Borrows Chester: Legal Assistance Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Legal Assistance Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11581. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice):I take a call just to respond to some of the points raised by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Obviously she has with her experience recognised that there have been some issues that need to be addressed that have been spoken about amongst the family legal fraternity. It is important to point out that in the consideration of this Legal Assistance Amendment Bill and further on in the implementation of it there will be some regulations that will for instance prescribe the portion of lawyer-child costs that parties are required to pay as two-thirds. But by default this cost will be split in equal shares between the parties. It is also important to note that however the court may substitute a different share for a party if satisfied that in the circumstances of the case it would be inappropriate to require each party to pay an equal share. The substituted share may not exceed the prescribed portion so no party may be required to pay more than two-thirds of the cost of the lawyer.There obviously needs to be built into this some safeguards—and the safeguards are all around the paramount principle of the Care of Children Act 2004 under which most orders are made—that the welfare and best interests of the child are paramount. Therefore any decisions about orders of costs must be taken with that principle in mind. The court may decline to make an order of costs if satisfied that it would cause serious hardship to either party or to a dependent child of the party and the court may adjust the default equal share of costs if it is considered inappropriate.It is also to be noted for instance that even as part of the Family Court review which the previous speaker mentioned there are a number of alterations that have been made there in respect of for instance allowing legal aid to be granted for counsel to be provided in the preparation of parents who will be representing themselves because it recognised that there was “inequity of arms” if for instance one party with a substantial income was able to go and get coaching if you like from a legal counsel and would be better prepared. So it was important in the interests of justice to allow that to happenunder that particular bill and I think it is important to know that legal aid is moving to recognise that there have been these issues.My final point to make is in response to the courts’ ability to alter or to waive the imposition of the costs of counsel for the child. In the institution of fees and filing fees in the Family Court there was a lot of noise about the fact that these had never been in place before. The point was made that waivers would be granted or would be able to be granted in circumstances. In actual fact 70 percent of the matters appearing before the Family Court now receive a waiver. Any argument that says the Ministry of Justice would be unlikely to give waivers is actually not an issue. It has not proven to be an issue under that particular regime and no one would expect it to be in the future.