SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Kia ora Madam Speaker and to members of the Government and members in the House. As is well-known National is opposing this bill but I stand as a member of Parliament—probably the only member of Parliament actually—who's worked and given a lifetime of service in the Family Court advocating for and representing children their parents and the family members. I've been counsel who's also worked in Child Youth and Family now Oranga Tamariki having given service there for 10 years as a lawyer. I know the system.I've given a lifetime of service working and advocating in the Family Court advocating for our vulnerable and what tends to get overlooked is the fact that the children—and this amendment is about the Care of Children Act. We've heard the Minister for Children talk about the children. I have spent a lifetime as a lawyer advocating and representing the interests of the children in Family Court proceedings. I am disappointed that this bill is being rushed through. I am disappointed for the children and for the people who rely on the Family Court to provide a quality service. I am disappointed because as counsel who knows the system more thoroughly than anybody else in this House in the Government or in Parliament—just having this brought to my attention in the last 24 hours—I think it is regrettable that this is being rushed through. Our children deserve better.In the short time that I had to prepare notes in relation to this—they're here but they're a blur—I'm now speaking as a professional person having given and dedicated my lifetime of service for our children. Minister Little I heard you mention to the House that the system will be improved—I know the system; I know how it works—and that applications were made on a without notice basis because lawyers weren't made available. If I and others had been given the time for this to go before a select committee this bill this amendment could be vastly improved. From the documents that I've read there has been no consideration factored into about what the philosophy of the Family Court is. It is about win-win. Advocacy of many lawyers who come into the Family Court jurisdiction—and I have practised in the criminal court jurisdiction—is about a win-lose for the parties for the adults and the child often gets left and forgotten in relation to that.I have been counsel who has facilitated pre-settlement conferences—mediation conferences—before proceedings get into the court and as lawyer for child I have also facilitated those conferences where parties may not have had legal counsel. That was my role. That was my duty not only to the court but to the children. So what I'm putting to the House—and this is a done deal and sadly and regrettably the ones who are getting done over here are the children and the Family Court system because it could well have been vastly improved Minister. What I put to the House having worked in the criminal court jurisdiction is that we have there the options of what's called duty lawyers to help facilitate the system and the process and the administration of law and people's access to law. The amendment in this bill is about the adults' and the parties' entitlement to legal representation. Well actually the focus and the emphasis should be on adults' responsibilities in terms of children's welfare and best interests and I know this full well.I see also on the papers that I had limited opportunity and time to read through the independent panel advisers a very dear professional colleague now Judge La-Verne King who—La-Verne and I advocated in the Family Court in the Youth Court in the criminal courts and in the mental health courts. Judge King as she is now was an adviser to the Government by way of this panel. Now I'm sure that—Hon Andrew Little: She was on the panel. She was a panel member.HARETE HIPANGO: She was on the panel and I am sure that her views are very much premised on the expression and the opinion that I have as well. However I also know that my professional colleagues would prefer that this is not rushed through. The so-called process has been compromised. It's not due and the people who use the Family Court system are due that accord of a fair thorough scrutiny and process.The last point that I will make because time is of the essence here—and it is a done deal where this has been done over—is that Minister you talked about the process having been backlogged. I put it to you and to this House that having a duty lawyer system would assist and facilitate in the way that the criminal court jurisdiction has been facilitated by that. There is no in my view necessity for legal aid in position for counsel to be appointed at the earlier stages. That's exactly what the criminal court process does by way of having a duty lawyer to be able to enhance the process and improve it. Also part of the backlog was associated with the fact that there weren't enough judges to deal with the demand. That has now been addressed by the Government and I acknowledge the Government accordingly for doing so.So with this legislation that's going to be passed through rushed through without the appropriate scrutiny and I think the opportunity to make it better it is going to further compromise and time will play out in evidence that there will continue to be prolonged proceedings in the court. I speak from almost 30 years' experience knowing full well that settlements that were reached and resolved—any proceedings being prolonged for years in the Family Court were well dealt with. I cannot support this bill. It may have been different had there been due process and opportunity to improve what is being rushed through the House today. Regrettably I do not support this bill.