Bridges Simon; Dean JacquiHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): The member opposite the Minister on behalf of the Minister of Justice Hon Aupito William Sio didn't even make four minutes for his speech. That is how little he actually believes in this bill. I can understand that because as I said standing here at the first reading of this bill—and I still say—it is a really well-intentioned bill. I think the soft-headed thinking over the other side that it is nice and it is about children and that is really good is—yeah it is well-intentioned but we can't support a bill that actually in the end is going to make things worse. The reason I say that is because actually the system we had in place wasn't perfect but on the Ministry of Justice's own numbers in terms of what it meant for children and time in court and the period of time to resolve these things they are better under the system we've got than I am sure they will be under this system. See the answer from the other side of the House—and I accept they've got red members all the way through they are about to pass this law—is simply this can sum it up in two words: more lawyers. That is literally all this bill does. They are going to supply more lawyers into a Family Court system—Shanan Halbert: Who's a lawyer?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —as if somehow—well I am a lawyer and that is why I know it is such a stupid idea right? It is not going to make the difference; in fact I think it will make it worse.By the way yep I talk with lots of lawyers and a few of them you know I think ultimately because they are institutionalised think it is a really great idea. But what was surprising to me was at the Justice Committee in terms of the oral submissions we had the overwhelming majority did not support this bill. I'll come back to that point very shortly.But it will make things worse—more lawyers; in this case lawyers for the child. It will result in more disputes a more legalistic approach and a prioritisation of in-court—which as we know whether it is sexual abuse whether it is in this family arena which of course can involve physical and sexual and not to speak of emotional abuse as well they are prioritising that in-court process with the trauma attendant to it over out-of-court solutions which as I say in the laws that Judith Collins when justice Minister passed have been shown to work and resolve things better quicker and more smoothly.Even from the perspective of the child we heard at the select committee that this law will not—from experts; quite a number of them—necessarily be positive. You see—and I've already mentioned this point—I just want to make the point that this is what experts on sexual abuse and physical abuse and child psychology who came to the committee said to us: the court process can if not done well result in more trauma acrimony with—and I wish I could think of a more felicitous phrase to use and I certainly don't mean this about our children—a sense of piggy in the middle for the child where they are being pulled each way and have to choose. And that is what the court process will have done to them. The reason for that is because this bill is—as is true for so much that the Labour Party in Government unthinkingly well intentioned but with soft thinking puts through this House—putting the cart before the horse. More lawyers for the child but real concern at the select committee stage from not one not two not five but from many submitters actually about a lack of training and skills for lawyers that they need when dealing with children.So we give children their own lawyer in the process. This bill fundamentally—it's got a few other bells and whistles—prioritises lawyers for the child. But as as I say so many who came along made quite clear when—when—at any time in their career does a lawyer in New Zealand get training and skills in child development in child psychology in sexual violence in trauma? I'll tell you the answer: never. They just don't. You get—and I don't mean to be mean to them; I fit most of these criteria—Kieran McAnulty: Hopeless!Hon SIMON BRIDGES: middle-aged—no no that's the member for Wairarapa; he shouldn't be so hard on himself!—white men who get their law degree and then suddenly they're away and they're counsel for the child. There is no ongoing education. There is no sense of understanding of child development and all of these things that are so important and would be important for someone when dealing with a child in the most traumatic experience they've ever seen or had: the separation of their parents. As one expert—I think it was the Law Society—said to us only the bad stuff comes before the court. Right? You are not dealing with functionality; it is only dysfunction ultimately that ends up in these court cases and we are leaving it to lawyers and not the real experts.And I want to say this as well I think it was the departmental report that we got at the end—I could be wrong; I think it was—that made the point: almost invariably—we asked to see what was happening in other jurisdictions—other jurisdictions the Canadas the Australians the United States and the United Kingdoms of this world put much more emphasis on psychologists social workers and the like with the real knowledge and training; not on lawyers doing this kind of work.Finally I just want to make the point I've already made but with some examples from the select committee process. I was surprised actually: I knew and had a sense that this wasn't good law because actually what we were doing was working and this was a solution looking for a problem—not saying that it was perfect but a solution that didn't fit the problems here. But I was surprised that the majority of submitters who came along and gave oral submissions in one way or another opposed this bill. I remember a child sexual abuse specialist who made quite clear actually that in the court process children are subject to manipulation before they go in with treats with other things. Prior to talking to their lawyer in the court process they are readily susceptible to manipulation. This not something that lawyers counsel for children are in any way equipped to deal with.We had iwi leaders—I think it was Dame Naida Glavish a very clear forthright leader amongst Māoridom who warned Don't"—I've got it here in quotes; I wrote it down—"create a cottage industry." That's what this bill is doing. It is creating a cottage industry for middle-class lawyers who actually aren't equipped to make the system let alone the Family Court better and to resolve things in a less traumatic and more just way for children and their whānau.The Children's Commissioner described the bill as—I wrote this one down too—"weak insipid and inadequate". I think I said to him at the time "Tell us what you really think Child Commissioner". But that's what he said: weak insipid and inadequate. And he said as his daughter would say "This bill is a real de-buzz".I want to quote probably one of the most eminent Queen's Counsel in the area of family law Simon Jefferson from an interview on From Nine to Noon talking about a lawyer for the child. He said "The risk sounding a bit banal a lawyer"—he was talking about lawyers for the child as I say—"is someone with a law degree; that does not necessarily equip you to ascertain the views of a child or to exercise a judgment as to just what is relevant and what is not and then to convey it to the court. Lawyers are lawyers. Now of course it's a legal system so that's why they're lawyers. But is it the best model? I've got my doubts. The lawyers who represent children and I am one of many we don't really have much in the way of in-depth training; it's just dumb experiential. What we pick up on the way about child development and understanding adult dynamics understanding some of the typical dynamics that occur between parents in a Family Court but it's a bit crude; it's a bit simplistic."I wish we could support this bill but it's the wrong track in family law—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member's time has expired."