Hipkins Chris: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11567. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):I am happy to take a brief call on the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. I just want to state at the beginning that I guess any member of Parliament who meets regularly with people in their constituency office will deal with issues that are very sensitive and very difficult all of the time and some of the most difficult ones that we deal with are where there has been a relationship breakup. Regularly I get people coming into the office to talk through difficulties they have with the child support system for example. That seems to take up an awful lot of time and I acknowledge that relationship breakups can be incredibly difficult for all involved. So the changes that are being debated today around the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill are actually incredibly important for us to get right because when relationships break up people need to have an adequate level of support. That is just an absolute bottom line. They have got to have an adequate level of support. We also have to recognise that in relationship breakups there can be all sorts of external factors that create a huge power imbalance in the relationship which can be very difficult to work through.I am not as familiar with this legislation as the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee are but having listened to the debate there are certainly some aspects of this legislation that concern me greatly. For example if we take the removal of lawyers from large chunks of the process on one level I might look at that and say that that is actually probably quite a good thing because if there is a family dispute maybe it is better that it is not a legal proceeding but that in fact we get people together—we get them to sit down and talk things out—and maybe getting lawyers involved makes things more difficult. But actually a lot of the evidence suggests that by having a good process around things and ensuring that all of the parties to that process are well supported with good rational sensible advice removed from the emotions of the situation we get a better outcome.In something like the Family Court where the interests of children are involved it is really really important that everybody involved is adequately supported so that we can get the best possible outcome. This is not something where we should make decisions based on saving a bit of money because in fact if we get these things wrong it is costly in fiscal terms for the country but it is hugely costly in a whole lot of other ways for those who are involved in that process. So for the children and for the parents who are going through or have been through a separation and are dealing with disputes it is important that the process is right and that they get the support they need.I am really concerned about some of the reforms—for example limiting the access to court-funded counselling at the time of separation. Actually this is a time when we want to make sure that parents have all of the support they could possibly need in order to deal with the issues that are before them. The bill is limiting the role of lawyers in the processes of the court and is therefore limiting access to legal aid. What we have to recognise again when a separation occurs or when a relationship breaks up is that there are going to be huge economic disparities in the way things happen. So limiting parents’ access to legal aid can be very difficult for some of them.The establishment of a new process called family dispute resolution will cost around $900 just to get into it in the first place. That is a big barrier for some people and I think we have got to really consider the cost that we are going to be imposing—that this Parliament will be imposing if this bill passes—on people who are at a very very vulnerable stage. I do not think that that is a time when we should be imposing costs onthem and making things more difficult for people who are going through this process. We should actually be doing all we can to support people who are having relationship and family issues so that they can resolve those satisfactorily and so that people can reach the best possible outcome particularly as I said where children are involved.I am very very concerned about limiting the role of counsel for the child by raising the threshold for the appointment by the court. Children are the people who need to be the most supported in this process and removing from children any level of support in Family Court proceedings cannot be good for those children. They should have as much support as we can possibly provide them with.I was not a member of the select committee and I was not part of the debate in the earlier parts of these proceedings so I look at it from a much higher level perhaps than those who were engaged in the detail. I simply ask the House this question: will this bill leave children particularly and also those experiencing family difficulties better off or is it about saving money? My analysis of reading what I have seen so far is that it is about saving money and that is the wrong motivation for these sorts of changes.