Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker for the chance to speak at this the third reading of the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill. This is a piece of legislation that's worked its way through the House over of course a number of months and a little bit of time of course at the select committee. I wasn't involved in that select committee process but I made a point of trying to read and understand as many of the submissions as possible in that time to get a flavour of the inherent tensions involved in this area of law and life of course from the perspective of families and especially children going through this kind of situation.I think the two fundamental tensions involve the role of the lawyer and the role of the child if I may put it like that. In the case of the lawyer we've heard already a couple of different perspectives across the House about the positive or negative aspects of a lawyer being involved and I think it's probably fair to say that all would agree that there are pros and cons to the involvement of the lawyer. Of course the general thrust of the legislation is to increase the role of the lawyer whereas the reforms of the last Government had been in the direction of wanting disputes to be settled without recourse to legal representation. The opposite now is true and so I just want to explore a little bit the ways in which that might be helpful and also unhelpful.So on the positive side of the ledger the lawyer is trained and indeed required ethically to preserve the position of her client. The relationship between the lawyer and the client is a fiduciary one. It's characterised by privilege obligation of confidentiality and so on. So we have a very traditional understanding of the fact that the lawyer is there to fight the corner of their client or perhaps we might say the child who is in their care so to speak—probably the incorrect phrase to use in the family law context but I hope that the House knows what I mean by that.On the other hand to be less positive about the situation even with the best will in the world while the advocacy from the lawyer's point of view might be in the best interests of the child as well as one or other of the parties—generally the parents let's say for shorthand—the trouble with that of course is that there can be a hardening of positions there can be a crystallisation of positions such that it makes it harder and slower to reach resolution. I think the previous contributor to the debate Ginny Andersen made a fair point in that you know the hoary old truism justice delayed is justice denied. That's fine as far as it goes but the potential for this legislation to move us in entirely the wrong direction in that regard is very high indeed. The involvement of lawyers traditionally would lengthen rather than shorten proceedings and while there are good reasons that we have lawyers advocating on behalf of parties in an adversarial system and also in ways of operating our justice system that are perhaps a bit softer the reality is that it seems inevitable to me that time frames will blow out even further with the greater involvement of lawyers.Perhaps more importantly though—well actually definitely more importantly—the role of the child and the place of the child in all this is something that we should consider very seriously as a Parliament. I think the case for involvement of a child is less finely balanced than in the case of the lawyer. I think in the case of the lawyer there are serious pros and cons either way. I think in general terms for a child to be involved in the proceedings in the sense of being kept informed and given opportunities to participate I think that's mostly positive because of course it does relate to their situation their life. We've got international legal obligations that say of course that the best interests of the child are to be met. Instinctively it would probably feel to most of us as though the greater involvement the child has the better chance they have of having their say about what is best for them.On the other hand though it does need to be stated for the record that over-exposure of a child to what is an essentially difficult situation one of dispute—that's the nature of these things as the Hon Simon Bridges has noted. You know no one's coming to Family Court to have a chat and pass the time of day; it's characterised by dysfunction not function. So the over-exposure of children to that process however well-intentioned it may be the reality is that that is a considerable potential avenue and cause of stress for a young person. As I say those points were made by submitters to the select committee process.So how do we bring these two together? If we think about the role of the lawyer and the role of the child these being the two key players who are affected by the legislation I think the answer must be that while changes should be made to the system—because as I say we don't pretend that it is perfect now; certainly it is not—the answer surely must lie in having better dispute resolution and to the extent that lawyers do need to be involved that they have better training to deliver the kinds of outcomes that the Government envisages by this bill. Because merely to state that the appointment of the lawyer for the child should take into account such considerations as the cultural background personality training and experience of the lawyer to represent the child—that's all very well and I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. But to simply prescribe that without a corresponding shift or lift in the ability of the legal profession to actually deliver that it is something in the realm of well I mean good intentions let's just say that.So you know again you can understand the intent of having the age and the maturity of the child taken into account to the extent that the lawyer must explain proceedings to them. Again I don't think anyone would disagree. Again I would say—actually I would go further than to say that that would be a matter of common sense; I would say that's already a matter of ethical obligation. I think that it's clear that any lawyer who fails to keep the child involved to the extent that is appropriate would be failing in their duty. So that's non-controversial as far as it goes but it also doesn't do anything really to solve the practical problem of how a child's interests are best served.Just a couple of quick further notes in passing this being the third reading. While a couple of issues were aired in the committee of the whole House stage including by yours truly the common practice oftentimes for people trying to understand the background of legislation is simply to go to the third reading speeches. If anyone's reading this now in the years to come I say you've made a good choice. The commencement of the bill reflects the fact that there will be a stocktake so-called of matters that are relevant to the passage of the bill and so it'll come into force at different times as indicated in that commencement section. More detail on that I don't think we need at this stage.So I think I'll simply close by again highlighting that on this side of the House we're not convinced that these fundamental tensions will be resolved in a way that is helpful that of the role of the lawyer. In particular we fear that there will be an increase in time not a reduction by requiring and encouraging greater involvement of the lawyer in this as opposed to experts such as those in the realm of psychology and so forth. Of course in relation to the child we do sound a note of caution about the intent of maximising involvement potentially being one that is limited at best and potentially actively counter-productive when a child is over-exposed to negative matters in what is already of course a stressful situation. So I'll end my contribution there reiterating the position as already stated by our first speaker on the bill the Hon Simon Bridges that we cannot support it.