Goff Phil: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13506. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Part 3 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill as introduced was the amendment to the Family Courts Act 1980 which becomes the Family Dispute Resolution Act or some such thing.Just before I start on Part 3 of the bill could I acknowledge the valedictory speech from the Hon Lianne Dalziel which I thought was a very fine speech. Our loss will be Christchurch’s gain if she is successful in her bid for the mayoralty. I thought it was a very fine speech and we will miss her expertise particularly in the area that we are talking about now which is the area of the law.Coming back to Part 3 of the bill I want to pick up some of the comments that the Minister of Justice has made. The Minister boasted that this is all going to be fine because she has 20 years as a practising lawyer. I think she was comparing herself with my colleague the Labour spokesperson on justice. I wonder whether she would compare herself with the people whom her predecessor the Hon Simon Power put on the expert reference group. I look at the people who have made submissions on this bill and are particularly opposed to this part of the bill—people like Professor Fred Seymour and Dr Suzanne Blackwell. They have both been clinical psychologists for over 30 years dealing with Family Court matters. You hadAntony Mahon—again a barrister working in family law and an expert in the area with 30 years’ experience. There is Allan Cooke another barrister working in South Auckland with 30 years’ experience andSharynŌtene a family law barrister with 17 years’ experience in the Family Court.Why I raise that is that four of those five people were appointed by Simon Power on the basis of their expertise in the law in family law and in Family Court matters. When you appoint an expert reference group you expect the Minister to listen to what that expert group says. Well Minister you have not listened but listen now because this is what that group said in its submission on this bill. It said that the proposed reforms “are not based on empirical evidence”—not based on empirical evidence. I would like the Minister to take the next call and point to the empirical evidence on which this bill is based.The submission said that this bill is “... contrary to extensive existing evidence of best outcomes for families and children;”. Let me say that again to you Minister: it is contrary to extensive existing evidence of best outcomes for families and children. I would really like this Minister to take a call and explain why she is imposing a piece of legislation on this Committee that the experts in the area—acknowledged as experts because they were appointed by her predecessor—are saying is not based on facts is not based on evidence and they say worse than that again.The submission says that this “... will create a two-tiered family justice system ... [where] (i) the more vulnerable members of society will have limited access ... to assist them in the resolution of family disputes.” So it is not based on fact it is not based on evidence and it is going to create an unfair justice system when it comes to resolving disputes that have a huge impact on the lives of the children who are tied into it through no fault of their own.The submission also says further that “it is entirely foreseeable that inequalities arising from gender socio-economic status and ethnicity will become entrenched”. I thought the idea of the justice system was that everybody was equal under the law and it did not matter whether you were rich or you were poor because you had the sameaccess to the services of justice and you could expect the same outcomes. And this your own expert reference group is saying that exactly the opposite will be the case.I also heard the Minister in her address talking about this being about children. Minister your own regulatory impact statement denies that this is about children because that regulatory impact statement—let me recall this for you too—produced by your department says: “Given the overall”—this is the introductory paragraph—“Given the overall fiscal situation urgent steps must be taken to lower the cost of the current justice system ...”. That is what this bill is about. It is about lowering the fiscal costs regardless of the social and justice costs that that imposes on the children and the families who may be denied the services of this system.And this is what the expert reference group says. It backs up what the regulatory impact statement says. It says: “The overriding fiscal imperative is evident throughout the Bill.” It goes on to say: “Such savings cannot be to an extent where the fundamental purpose of the Family Court is severely compromised.” So Minister I would like to hear from you as to why these people with much more experience in a section of the law that you have only touched upon are so fundamentally critical of every basic premise in this bill.What worries me most of all is that this new family dispute resolution service which will be compulsory for everybody is going to be at a cost to the families of $900—$897 I am sorry. I am exaggerating. It is $897. I want you to tell us Minister how a family on a lowish income—but not so pathetically low that they are eligible for legal aid—is going to afford that cost when they are already going through the financial stress of a maritalbreakup where they are probably living in two homes now and having to spread the cost of that across the income that previously paid for one home because that is going to produce financial hardship. But not for people on the Minister’s salary. She could manage it very readily. Maybe for the people at the very bottom you know with one child if your income is under $32000 you will not have to pay. But people who are the normal average family battlers who will be on low to middle incomes will be struggling with the cost.What worries me most of all Minister is that your own regulatory impact statement says that after they have been through this process five-sixths of them will then have to go to the Family Court anyway. They will have to meet the cost of this service at $900 and then they will have to pay the cost—minus the legal aid that you have taken away from so many of them—to go to the Family Court as well. So they are being hit twice.The Minister’s other point was: “Oh most people can just sort this out for themselves.” Well you know it is true that for a lot of people there will be an out-of-court resolution. That is there now. Minister you must know that right now under section 9 of the Family Proceedings Act 85 percent of the parties reach a direct agreement by themselves or with counselling under section 9. The people who can sort their problems out are sorting their problems out now without the extra costs that you are imposing on them. But the other 15 percent are the 15 percent where the problems are deeply entrenched. What the experts say on this is that your proposal will make the situation worse and will make it harder for those families. They will not be represented before the family dispute resolution service and they will not be represented in the Family Court when they get there either. So if you have got an unequal relationship between the two partners that will be exaggerated because the partner who is not equal in strength and resources to the other partner will be at a huge disadvantage.What the expert reference group says here Minister—you have not read it obviously so I will repeat it to you—is: “This fails to recognise that out of court resolution already occurs for the vast number of parents who separate whether by direct agreement between the parties or with the assistance of the section 9 counselling.”Those cases do not go to the Family Court but it says: “The availability of the affordable and accessible pre-court dispute resolution process with section 9 counselling already provides the very tools to parents which are claimed to result from these reforms.” They have the mechanism to do so now if the matter can be sorted out without the cost being imposed on the parties because part of the role of the legal system is to provide justice whether it is in employment law judicial law family law or civil cases. That is what our—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Judicial law!Hon PHIL GOFF: The family cases. Let the Attorney-General if he is so smart take a call and explain why these people who know far more than either the Attorney-General or the Minister of Justice are wrong when they say that this legislation is fundamentally bad.