Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Mr Speaker. Firstly can I acknowledge the Minister for bringing the Legal Services Amendment Bill to the House. We had a long discussion about this—her opening comments I entirely agree with. One of the most daunting things and one of the biggest barriers for a lot of people actually engaging in our justice system and the courts is that you've got lawyers and people in the legal profession and you've got judges that speak a whole different language. You've got a system that a lot of laypeople when they engage with it don't really understand what's going on. And they're feeling like they're losing control of decisions and processes in their own lives. So we acknowledge that and we would much rather see a substantive bill or some substantive work done across the House because we would support this.I'm not laying the blame entirely at the feet of the Government although of course we know that we have got massive backlogs now in our system and that has a massive negative impact on people's lives particularly when you're talking about the Family Court and parents that are separated from their children through no fault of their own only because you've got two adults and two parents that can't agree and they are immersed in a system whereby it can take literally years to get resolution to actually get access and start to try and repair and get that family back on track in terms of the relationship for children between both parents.So we know we've got big fundamental issues and problems inside our courts and inside our justice system. We'd rather see a substantive bill come to the House to actually start to deal with those issues because we believe that that's actually where most of the stress actually sits for laypeople and for people trying to navigate their way through our court system. We want to understand exactly what the intent of the Government is here removing a $50 legal fee. We're not fundamentally against any of this as long as the Government can show us exactly what they think they're going to achieve exactly the stress that is going to be removed. They say there's obviously the ability to remove financial stress but the current legislation already allows for that. It already allows for the application pertaining to the exemption of legal aid debt under the grounds of the financial hardship. If we are going to remove interest on that debt what is the Government's position on that? Is it the fact that now there's no expectation that that debt will be repaid? Will removing the interest on that debt provide a greater incentive for people to actually pay that back which ultimately is taxpayers' money or will it just remain the status quo?I think those are some of the things that we need to answer through the select committee process and we will work as always on the Justice Committee in as bipartisan way as we can to at least try and identify exactly what this bill is going to achieve. At the moment we can't see that. We can't see the immediate value in that we can't see exactly what they are trying to achieve and therefore we can't support the bill in its current form although we are committed to working on the Justice Committee to find out exactly what is trying to be achieved and whether or not this is actually a substantive bill that's going to make a real impact or whether it's something along the fringes that isn't. Thank you very much Mr Speaker.