Faafoi Kris: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13223. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Before I point to any particular clause in the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill I would just like to join my colleague the Hon Phil Goff in saying that I think we have actually been witness to close to an Academy Award - winning performance from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice because she would have us believe that her motivation for this bill is to improve the outcomes for children and families who are going through Family Court proceedings and that her motivation is to make sure that the outcome for many Family Court proceedings is in the best interests of the child. We know that there are many people out there in the legal fraternity and those who are assisting families in getting through this process who do not believe it. Alfred Ngaro launched a gallant yet failed attempt to run a diversion for the Minister by talking about some of the submissions that were heard at the Justice and Electoral Committee. Very selective was Mr Ngaro.I would also like to take the opportunity to show or at least read out some of the submissions that came from the Christchurch Family Court judges—people who I think would know this process relatively intimately and certainly would not want the justice system clogged up with unnecessary cases. To say that the Government wants to make this process easier for families and much better for children—the Christchurch Family Court judges do not buy it. I read from their submission. Whoever gave it it was on behalf of the Family Court judges. He said: “I intend to speak plainly in the short time I have available. I speak on behalf of the Family Court judges of Christchurch. We recognise the driving force behind these reforms is to cut State expenditure on the Family Court.” This is the Family Court judges recognising that the motivation is not to make things better for those going through the process but to cut State expenditure on the Family Court. They said: “In our opinion the effect of the reforms will be the reverse: to increase State expenditure arising from the relationship breakdown.” So there we have it a submission to the select committee on this bill from Family Court judges in Christchurch fully recognising that the main motivation of this bill is not to make the process easier or the outcomes better for children or their parents but to cut State funding and they think it will do exactly the opposite. That is the Family Court judges in Christchurch.Clause 4 of the bill does point towards the child’s welfare and best interests being paramount in this process but through this process since the bill was introduced there have been a number of people who simply have not thought that this piece of legislation will achieve that. When this piece of legislation was submitted late last year—I believe in October it was—Professor MarkHenaghan from the Otago law school said of clause 7 I believe about the ability not to have mandatory legal representation in a media report: “Much of the fight sadly is about children. [But] if you take their representation out we kind of doom them not to be heard.” I think the end of that quote from MarkHenaghan is quite apt—if we take out their representation then we doom them not be heard. We heard from the Minister in the chair at the same time that she was OK with that. She said: “The current situation where pretty much every child gets a lawyer is overkill frankly and is not necessary.” That is what our Minister of Justicesaid at the time of the introduction of this bill. There is great concern about those comments this bill and what she said at that time.I think as many colleagues on this side of the Chamber have said that there was an attempt to strike a balance between maybe getting some cost savings and improving the Family Court process. But over time when this bill was introduced—and I think just before this bill was introduced—there was certainly and I have felt in my community a concern about what might arrive on the Table when this bill was tabled. Those concerns were valid when this bill arrived here in Parliament. I just want to make sure I mention the nameCatriona Doyle from Family Law Specialists in Porirua who came to me almost instantly as soon as this bill was introduced with her concerns around this bill. She called a public meeting in Porirua which was quite well attended and attended also by my Green colleague Jan Logie who is based in Mana. It was quite a full meeting and a lot of—