Goff Phil: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 19 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13572. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The brevity of that contribution is reflective of the level of confidence in the equity of this legislation arising from the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill and what it is capable of achieving. It could also of course be indicative of the lack of knowledge of that member Mr Foster-Bell about what the legislation is about because what he said bore no relationship to what this legislation has in it. Let us get one point absolutely clear. This legislation has one purpose one purpose alone and that purpose is to save money by cutting spending on the people who are the most vulnerable and the most needy and their ability to get justice in the Family Court system and under family law. It is about cutting spending—the first middle and last of the objectives of this Government.No matter how the Government dresses it up this legislation is not justified by any evidence that it is necessary or that it will achieve the positive objectives that it claims. It is not supported by those who work in the system who understand the system who have been through the system and who are knowledgable about the system. That is epitomised by the fact that the group of experts set up by the previous Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power is utterly opposed to what this legislation does. When the Ministry of Justice came out and said that this legislation aligns with what the Expert Reference Group on Family Court Reform recommended the expert reference group said that that was not honest that was not correct and that was not true. This legislation is based on a lie—on the lie that it is sustained by what the experts set up by the original Minister wanted when it is exactly contrary to what they believe.I want to say this: when I went through what those experts presented to the Justice and Electoral Committee and when I challenged the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Collins to answer these challenges she was silent. Well she was not silent; she got up and she embarked on a speech replete with personal abuse but she did not answer the key criticisms that the experts on the reference group made. Those criticisms were these. The expert reference group’s submission said: “If this Bill proceeds … the very fabric of the New Zealand family justice system will be destroyed.” This legislation if it proceeds will destroy they said the very fabric of the family law and justice system. That was an enormous challenge and what did the Minister say in reply to that challenge? Nothing—that is what she said. There was silence. The submission goes on and says: “The Bill is based on flawed policy development without statistical or research base justifying such fundamental and radical changes.” The Government has moved forward with this legislation without doing the basic work to show whether or not the changes that it is making will work. There is a reason why the Government has done that. It is that the Government does not care whether it works. The Minister does not care about the damage that she will do to the most vulnerable people in our community and that includes the children—most particularly the children. She is interested only in saving money.If I thought that the Government had no option but to cut in this area I would think about whether the legislation was worthy of support. But what I do not understand is why this Government can spend $30 million on the multinational company RioTinto which intends to pull out of this country anyway and destroy the jobs. The Governmenthas got $30 million for that but it has not got the money to ensure justice is delivered to the vulnerable in our society. The Government will pay money to Warner Bros—$16 million on top of the $50 million - odd it has already got—to produce a film that was going to be produced here anyway. The Government will spend those millions of dollars but it will not provide for psychological reports for the kids who might be damaged because of the process of family breakdown. That is not fair. That is not equitable. That is not sustainable. The members on the National backbenches understand that—you can see it in their body language.The Government has money to cut the income tax rates for the wealthiest people in this country but it will withhold legal aid. As the regulatory impact statement—this document in my hand produced by the Ministry of Justice—says the Government will withhold money from those who need it. That is said in the regulatory impact statement comments without any sense of irony. It says: “This option only affects those parties who because of their low income are eligible for legal aid.” Of course that is whom it affects. It says that if those people cannot get legal aid they are likely to be unrepresented. Well boy there were someEinsteins on the group that wrote that! Of course if they do not get legal aid they will not be represented.What will that lead to? Well they own up to this. The Minister of Justice would not own up to it. They say this in the very next sentence: “the opposing party may have a lawyer. This could lead to the represented party’s view being put more strongly and create or exacerbate power imbalances between the parties.” Of course that is what this legislation will do. But the Minister does not care. She does not care that inarticulate people cannot have representation to articulate their case so that the judge can hear both sides of the story equally. She does not care that this legislation does not produce justice.Let us have a look at what that expert reference group said. I challenged her on each of these points and on each of these points she remained silent. This group was made up of barristers with 30 years’ experience in the Family Court and psychologists like Fred Seymour who has done incredibly good work to make the Family Court system work and is hugely respected. It is made up of judges and made up of people who the Minister of Justice felt were the most knowledgable the most experienced and the most skilled. They said that this bill is not based on empirical evidence. What did the Minister say? What did she say? Nothing. They say this is “contrary to extensive existing evidence of best outcomes for families and children;”. It is contrary to the evidence that exists of what the kids and the families need to see justice done. What did the Minister say? She said nothing. They say it “will create a two-tiered family justice system …”. How do they describe that? They say: “the more vulnerable members of society will have limited access to the services to assist them in the resolution of family disputes … it is entirely foreseeable that inequalities arising from gender socio-economic status and ethnicity will become entrenched resulting”—not in savings—“in increased costs to the health education child protection and criminal justice budgets.”This bill will not even save money. It will create economic costs because when you have people not represented before the court the court process slows down. It costs more money. It will create human costs because when people are in fundamental dispute and alienated from their partner who might be abusive you cannot expect them to front up to that person in a committee or a court without representation. It is fundamentally wrong. And anybody who knows the working of the family law system and the Family Court in this country knows that that is wrong. We will come back into this Chamber and we will reverse many of the things that are put in this bill because they are wrong. They are wrong in principle and they are wrong in practice.This bill does not deliver justice. It is a negation of justice. It does not deliver fairness and equity. It denies fairness and equity. It is not about the interests of the families who are in dispute and where their relationship has broken down. It is not about helping the children in that situation. It is putting obstacles in their way. This bill is entirely wrong and shame on the Minister for bringing it through this House and shame on the National members sitting opposite who will vote for it to go through and extend injustice in this country.