Little Andrew: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13525. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Well I think this debate and this day will go down as a day of great disappointment for this House—that we have allowed to pass through even to this very humble stage a piece of legislation the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill that has as its sole purpose the cutting of the State’s responsibility for fair family dispute resolution and the dispensation of justice in the family arena.Everything about this legislation—the failure of the Minister of Justice to heed the advice of the expert reference group and the failure to hear the myriad of submissions that raised concerns raised issues and pointed out the risks associated with it—in spite all of that we still have a piece of legislation that is going to deny a proper voice to those who need it most when they are at their most vulnerable: couples who are separating particularly poor couples and children of any couple with children being the most vulnerable in these circumstances.This legislation says that the State no longer regards itself as having responsibility in the interests of harmony family peace and community stability. We no longer have the responsibility to assist families to resolve their difficult issues and ensure that any separation and any dissolution of a marriage is done so in a dignified and sensible way that respects the rights of all parties.This legislation is a giant leap that departs from that principle that we have had in place for the last 30 years with a specialist court and a specialist jurisdiction that we have developed. That is the sad thing about it. So a more appropriate name a name that more correctly reflects the objects or the real intent behind this bill might be the “Family Justice Destruction Bill” because that is what it is.The Family Court will be there. It will be there in name only. There will be judges there and they will struggle to ensure that justice is done. They will rise to the occasion to their professional standards and their professional calling but they know—and this iswhy they came to the select committee—that measures such as putting in place a process that denies parties the right of representation and that denies those who cannot afford legal representation the right of access to legal aid can be only destructive. It is a process that denies children the right of a voice to be heard in that process. They know that that can be only destructive when it comes to dispensing justice in the family jurisdiction. That is what this legislation will do. No matter how we slice it or dice it no matter how we cut it there is no question about it the fears that we have expressed and the fears that others have expressed before the Justice and Electoral Committee and more publicly are very real. They are very real.When it comes to dealing with family disputes we need a court and a system and a process that is sensitive and sympathetic and we have had that. It might not have been perfect. The Minister is right and I agree with her about this: there have been delays. There are some people who appear before the court who because of their personality or for whatever reason have made a real fist of it and have drawn proceedings out making it difficult for their partner and perhaps for any children involved—we know that. But they are few and far between. There are very few cases that are that bad and that extreme. But we are for the sake of changing the baby tossing out the bathwater—I have completely mangled that metaphor. That is the disappointing thing about this bill.I know that members opposite—members like Tau Henare and Jonathan Young from New Plymouth who has dealt with families in difficult situations—know this bill is wrong. They sit there and look and they know that this is wrong but so far they have voted for it. That is the disappointing thing—that we know that the fears that have been expressed are very real.This is not a good bill. The bill is wrongly titled. It needs a different title. The “Family Harmony Destruction Bill” might be an even better title than the first one I suggested. This bill will be very disappointing. We will come back and we will thrash this out to the bitter end. But let the record show that we spoke for families and for couples. We spoke for children and we spoke for justice because that is more important than anything.