Horan Brendan: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHoran Brendan: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13221. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): Thank you for the opportunity to address this revision-tracked Supplementary Order Paper 349 which was released by the Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins. To call the revision-tracked Supplementary Order Paper substantial would be an understatement. It amends almost every page of the bill as it was reported from the Justice and Electoral Committee. The bar 2 version of the bill contains substantial amendments and Supplementary Order Paper 349 seems to be last-minute stuff. It has been released only today Tuesday 3 September—the day we are debating the detail of the bill. If we look at the changes to just Part 1 of the bill which we are now debating we see how much has been changed by Supplementary Order Paper 349. Part 1 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill contains many changes some very important changes to the laws of New Zealand affecting our most vulnerable citizens. Fully 80 percent of this Part 1 that we are currently debating has been changed at the last minute by the Minister in charge.Today I rang some Bay of Plenty Family Court lawyers who have previously expressed dismay at this bill. I could not get hold of them. One was travelling from Rotorua. Another was in court doing what lawyers do and that is how life should be. We should be working doing what we are supposed to be doing and in terms of bills that come through Parliament what we should be doing is putting these bills under full scrutiny. I ask where the opportunity is for full scrutiny of this bill. Where is the opportunity for those people the experts in this field to fully engage with due process? This is important because this bill has the potential to affect any child in New Zealand.I would like to now turn to Supplementary Order Paper 349 where today we have in clause 9 the surprise appearance of new section 46GA being parachuted into the Care of Children Act. This restricts the counselling available under new section 46E of the Act. That new section 46E of the Act was contained in the bill as introduced back inNovember last year. It was substantially the same in the select committee report a few months ago in June. There were a few minor changes in the wording. The intent of new section 46E was and is as set out in section 46E(2)(a) “to improve the relationship between the parties:”—that is the parents—and “(b) to encourage compliance with any direction or order made by the court.” That sounds like something positive for the children caught up in all this but now the availability of counselling is to be throttled by new section 46GA. It says: “The maximum number of sessions to be carried out ... must be determined ... [by] regulations ... or if no such regulations are made by the Registrar of the court.” So on the face of it this is more cost cutting by the Government and it is more cost cutting at the expense of the welfare of New Zealand’s vulnerable children.I turn now to new section 49AB contained in clause 12 of Supplementary Order Paper 349. This is another whole new section to be inserted in the Care of Children Act that again has made its appearance only today. It states: “Interim parenting order may become final order on specified date”. It appears to be quite technical and detailed in providing that: “... a Family Court Judge may” when making an interim parenting order “direct that the interim parenting order is to become a final parenting order on the specified date” and there are subsections (2) and (3) which appear not to be contentious. But as parliamentarians have learnt to their cost over the years the devil is in the detail.I would ask why this change is appearing at the last possible minute. Why is it that the experts in the field the people outside this House have no chance to scrutinise the new detail of this law? I would like to hear from members opposite whether there is a member of the National Party’s caucus committee on vulnerable children who will say whether they have even seen this new section let alone had it explained to them or have been given the chance to ask any questions about the wording about the detail and why there should be new law around whether and when an interim parenting order can become a final parenting order.It was interesting listening to the honourable Alfred Ngaro speaking about exiting people out of the Family Court system as soon as possible. This bill will certainly do that because this bill will greatly affect the vulnerable people in our society the parents and those at the centre of all our concerns—of course the children. Parents and children will struggle with what the bill now means to their future as individuals and as families. I cannot emphasise enough the intense waves of anxiety and huge costs emotionally and financially already experienced during these times. This bill will exasperate the very people it is supposed to support with additional legal costs and free counselling removed adding to the living hell that those parents will already be going through. Parents in these difficult times should not be undermined and these parents should not be made to struggle further with legal ramifications—that is agreeing to things in a process that they do not fully understand or have fully had time to process in their heads and the costs.Although most New Zealanders love the idea of the family dispute resolution concept in principle it will actually be met with unfair battles. The expectation that parents will be fairly matched during this process even with the assistance of one facilitator is totally unrealistic. As we know in these family battles one person holds the strings one person is dominant and one person will be able to afford a very expensive lawyer in the background giving them advice. Each parent will have their own view about what is best for the child. Let us not forget that they would not even be there in the first place if this was not the case.Throughout the Committee process it has been recognised that the focus of this bill is to cut the cost of legal aid as it has become unaffordable for the Government. In fact the costs have skyrocketed yet the numbers of cases have not. I suggest we look at howthis can be. What are the real issues for the cost increase? Why are we prepared to cut the services being offered before we really understand where the blow is coming from? More important making the vulnerable people in our society go without legal representation or an understanding of what they are entering into cannot be right. We need to listen to Family Court lawyers all over New Zealand who are saying that this bill is absolutely frightening particularly as it could leave the vulnerable parties—children—without legal protection. Thank you.