disputes both of which applications are at present fee-free? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 In answer to the question based on last year’s modelling there were 18000 applications before the court that would be liable for the payment of fees. About 8500 childcare disputes and about 1700 property disputes would be expected to pay the fees. The balance would be expected to avoid the fees either by applying to the registrar of the court for a waiver of which there is expected to be a significant number granted or by finding some other way to sort out the dispute and not come to the court.  
Charles Chauvel 
: What advice if any has he received on the risks to vulnerable children of introducing user-pays to a system that was deliberately designed to be fees-free in order to ensure that such children did not suffer as a result of the inability of their parents to pay a fee when trying to access the court? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: It is important to note that family violence matters such as seeking a protection order do not require fees and that those applications will be lodged free of charge as they are now.  
Charles Chauvel 
: What consultation took place with Family Court judges prior to his announcement that these fees would be introduced given that the dean of the Otago University law school said on the  
Nine to Noon  
show this morning that he had been told on Sunday by a Family Court judge that the Family Court judge was unaware of this decision? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: I am unsure why the commentator would make that comment bearing in mind that in September last year it was flagged that these fees could well be introduced ahead of the Family Court review being completed. I am unsure of precisely what consultation was had with Family Court judges or specifically which Family Court judges were consulted with. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Who is correct: Judith Collins when she said on 27 February that it was important to await the outcome of the Family Court review before progressing important decisions such as those around the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill or he himself when he said on  
Morning Report  
this morning in respect of his decision to introduce these fees well before the outcome of the Family Court review is known “Quite honestly if we keep waiting and waiting … we’d never get anything done.”? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: The point is of course that people who are subject to this fees liability do not have to come before the court. There is always the opportunity of them getting around the table with their lawyers or other advocates and being able to sort these matters out without having to go through to litigation. There is no question of an access to justice issue here because those opportunities are open to them. I do not believe that the Minister’s statement and my statement are mutually exclusive.