Faafoi KrisHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. Minister further to the answer that you've just given around participation in the family dispute resolution (FDR) process there is no qualification within the bill and certainly not within the proposed clause 11(ba) the extent of what participation is. And Minister you may well or you may well not be conversant with the submissions made by the New Zealand Law Society on this point. So could there be further clarification around what participation is? Does it require the child to be physically present? Does it require other elements of participation? If so please state that because there will be difficulty not just for—and there is an issue about whether it should be the FDR provider or supplier but around to what extent is participation and what does that require of the child?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): As the justice Minister I think everyone can assume that a couple of factors would come into play here. It depends on the individual circumstances of the child and what is in the best interests of a child. We had a bit of discussion earlier about clause 7 in Part 1 about some of the descriptions of what needs to be taken into account when a lawyer for the child is being appointed and I also outlined that children will have their own different personalities and their own different wants and levels of comfort. So in some instances that may be the lawyer making a written submission on behalf of that child because the child may not want to go through a process of having to verbalise something in front of the people that are in front of them. I have relatively high observations—relatively high opinions—of the legal profession to make sure that they can make that judgment as to what is in the best interests of the child. I know the member has suggested that she has represented children in these cases and I am sure that she has made judgments as to what level of participation is best for her client. And I am sure that those kinds of judgments will continue to be made depending on the situation of the case the personality of the child and the comfort and safety level as to which we want to make sure the environment of that these children are in.HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. With respect Minister I didn't suggest; I made a statement that I have actually represented children. May I just further elaborate on what you have indicated? Look in relation to participation I still am of the view Minister that it's not clear not only to me or to this House but to those who are going to be required to interpret and apply the law. Lawyers for children don't make judgments; that's for the judge or the court to do. We are a voice and we articulate either the view of the child or the interests. So my question again around participation—I put it to you—would you please provide a level of clarity as to what that requires?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I don't think we want in legislation to prescribe precisely how the voice of the child in either care of children or family dispute resolutions should be enacted. So if the member is suggesting that we go to extreme detail about how participation should be prescribed or enforced in some of these extremely sensitive situations again the nature of these processes is sensitive. The personalities of the children and the family situations that they are in are extremely sensitive. What might suit one child may not suit another and there may be multiple children in a care of children situation in one family. One may be confident to take one approach and another may want to take a different approach. So I think that the courts and the lawyers involved in these situations and the other professionals involved in these situations are making judgments as to what is in the best interests of their clients as we speak and if the member wants to prescribe that in great detail then I think we force the hands of the people that we're trying to protect.HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. Minister I appreciate the attempts that you are trying to provide with clarity. With respect the New Zealand Law Society made submissions seeking clarity with the recommendations that have been made and I am articulating those. And the submissions were for seeking specification around what participation is.I'll move on to the next point if I may Minister: clause 11(ba) where it talks about what the family dispute resolution (FDR) provider would consider appropriate. Again Minister I bring to your and this House's attention that the New Zealand Law Society's submission and recommendation—again a speciality group of lawyers called Family Court lawyers represented in these submissions by the New Zealand Law Society made the recommendation Minister that clause 11 places the onus on the FDR provider rather than the FDR supplier to facilitate that participation of children in the mediation process. Minister could you please explain why is it that the New Zealand Law Society representing the specialist expert body of family lawyers representing children which this bill has been drafted to address has completely discounted and discredited that it should be an FDR supplier and not provider?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I think in recognition of a point that was made by the member's colleague Mr Penk earlier in the debate alluding to a stocktake of the process both with the family dispute resolution (FDR) process and care of children processes there is work being done by the Ministry of Justice as we speak to ensure the processes and framework for both the FDR and the care of children Act processes are fit for purpose and safe. So I think we acknowledge there is work to be done in order to have an environment where we can have a workforce and guidelines as to where the intent of this piece of legislation can be actioned and that work is under way and yet to be completed. I know the member raises a point that the New Zealand Law Society has raised in terms of the operational functions around FDR providers and suppliers and I am sure that will be looked at that particular concern during the stocktake process.HARETE HIPANGO (National): Minister with respect you've identified that there is somewhat of a discrepancy with your answer. On that basis then would it therefore not be more responsible to get the law—the bill—right and draft it so that there aren't problems that occur later? So I put it to you Minister that what you've just identified is that there is a flaw that there is an anticipated problem and fault based on my question around the provider and the supplier and the New Zealand Law Society identifying and recommending that the better law would be to have this bill amended from provider to supplier so that there are not those problems as you've anticipated eventuating.