Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFamily Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13506. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Family Court Proceedings Reform BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 3 Family dispute resolution(continued)Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Part 3 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill as introduced was the amendment to the Family Courts Act 1980 which becomes the Family Dispute Resolution Act or some such thing.Just before I start on Part 3 of the bill could I acknowledge the valedictory speech from the Hon Lianne Dalziel which I thought was a very fine speech. Our loss will be Christchurch’s gain if she is successful in her bid for the mayoralty. I thought it was a very fine speech and we will miss her expertise particularly in the area that we are talking about now which is the area of the law.Coming back to Part 3 of the bill I want to pick up some of the comments that the Minister of Justice has made. The Minister boasted that this is all going to be fine because she has 20 years as a practising lawyer. I think she was comparing herself with my colleague the Labour spokesperson on justice. I wonder whether she would compare herself with the people whom her predecessor the Hon Simon Power put on the expert reference group. I look at the people who have made submissions on this bill and are particularly opposed to this part of the bill—people like Professor Fred Seymour and Dr Suzanne Blackwell. They have both been clinical psychologists for over 30 years dealing with Family Court matters. You hadAntony Mahon—again a barrister working in family law and an expert in the area with 30 years’ experience. There is Allan Cooke another barrister working in South Auckland with 30 years’ experience andSharynŌtene a family law barrister with 17 years’ experience in the Family Court.Why I raise that is that four of those five people were appointed by Simon Power on the basis of their expertise in the law in family law and in Family Court matters. When you appoint an expert reference group you expect the Minister to listen to what that expert group says. Well Minister you have not listened but listen now because this is what that group said in its submission on this bill. It said that the proposed reforms “are not based on empirical evidence”—not based on empirical evidence. I would like the Minister to take the next call and point to the empirical evidence on which this bill is based.The submission said that this bill is “... contrary to extensive existing evidence of best outcomes for families and children;”. Let me say that again to you Minister: it is contrary to extensive existing evidence of best outcomes for families and children. I would really like this Minister to take a call and explain why she is imposing a piece of legislation on this Committee that the experts in the area—acknowledged as experts because they were appointed by her predecessor—are saying is not based on facts is not based on evidence and they say worse than that again.The submission says that this “... will create a two-tiered family justice system ... [where] (i) the more vulnerable members of society will have limited access ... to assist them in the resolution of family disputes.” So it is not based on fact it is not based on evidence and it is going to create an unfair justice system when it comes to resolving disputes that have a huge impact on the lives of the children who are tied into it through no fault of their own.The submission also says further that “it is entirely foreseeable that inequalities arising from gender socio-economic status and ethnicity will become entrenched”. I thought the idea of the justice system was that everybody was equal under the law and it did not matter whether you were rich or you were poor because you had the sameaccess to the services of justice and you could expect the same outcomes. And this your own expert reference group is saying that exactly the opposite will be the case.I also heard the Minister in her address talking about this being about children. Minister your own regulatory impact statement denies that this is about children because that regulatory impact statement—let me recall this for you too—produced by your department says: “Given the overall”—this is the introductory paragraph—“Given the overall fiscal situation urgent steps must be taken to lower the cost of the current justice system ...”. That is what this bill is about. It is about lowering the fiscal costs regardless of the social and justice costs that that imposes on the children and the families who may be denied the services of this system.And this is what the expert reference group says. It backs up what the regulatory impact statement says. It says: “The overriding fiscal imperative is evident throughout the Bill.” It goes on to say: “Such savings cannot be to an extent where the fundamental purpose of the Family Court is severely compromised.” So Minister I would like to hear from you as to why these people with much more experience in a section of the law that you have only touched upon are so fundamentally critical of every basic premise in this bill.What worries me most of all is that this new family dispute resolution service which will be compulsory for everybody is going to be at a cost to the families of $900—$897 I am sorry. I am exaggerating. It is $897. I want you to tell us Minister how a family on a lowish income—but not so pathetically low that they are eligible for legal aid—is going to afford that cost when they are already going through the financial stress of a maritalbreakup where they are probably living in two homes now and having to spread the cost of that across the income that previously paid for one home because that is going to produce financial hardship. But not for people on the Minister’s salary. She could manage it very readily. Maybe for the people at the very bottom you know with one child if your income is under $32000 you will not have to pay. But people who are the normal average family battlers who will be on low to middle incomes will be struggling with the cost.What worries me most of all Minister is that your own regulatory impact statement says that after they have been through this process five-sixths of them will then have to go to the Family Court anyway. They will have to meet the cost of this service at $900 and then they will have to pay the cost—minus the legal aid that you have taken away from so many of them—to go to the Family Court as well. So they are being hit twice.The Minister’s other point was: “Oh most people can just sort this out for themselves.” Well you know it is true that for a lot of people there will be an out-of-court resolution. That is there now. Minister you must know that right now under section 9 of the Family Proceedings Act 85 percent of the parties reach a direct agreement by themselves or with counselling under section 9. The people who can sort their problems out are sorting their problems out now without the extra costs that you are imposing on them. But the other 15 percent are the 15 percent where the problems are deeply entrenched. What the experts say on this is that your proposal will make the situation worse and will make it harder for those families. They will not be represented before the family dispute resolution service and they will not be represented in the Family Court when they get there either. So if you have got an unequal relationship between the two partners that will be exaggerated because the partner who is not equal in strength and resources to the other partner will be at a huge disadvantage.What the expert reference group says here Minister—you have not read it obviously so I will repeat it to you—is: “This fails to recognise that out of court resolution already occurs for the vast number of parents who separate whether by direct agreement between the parties or with the assistance of the section 9 counselling.”Those cases do not go to the Family Court but it says: “The availability of the affordable and accessible pre-court dispute resolution process with section 9 counselling already provides the very tools to parents which are claimed to result from these reforms.” They have the mechanism to do so now if the matter can be sorted out without the cost being imposed on the parties because part of the role of the legal system is to provide justice whether it is in employment law judicial law family law or civil cases. That is what our—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Judicial law!Hon PHIL GOFF: The family cases. Let the Attorney-General if he is so smart take a call and explain why these people who know far more than either the Attorney-General or the Minister of Justice are wrong when they say that this legislation is fundamentally bad.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Part 3 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. I do want to point straight to clause 60A of the bill which sets out the duties of family dispute resolution providers. In subclause (2) of clause 60A it says “… the family dispute resolution provider must … (a) identify the matters in issue between the parties; and (b) facilitate discussion between the parties in respect of those matters; and (c) assist the parties to reach an agreement on the resolution of those matters that best serves the welfare and best interests of all children involved in the dispute.” On the face of it you cannot have too much of a problem with that but as always with the National Party the devil is in the detail.To get to family dispute resolution you have to pay as Mr Goff says $897. That is going to be very restrictive to many many families and certainly to a lot of families in my constituency of Mana. I just want to commend a number of the family law specialist lawyers who came to me almost instantly because of their concern around access to justice for families who could not afford it when they found out that this piece of legislation was going to be introduced to this House. Those lawyers believe that this fee of close to $900 to go through this family dispute resolution service will be prohibitive for many families in Porirua and that it will cause a lot of families who cannot afford to go through family dispute resolution to actually have more problems between the two parties involved—the issue being that if you cannot afford to go through family dispute resolution the issues between those two parties will be left to fester and then things between those two parties could actually get worse. Those lawyers did point out that the system that is currently in place gives the two parties the ability to go to six court-funded counselling sessions. That was very very valuable to those parties in making sure that they could hopefully come to some agreement before they get to the serious stages of negotiation around separation.As Phil Goff mentioned in his speech it is not necessarily the case that this Government wants to help families who are separating by introducing this piece of legislation. It is actually looking at cutting costs within the court system to make sure that it can meet its needs. To look at some of the savings that the Government will find by moving to these family dispute resolution services and changing the system within Family Court proceedings you only have to go to the regulatory impact statement where it does quantify some of the savings that will come about by introducing family dispute resolution services. On page 9 of the regulatory impact statement one of the options that the advisers look at is repealing the existing obligations and replacing them with a focus on the court carrying out its primary function in a way that produces the best outcomes for children and vulnerable people. This is a recommended option from the advisers who put the regulatory impact statement together. It is revealed in that document that this will create a saving of close to $10 million based on the 2010 and2011 expenditure for all court-funded counselling. In black and white that is what the real motivation of these changes is. As it says in clause 60A family dispute resolutions may be being introduced for what would seem to be a good purpose but the real motivation for setting up the family dispute resolution service is to cut costs. Another measure that will save costs as pointed out in the regulatory impact statement is to limit the number of those counselling sessions that I mentioned before which currently is set at six to—it says here in the regulatory impact statement—an option of one or three. That will save up to $4 million based on current expenditure over the next 2 years.We are very concerned about this family dispute resolution service and about the cost that it has set up because it does create a situation where the have-nots cannot access a fair justice system when it comes to resolving family disputes. They cannot do that. That was a concern that was also held by the New Zealand Law Society. That is a society the opinion of which this Government does not seem to care about any more because a lot of pieces of legislation have been through the House and the Law Society has given its frank opinion on that legislation but this Government seems hell-bent on ignoring it. In a submission that the Law Society made on this bill when it was introduced it had two very major concerns when it came to the family dispute resolution service. If I can just read from its submission: “Firstly imposing a large fee puts a big barrier in front of those who want to resolve issues that they are unable to resolve themselves. Access to justice is a fundamental mark of a democratic and fair society. That access will be impeded in New Zealand by the fee.” So we do have the Law Society very concerned along with the Labour Party that this fee will restrict the access to justice of a lot of families who are not only going through financial hardship but also going through very tough times within their own families themselves.The second concern that the Law Society had and I am quoting again is that “… requiring the parties to split the fee provides one party with the power to delay matters control or even prevent the process by refusing to pay their half. FDR needs to be encouraged. Its strength is in early negotiated settlement. Giving one party the ability to stifle the process by simply refusing to pay a fee is to deny the other the opportunity of resolving matters in a timely child focused way.” So the fee that you need to pay to access the family dispute resolution service could actually be used as something against one party in a dispute within a family. I think that I would like to hear from the Minister of Justice about that concern that the Law Society has and certainly as to whether this could have the effect of making things worse within families. Certainly I know that the local family lawyers in my area have concerns over that because they are going to be in plenty of situations where families will be accessing this service. As I said in a previous debate on another part of this legislation where there is financial abuse going on in a situation this concern from the Law Society could certainly come to fruition.I do want to note some of the ardent opposition in Porirua to this bill.Catriona Doyle a family lawyer in Porirua moved very quickly to make sure that the Law Society locally and nationally spoke out very strongly against the changes that are in this bill because they will restrict access to justice for families who cannot afford to access justice. We do not believe that is a good thing. As Mr Goff said it is fine for people who can afford it but it certainly does hamper the process for families who are not in a financial position to be able to access justice and the family dispute resolution service. On the face of it clause 60A points out some very good things that family dispute resolution sets out to do but in this legislation this Government is not really seeking to make things easier for families who cannot afford to access justice. At the moment they can do so and it is cheap or free and they do have access to six free counselling sessions but under this legislation it makes access to justice much muchharder. It imposes close to a $900 fee on those families who want to enter into the family dispute resolution service and it is my submission and also a submission of the Law Society—and I would like to hear from the Minister in the chair on this—that the fee to enter the family dispute resolution process could actually be making things worse for families not better.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I moveThat the question be now put.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I am pleased to take a short call on this part Part 3 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. The argument of the Minister of Justice around Part 3 of the bill is based on this premise: that people should work out their problems themselves when it comes to separation and disputes around children. They should be able to do it themselves. In order to force that to happen the Minister has come up with what really is a Draconian set of rules and changes to the current rules.In fact it has already been shown that there is a fundamental flaw in the Minister’s basic argument. Most people do work it out themselves. That is a fact. Any practitioner will tell you that and most lawyers will tell you that. When separation occurs and when disputes occur they actually work it out. So who are the ones Minister who end up in court? They are the ones where their cases are much more difficult they are much more complex and they require a lot more assistance which is why they come to court. They do not come to court just for the hell of it; they come because they require the assistance of the court.To take away the provisions that are there at the moment which Part 3 does is actually denying a fundamental right to our citizens and that is to access justice. So at that point it becomes an access to justice question. It is a bit like many other areas where this Government has made it much more difficult for a section of our population to access services. Whether it is in social development or in a whole range of areas a number of punitive laws have been passed by this Government that are punishing the most vulnerable and the Government couches it in language that it is strengthening our families. Well it is not. This will actually make it worse.There is any amount of evidence that has been presented to the Justice and Electoral Committee and in the documents that my colleagues have talked about to show that this is a mistake and yet the Minister has got it in her head that this is the only way to do this. One wonders why. One wonders why it is. What has the Minister got against her own former profession which actually does want to provide and enable services to be offered to our most vulnerable?Not only that but it is actually taking away from our most vulnerable the responsibility of the State to provide some assistance—in the end it will probably be cheaper to do it that way—and imposing in its place an $875 cost to families to access counselling to access the family dispute resolution service. What is the logic behind that? This becomes cheque-book access to services for those who are the most vulnerable. Why is the Minister doing it that way? Why is this Government so heartless in doing it in this particular way and then going even further—making it a mandatory requirement? Before you can go any further you actually have to go and access the service at your own cost.The Minister has not explained to us the question proposed by this side of how the family dispute resolution service is going to decide that a case cannot be resolved in a short period of time or within a reasonable period of time. That is not defined either. This is all designed to make it a lot more difficult and perhaps designed to save some money and the figures have been quoted by my colleague Kris Faafoi.Why is the Minister so heartless? Why is the Minister making it—[Interruption] Well Minister it is. The Minister should get up and say how some of these families aregoing to find $875 to get this service. And when it does not work out they will have to go to court and there is no access to legal aid at that point. They are on their own and of those who separate this is the most vulnerable group—the most difficult cases—and through these provisions the Minister is making it much more difficult for them to do so. It is not just my word; it is the words of all those who have presented. There have been no explanations from the Minister as to why it is being done in this particular way. Perhaps the Minister is simply trying to promote access to private family dispute resolution services. In a way the prices are guaranteed. They have to use those; otherwise they cannot go any further.There is a lot with this series of provisions in Part 3 of the bill that fundamentally this side of the House is opposed to because there is a better way of doing it. There are much better ways of accepting this responsibility and providing a better service. What are the difficulties in this particular area if it is not just costs? What has the Minister identified as a major problem in this particular area? It is only that ideology that people should care for themselves and that if you separate you must go and find solutions yourself.What kind of solution is that? The Minister does not drive that and the Government does not drive that in other areas of problems whether it is in the economy or whether it is in business etc. The Government is very very willing to use large dollops of public moneys.Tīwai Point is a case in point. And yet when it comes to our most vulnerable families this Minister and the Minister for Social Development are making it much more difficult for our most vulnerable. Why is it Minister? Is it because this group does not vote for that side of the House? Is it that? Or is it just some perverse—Andrew Little: Pleasure.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: —pleasure that the Minister takes as an ex-lawyer. There is no logic. The Minister has not explained the logic.We can conclude then at the end of it and alongside a whole series of other laws that have been passed by this Government over the past 4½ years that although the Government pretends to be pro-family it is actually anti-family. Many many laws have been passed by this Government that are actually anti-family anti - keeping the family together and anti - trying to give families assistance. The Government is simply saying: “The State has no responsibility. We’ve got to cut the welfare budget. We’ve got to cut Government spending.” And yet the other side of the equation is that others are advantaged.This is what creates the unbalanced society that Labour Governments have to come and fix up and we will. When in Government this side will fix up these kinds of problems. Anybody who works in this field—any practitioner counsellor lawyer and perhaps judge as well if they are asked—will tell you that this particular set of provisions is not likely to work. Those whom I have spoken to say that this will simply make it worse. And yet here is a Minister who sits there and simply says that we have got it all wrong that everybody is wrong and that the Minister is right. Well this side will not be supporting this bill and when the time comes we will make the adjustments that need to be made. Thank you.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): I moveThat the question be now put.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that a closure motion must be put precisely and I believe that that member started to take a call.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I found the manner in which the motion was put to be acceptable.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the motion be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 52.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 3 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 3 as amended agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 56.Part 4 Amendments to Legal Services Act 2011ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Part 4 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is a very brief part but it is actually very powerful in its impact. I think that it is very important to draw the Committee’s attention to just what is going on here. This part severely limits access to legal aid for parties to Family Court proceedings. It is interesting to note the advice that was received about this matter—both the officials’ advice that was received and the advice from the expert reference group which talked about this as well. By denying legal aid to parties who are required to participate in the mandatory family dispute resolution process it effectively means that the parties at least those who cannot afford their own counsel will be unrepresented. They will be unrepresented.I will come to submissions about legal aid shortly but it is interesting to see what the advice of the regulatory impact statement was about the impact of this particular provision—the expectation of it. It was that by making legal aid unavailable to this sort of process it will reduce the cost of legal aid for care of children cases which are the bulk of those for which legal aid is granted to the tune of $41.3 million over 3 years. Over $10 million a year will be saved in legal aid. I am sure there will be some Cabinet Ministers who would rub their hands together with glee thinking they can save that sort of money. But the cost as we would expect is likely to be picked up elsewhere.It is interesting to see what the expert reference group said about this lack of legal representation for both the partners who are in dispute and any children involved. The group talks about Family Court cases involving high stress for parties and that for a wide variety of reasons parties struggle to advocate for themselves which is why they typically and traditionally have access to legal counsel throughout the process. This is not about the small amount of advice they can get access to before the mandatory family dispute resolution process but actually about having advice throughout the process. When you are participating—whether it is in a mediation-type or facilitated-type process or in formal court proceedings—you are taking part in something that will have significant legal implications for you and if you have got children for your children for some time to come. So people rightly approach it cautiously and because they want advice on the implications for them and their children.The expert reference group talked about the impact of this measure which effectively denies legal advice when they need it most and that is that there will be other direct and indirect costs to the public purse. It is likely that an additional administrative resource will be required because if people are not sure about the agreements they are entering into or the points they are being asked to agree to and they cannot get advice their best option is to kick it to the court and hope the court can fix it up and sort it out for them. There is going to be a greater call on the facilitators who are expected to be engaged in this process to start providing advice. They will be clear that they cannot provide legal advice but they will be prevailed upon to do so and that is going to bog things down as well.But there is something else going on that I think is even more insidious and that is what is happening to legal aid. Earlier this year this House passed amendments to the legal services legislation including the Legal Services Amendment Act which allowed the Legal Services Commissioner to impose interest on legal aid debt. That has not happened until now. Indeed in many cases where legal aid has been given at least in civil matters there has been a charge or a caveat put on people’s real property but now the Legal Services Commissioner has the power to impose interest on it.And the Committee might like to know that the Legal Services Commissioner has been busily going around imposing interest on legal aid debt particularly historical legal aid debt in just the last couple of weeks. Letters have gone out to a large number of people telling them that they now owe money on their legal aid debt. People who have had a legal aid debt in some cases for 12 years and have never received a single piece of correspondence about it are now being told they have to pay interest on it.This will continue to be an issue under this legislation. This will continue to be an issue under this legislation because if people cannot get advice in this mandatory process they have to kick it off to have a judge sort it out and that is the only basis on which they will get access to legal advice. They will have an incentive to do it but they will now be subject to a further burden. Many people who have an existing legal aid debt are now being chased for it and what is worse they are being charged the usurious and extortionate rate of 8 percent. That is 8 percent interest on a grant of assistance to impecunious people poor people who need legal assistance at a time of great distress and difficulty for them. This Government now comes after them and says: “You’re going to pay a rate of interest that is several times the rate of inflation that is more than you would pay on a first mortgage rate and that is more than the 90-day bill rate.”This is a way that the Government through the Ministry of Justice can fleece poor people and make money. That is what it is about. It will happen to people under this Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill if this bill is passed in this form. Legal aid will be required because more people will seek to have their family disputes kicked off into a court process because that is the only way they are going to get access to legal advicein order to understand the legal implications of the agreement they are being asked to agree to. The Minister of Justice might like to answer just what her expectations are of the demand for legal aid and the cost to people now with this dreadful and insidious interest rate that is now being imposed on it. There is no reassurance in this bill that people are going to be treated fairly and properly over it. This change the limiting of access to legal assistance and legal aid for this important process a very important event in someone’s life is I think an absolute shocker.The expert advisory group went on to talk about depriving children tied up in these matters of counsel and legal advice because that is what this bill does as well. Children will not even be represented in the family dispute resolution process. Previously they would be and there would be assistance for them to do that. There will be no legal aid for children to get access to advice on the implications of any agreement for them and that is a more horrifying prospect. It is in my view as I have already said in this House a breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and it goes against the advice of the expert reference group. The very high-powered highly qualified highly experienced expert reference group has also lamented the bill for denying legal advice to children tied up in these events.The group thinks that it is going to put children at risk because the court will not have independent information on the views of the child. The group points out that it is usually only after a lawyer has been appointed for a child that underlying issues things that affect the children are notified for the first time to the court. The truth is that the parents who are trying to do the best they can in their situation are focused on getting their situation sorted and their emotion stabilised. Of course they will want the best for their children or child but their view about what that is will differ from the review of the other parent and indeed possibly of the children themselves.So it is a bad day for this Committee if we go ahead and pass this provision that denies legal aid. Clause 71 of this bill denies legal aid not only to the parents of children going through a dissolution in this context but also to children themselves. It is a bad day for this Committee that we should be considering legislation like this. That is why we are opposed to it and we are opposed to what is happening to legal aid generally.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Part 4 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is amendments to the Legal Services Act 2011 and the bill makes it very clear what the effect of this is. The effect of new section 7(3A) and (3B) in clause 71 is to limit the availability of legal aid in proceedings under the Care of Children Act 2004 in the Family Court. This is part of the guts of the bill which says that we are going to stop lower-income people who cannot afford to be represented from getting justice in court. That is what this bill means.It is really interesting reading what the regulatory impact statement says about this bill. Actually my favourite sentence is this. You have got to listen to this Minister—you will really appreciate it. It is: “This option only affects those parties who because of their low income are eligible for legal aid.” Yes. Is that not obvious Minister? This part of the bill affects only those on low incomes who cannot afford legal representation. If this Minister on $250000—a quarter of a million dollars—needs help she will not need to worry about it. People who are really well off will do just fine but the families who are struggling to have representation will be denied representation by this bill and by other pieces of legislation that you Minister have passed.You know it says here that the real justification for this is that family legal aid went up by 93 percent between 2006-07 and 2010-11. Do you know why it went up Minister? Because for the first time in 20 years the rates of payment for legal aid were adjusted to bring them into line with the rate of inflation over the intervening period.Legal aid is about ensuring justice for people who need to be represented and this Minister says no. Why does she say no? It says why in the regulatory impact statement: “The fiscal constraints faced by government mean that there is not currently sufficient … funding”. Well Minister there was sufficient funding to pay the costs of RioTinto—$30 million. That was not a problem. Corporate welfare—no problem at all. Warner Bros—“Come in yeah. Add another $16 million to the $40 million or $50 million you’re already getting in subsidies. No problem at all.”Corporate welfare is OK apparently but allowing people to have the funds to have justice for themselves and their kids is the first target. Do you know why they are a target Minister? Because they are vulnerable because they cannot fight back and because they cannot articulate their case. They cannot stand up for themselves. But RioTinto? RioTinto—yeah well it says: “Well look OK. We’ll keep on going just until you can sell Meridian Energy and then we’ll pull out anyway and the jobs will be gone. But in the meantime yes we’ll take $30 million of the taxpayer’s funds.”That is not all Minister is it? You do not have the money you say in this document to fund legal aid for kids—you do not have the money. But you did have the money to give yourself a fat tax cut and the Prime Minister probably walked away with $150000 a year in tax cuts. There was no problem with the money there. No the money was available but if you get some struggling mum with her kids trying to get justice in the Family Court—oh no that is not a priority. That approach I think is absolutely appalling. It stinks. It stinks that we cannot provide justice for our kids but we can provide tax cuts for the wealthiest people in New Zealand. Well maybe they did not get quite that much because most of them are not paying their share of taxes anyway.It is about priorities. Politics is the language of priorities and what you are telling the Committee Minister is that you do not have money to give legal aid to those who need it but you do have money to look after the fat cats. It is as simple as that.Look your own regulatory impact statement made those comments. OK it said that the opposing party may have a lawyer as opposed to the party that cannot afford a lawyer: “This could lead to the represented party’s view being put more strongly and create or exacerbate power imbalances between the parties.” So the party who has got money will be able to push their case hard and effectively and the party who is already disadvantaged because they do not have the resources will be pushed into a position where their case is not heard on equal terms. Everybody in the Chamber—you can tell from the National backbenchers with their heads down—knows that this is wrong. They know that this is fundamentally inequitable. It is unfair it is unjust and this National Government is doing it because it does not care about the people who cannot afford representation. It does not care about the kids already in emotional turmoil because their family has broken up and where their case cannot be put because there has been a cut in legal aid.What this regulatory impact statement said was: “With no legal assistance for applying some cases may not be considered by the Court that should be.” Minister your own regulatory impact statement said that cases that should be considered by the court will not be considered because there will be nobody there to raise those cases to point out the injustice and to ensure that a fair deal is done. That is not right.It also said: “Some lawyers may not continue as legal aid providers reducing the pool and quality of those available for other legal aid work.” We were worried Minister about the quality of legal aid work. There were reports on the quality of legal aid work and by taking away the funding the help that is available to people will be of an even lesser standard.Let us have a look at what the Minister’s expert advisory committee said the risks of this would be: “Most Family Court cases involve high stress to parties and for a widevariety of reasons parties struggle to advocate for themselves in the legal process. The risk to vulnerable adults and children from a limited right to legal representation will be significant because in the absence of legal representation:” and then it runs through about eight different factors. So again the expert group was telling you and your own department was telling you that this will result in injustice and Minister you do not care do you? You do not care. You will not even take a call to justify your action. Well I think that you should do that because this bill is about Robin Hood in reverse: taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich.David Bennett: You would know about Robin Hood.Hon PHIL GOFF: David Bennett knows that. David Bennett knows how much of a tax cut he got on his income albeit as an insignificant backbencher. He got thousands but the people who need the money are being denied it.It says here in the expert advisory committee’s response that there are “ ‘hidden’ risks in what may appear to otherwise be a straightforward case [that will not be identified]; … cases will be more rather than less adversarial;”. Minister you were telling the Committee earlier this evening that this bill is about helping families. The experts have told you that by taking away legal representation there will be a more adversarial rather than a less adversarial position. The expert advisory committee said: “It will be more difficult to focus on the relevant factual and legal issues in cases and where there is risk for adults and children;”—more difficult to focus on the key things that should be before the court so that justice can be done a fair settlement can be reached and people can move on in their lives. This bill stands in the way of that.It repeats: “The power imbalance between parties which [permeates] cases under this Act is more entrenched if parties do not have legal representation;”. What is it about that Minister that you simply do not understand? You increase the power imbalance in the cases where you are trying to find justice and justice will be denied. “There will be great direct and indirect costs to the public purse”—the experts said—“and also to society generally if there is a restriction on the right of a party to legal representation (and with it to a grant to legal aid for that representation) …” and the legal aid of course is being taken away.The expert advisory committee said: “There will be additional administrative resource required in Court registries to deal with enquiries by parties by phone and in person;”. So you will take away justice but you will actually add to the cost of the courts. So despite the many savings—the $12 million a year of savings that you are lauding with the price being kids getting a decent settlement because their parents can sort out their differences—those costs will be there anyway.The expert advisory committee said: “Family Court Judges will need to spend longer on each case to identify the issues risks and optimum outcomes;”. This will not speed up the court process; this will slow down the court process and that will cost more money. We are spending more money but not getting justice. Why not just give them justice and allow the case to proceed in a swifter more effective and more efficient way?The committee said: “There will be more final hearings because parties will not have had the assistance of a lawyer to assist in negotiation of a resolution;”. Everything about this bill is bad—Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I have to say I do not think that effort of abuse from the former leader of the Labour Party who took them to their historically lowest defeat Mr Goff is going to impress David Cunliffe one bit.Hon Phil Goff: Just stick to the issues.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: He calls out to me to just stick to the issues. Well I have just endured 10 minutes of unmitigated personal abuse from that man and he tells me tostick to the issues. Well for goodness’ sake. I am so sick of listening to that sanctimonious rubbish that he has been speaking for 10 years when he was the worst Minister of Justice in 20 years. He is the man who oversaw the increase in the prison population from 5000 when he came into office to 8500 only 9 years later. It is an appalling record for a man who wants to now suddenly put himself on his white horse and say he is there for justice. No he is not. He is hopeless. He always was; he still is.Having said that—I think it is important to actually let him know what we all think about him—let us look at this Part 4. He has talked a lot tonight about the regulatory impact statement. Well that is a good thing to talk about except of course that was done before all of the changes that were put in by the Justice and Electoral Committee—all of the changes that the Government has agreed to. He talks about submissions from the expert panel the advisory group. Actually of course that was before all of the changes that came through. Of course what we now have is a bill the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill that is very sensible that goes right down the medium track and that puts children first. Despite that member I do not believe that we are here in Parliament to feather the nests of professionals; actually we are here to help professionals do the right thing for people when needed.Let us just look at what is happening in legal aid all around the world. I went and had a look at what is happening in family law in California. They have mediation. They have all matters going through mediation even matters relating to domestic violence which I just did not believe we should do. Having said that they said to me that they have no legal aid assistance—no legal aid assistance—for family law matters. I actually do not think that is right.Hon Phil Goff: Oh it’s the American model now is it?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Mr Goff now says that that means I think that is a good idea—I have just said Mr Goff if you would only open your silly ears and listen to it man. We now look at the UK. It has severely cut access to legal aid in Family Court matters because just like us it has seen what has happened to legal aid. That man Mr Goff oversaw a 70 percent increase in legal aid. This was he said all about adjusting fees. Actually what it did do Mr Goff is it meant that a lot of people got hauled through court by their former partner because that partner now had something a stick to hit and beat that other partner with. That is not acceptable.When he talks about the great legal issues well let me just ask him this: what great legal issues? Family Court law and the care of children are not great legal questions that need to be debated for hours and hours.Hon Phil Goff: The experts are wrong and the Minister is right again. Typical arrogance.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: What needs to be debated in every single case is what is in the best interests of the child—the best interests of the child. Mr Goff you have had your say. I sat back and I listened to that abuse from you. Why do you not just take some facts for a change? But of course he cannot because Phil Goff is a failed Labour Party leader the worst Labour Party leader it ever had and frankly I would have thought Phil Goff—Hon Phil Goff: What a hypocrite. Talking about personal abuse and dishing it out.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh you big girl’s blouse honestly! I say this to Phil Goff. Phil Goff you could do with a bit of mediation in your Labour Party family at the moment. It might be helpful.Having said that let us stick to what the facts really are. Part 4 amends the Legal Services Act 2011 to redefine when eligible parties may apply for legal aid. What it does do is provide that parties can still apply for legal aid. I would like people to notremember anything Mr Goff said because he was wrong. People still can have legal aid for a lawyer to act for them in international child abduction applications. They can also apply for legal aid when a court directs that. An application can be heard in conjunction with an application under another Act. An application proceeds to a hearing—oh he did not tell us that did he. Parties may be represented at a settlement conference. So yes legal aid is available for those who need it.Eligible parties will be able to apply for legal aid for most without notice applications. If Mr Goff would only read the bill that he is so busy talking about—actually mostly he was talking about me frankly to be perfectly fair—he would see that those are matters relating to violence those are matters relating to urgency and those are matters relating to issues where a child is at risk. They are all without notice applications and for those applications legal aid will be available. Some without notice applications will not be eligible for legal aid but the vast majority of them will. The ones where they are not eligible for legal aid are where only one applicant is affected—no one else is affected—where the matters are merely routine or where the other party is dead or cannot be found. That seems pretty fair to me. It is pretty difficult to sue a dead person over care of children issues. Legal aid will also be available where a judge directs an application commenced on notice is to be proceeded without notice. Eligible parties will still be able to apply for legal aid when they want to consent to orders at a settlement conference. So they will in fact get the legal advice that we have been told tonight by the Labour Party they will not get before they agree to all sorts of things at the settlement conference. Yes they will and they have been advised by a judge to obtain the legal advice.Finally the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 349 amends clause 71 to clarify that eligible parties cannot apply for legal aid for legal advice and assistance where they are proposing to commence or respond to Care of Children Act 2004 proceedings. The Government will be funding the legal support prior to the Care of Children Act proceedings outside of the legal aid budget. So they will still be funded.Thank you very much for the opportunity to correct some of those matters—Andrew Little: One hour of advice.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Mr Little says “One hour of advice.” Actually Mr Little you talked about Parenting through Separation. You know this. You were on the select committee most of the time. Parenting through Separation—you have got the family dispute resolution service which is a service that was absolutely widely promoted by the expert advisory panel. That is a point that has been completely ignored by the Labour Party tonight. Of course there is also legal aid where it is needed. Judges will have far more authority and ability to deal with issues in a finite way so that people are not consistently going back into court and relitigating the same issues time and time again all to the detriment not only of themselves but of their children.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I am very happy that the other side is very happy that I am taking a call on Part 4 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. Just to respond to some of the performance from the Minister of Justice because that is all it was—it was just a performance. Do not believe the hype from that Minister when she says that this bill is about the care and protection of kids. It is not about kids; it is about cutting costs—pure and simple. That is what this bill is about. The Minister said in her contribution that this bill is about kids and that there will be fair representation for them but the Christchurch Family Court judges in their submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee did not think so.I would like to quote from their submission to the select committee about the representation of children. I quote from the Family Court lawyers representing children:“In fact those lawyers representing children are the single most effective agency in the entire Court system in achieving solutions for children. They are mobile intervene rapidly are well trained and experienced in the field gather information give directive advice to parents and have earned the confidence of parents.” The judges go on to say at the end of their submission: “They are the machinery which enable us to make safe and appropriate decisions for children. They are the eyes and ears of the Court. Without full participation when needed of the child’s lawyers Judges will not be confident they can make decisions which keep children safe.” That is a submission from Family Court lawyers in Christchurch.This bill is not primarily about the care of children; this is about the cutting of costs. As a number of my colleagues have already alluded to in the regulatory impact statement which the Minister referred to in her contribution on page 11 on the financial implications of restricting the legal aid available to Family Court proceedings it says that it will reduce “the cost of legal aid in care of children cases by $41.3 million over 3 years.” This will save $41.3 million over 3 years by restricting legal aid not to those who are rich but as the regulatory impact statement says this option affects only those parties who because of their low income are eligible for legal aid. That regulatory impact statement goes on to say about the impacts of this policy a couple of sentences later: “This could lead to the represented party’s view being put more strongly and create or exacerbate power imbalances between the parties.” So basically it is saying that there will be an imbalance in the representation between the parties in care of children cases and family dispute cases. I do not think that is a very good thing and certainly the family lawyers in my patch do not think that is a good thing either.Another practical impact that the officials whom the Minister asked to give her advice said is a very simple thing is that “Some people may have difficulty completing the forms [when they are representing themselves] proceedings may take longer and a judge may feel he or she needs to see the parties in court more often.” So what we are having here is that although the Government says it wants to save $41.3 million over 3 years we are going to have a false economy because the cases that come before the judges are going to be much more protracted and much more complicated the Family Court system is going to get caught up in itself and things are actually going to be more expensive by this Government wanting to cut costs.There has been a lot of talk about self-representation and the inability of some parents to do it in an informed way. The Family Court judges from Christchurch had more to say on that. They say: “Many of our litigants are disempowered in their relationships highly anxious suffer personality disorders are not fluent in English or are consumed by anger or frustration in the context of the breakdown of their relationships. We are concerned that without the benefit of the moderating effects of their lawyers there may well be an increase in violent behaviour by frustrated litigants.” I think I have made this point already in a debate on an earlier part. What is going to happen is that by leaving parties to their own devices and not giving them the same access to legal aid that they may have or the counselling services that they may have the issues between those parties end up getting worse.I want to quote from that submission again: “We are concerned that without the benefit of the moderating effects of their lawyers there may well be an increase in violent behaviour by frustrated litigants.” So here we are with Christchurch Family Court judges warning the MPs on the select committee that if they leave this as it is things may actually get worse in the homes of Kiwis out there. For the Minister to sit there in the chair and to take a call and say that this is actually going to make things easier or better for families is a complete farce because we have got people who dealwith this on a daily basis—they see the families; they know the issues—and they are warning us that if we leave this as it is if we have people representing themselves if we do not give them the fair access to legal aid that they have had in the past if we are not going to give children the representation that they have had in the past things could get worse. I do not think that we want to have that on our heads as parliamentarians.Can I also look at some of the other options that officials looked at and gave advice to the Minister on around the restriction of legal aid. On page 12 of the very helpful regulatory impact statement in the impacts they also said and this echoes what the judges in Christchurch said about self-representation: “Judges are likely to spend more time on proceedings in which parties are not represented including managing any power imbalances between the parties.” Again we have got the officials who are advising the Minister and we have got judges who are dealing with these issues on a daily basis warning us that if we do not do something about this and the changes that this Government is going to introduce to cut costs—not to make the Family Court process any more effective or efficient but wanting to cut costs—things are actually going to get worse for the day-to-day running of the courts.OK that may make things worse for the day-to-day running of the courts but what impact does that have in the homes in the families of the people who are involved here? We have got separations a very difficult time for families. Tempers are high. We may have as was mentioned in Part 2 some kind of financial abuse some kind of physical abuse that is also in the mix here. We have obviously got children and when you do not have a level of representation that we have had in the past that could make things much much worse as the judges and the officials have warned the Minister of.I just want to make this final point because the Minister in her submission in her last contribution to this bill said that this was not about cutting costs; this was about the care of children. To the Minister—all the people who are giving us advice and have submitted to the select committee say the complete opposite thing. They are saying that what you are trying to do is siloed is about only cutting costs and is going to make life much worse for families and the kids in those families if you go down this path. Not only will it make life more difficult for those families but you are going to exacerbate problems that already exist in the Family Court. Things are going to be much more protracted cases are going to be much more protracted and those cases are going to be much more complex.So in essence what they are saying is that you are creating a bigger mess than you are trying to clean up. I would hope that the Minister might take that message other than just cutting costs and think about the families that are in play here think about the access to justice that is in play here and maybe she might want to make a contribution. Probably not. Maybe someone from the other side of the Chamber might want to make a contribution and tell us how that plays out for Kiwi families because at the moment we have got a Minister in the chair who is saying that this is all about the care and protection of children but all the evidence even from the judges who are dealing with this daily and her own officials say this is about cutting costs. That is what this bill is about—cutting costs—not making life any easier for those families who are going through this very very difficult time.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 4 as amended agreed to.Part 5 Amendments to other ActsANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I do not want to unduly delay the Committee and dwell unnecessarily on parts of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. These are largely technical provisions here. I think what is clear from the provisions and what they illustrate is the continuing transfer of the cost of the administration of family justice to the participants themselves. It reflects a flavour that is going right through this bill—and it has been commented on already in the debate on the bill today—and that is the departure from the principle that the State has a stake in the effective administration of family disputes and that the State has an interest in ensuring that family disputes are resolved to the best degree possible in a way that preserves and protects the interests of children and in a way that preserves the dignity of the parents or the separating couple.This bill is all about transferring cost. In all the pieces of legislation referred to in Part 5 which is all about applications relating to aspects of a family separation—so that is the Child Support Act for example and other aspects of the Family Courts Act—any time the interests of a party particularly children need to be represented and there is the power to appoint counsel to assist there is now an accompanying provision to effectively transfer or at the very least share the cost of that. That is the whole flavour of this bill.So when my colleagues said in their contributions much to the chagrin of the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice that this bill is about cutting costs to the State and about transferring costs and transferring risk this part of the bill bears that out. That is exactly what this piece of legislation is all about. It is about the State saying irrespective of the increase in the costs of family dispute resolution that it does not want to take responsibility any more. It is not good enough for the Minister to say “Oh there’s been the huge blowout in costs.” without explaining actually what has happened. There are more parties to family disputes and separations participating actively in that process.Once upon a time even 10 years ago very few men actually actively participated in a lot of these proceedings and exercised their rights of representation whereas now that is happening. There is a fathers’ rights movement a men’s movement that has become more active—some would say more aggressive—in ensuring that men as partners in dissolving relationships start to get heard in some cases make a fuss and in some cases which I think is what the Minister was adverting to in her comments make what somemight describe as an unnecessary fuss or to at least be litigious. Whatever the reason—and it is not for us gainsay the motives of people who are asserting their legal rights want to have an active role to play in their children’s lives and are taking steps to ensure that that happens—that largely explains what has been happening in the Family Court jurisdiction over the last 10 years and why the cost has blown out.That is why this legislation is passed with this kind of headline motivation which is “We’ve got to cut costs.” without actually looking at what those costs have been going into. It has seen more family separations resolved in the interests of both parents and of the children and that is the difference. This part deals with ensuring that the cost of any other application under any other piece of legislation that involves representation of the children now be shared. So impecunious parents who might otherwise rely upon legal aid at least for their own representation may now find themselves saddled with the cost or the share of it for counsel for the child or even counsel assisting the court. There is that right if the court is concerned that any party is unrepresented and the court needs assistance or if the issues are complex.I know the Minister said that the issues of family law are not that complex. But actually the legislation says yes there are complex issues and the court might need assistance which is why a lawyer might be appointed to assist the court. Well this says that that cost will be apportioned between the parties as well. This part of the legislation Part 5 is all about demonstrating that whole thing about transferring the cost to the parties. I do not know what the Minister is doing whether she is playingAngry Birds orgoogling MarjorieProops or what it is but she might listen to hear—Hon Judith Collins: That’s insulting. I don’t do that.ANDREW LITTLE: I am not quite sure what the insult is in playingAngry Birds. I am sure at least half the members of the Committee probably do it at some stage if they were honest with themselves. If the Minister admitted to playingAngry Birds she would go down at least with some part of the population as hip and with it. But if she does not want that that is all right. If she wants to present a different image that is entirely up to her.Dr Rajen Prasad: What’s the image?ANDREW LITTLE: Well I can have a guess as to what the image is. I want to say this about MarjorieProops because I do not want her name insulted. I do not want MarjorieProops’ name insulted in this Committee. She was a long-standing—over many decades—contributor to theDaily Mail. I do not think it wasThe Daily Telegraph; I think it was theDaily Mail. She dispensed advice to couples and to others for many many years and was highly regarded at least in the United Kingdom. I do not think anybody should take her name in vain nor should anybody who is likened to her think that that should be regarded as an insult.Hon Ruth Dyson: Was someone doing that? Was someone taking her name in vain?ANDREW LITTLE: Her name was mentioned and somebody took offence. I think that was a problem.Hon Ruth Dyson: How could you take offence?ANDREW LITTLE: I do not know how you could possibly take offence at being compared with dear old MarjorieProops. But that gets off the point—only a little bit but it does get off the point.The point that I wish to make is this. Part 5 is really the culminating aspect of the entire bill. It is all about cutting costs. It is about transferring costs to the families at a time when they are distressed when they are in emotional trauma and when they need assistance the most. They need a court that does not just know the law but is empathetic and sympathetic to those who are coming before it. That is what defines the Family Court. That is why it has been a good court for the last 30 years and why the measuresin this legislation which are about gutting the important role of the court and transferring the costs to parties who are facing the trauma of a dissolved relationship mean that life is just going to get much harder. That is why we are deeply distressed at the provisions in this bill why we are opposed to it and why we will continue to oppose it. It is disappointing that the Minister in spite of all the good advice she has received including from the expert reference group and indeed from members of this side of the Chamber persists with a piece of legislation that is going to be bad for families and bad for New Zealand as a whole.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Talohani Mr Chairperson. Thank you very much for the chance to take a very quick call on Part 5 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill because I do not want to delay the proceedings of the Committee too much. That would be unfortunate. Just looking at Part 5 it does refer to the appointment of lawyers to represent children in proceedings. I thought that it would be a shame to have a part in this bill where the Labour Party does not refer to the regulatory impact statement because it has been a very important document to prove our argument that this bill is not necessarily about making life easier for Kiwi families but is actually around the cutting of costs. Page 13 quite helpfully helps us illustrate that because it does talk about the targeted use of lawyers for children. In a very kind of bureaucratic way—I do not mean to say that to the detriment of any bureaucrats—it talks about changing “the way the Court appoints lawyer for child”. Moving along from the description of what they are trying to do and going straight to the financial implications because that is what this is all really about for the Government at least the statement says that the estimated cost savings for changing the way that the court appoints lawyers for our children is $12.4 million per year based on 2010-11 expenditure. So there you have it—another big whack of cash that the Government has saved. I guess if you think about the motivation for the Government and for the Minister of Justice it has done its job because $12.4 million has been saved by cutting children’s access to legal representation.We have already heard from the submission of the Christchurch Family Court judges in the previous part but I did want to just take another part of their submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee because I think it is very telling what these judges were saying about the changes that are contained in this bill. I am quoting from their submission now where they said: “Although the Bill contains reasonable powers for a Judge to appoint a lawyer to represent children our concern is that control of their role and remuneration is transferred from the Family Court to the Legal Services Agency. We foresee they will be confined by regulations which are not part of this Bill but which would be enabled by it.” I just want to repeat what they said about the role of children’s lawyers in Family Court disputes. They said that the lawyers are “the machinery which enable us to make safe and appropriate decisions for children. They are the eyes and the ears of the Court. Without full participation when needed of the child’s lawyers Judges will not be confident they can make the decisions which keep children safe.”One of the more crass things that I have heard from the Minister this night is an attack on lawyers—about this being some kind of gravy train for them. When this piece of legislation was introduced lawyers in my patch in Porirua were very very fast to come to me and say: “We have grave concerns about what is in this piece of legislation.” not because they thought their incomes were going to be affected but because they knew that the changes within this bill would adversely affect the people that the law is meant to help: Kiwi families. They knew that the fee of $900 for the family dispute resolution service would be restrictive and would stop people accessing justice at one of the most vulnerable times of their lives. They knew that restricting thesituations where children can have lawyers appointed for them would also take away the children’s voice in these disputes.I did just want to—if I can find it in time—take a quote from a story that was in the media when this bill was first introduced. It is a very quick quote from Professor MarkHenaghan from Otago University. He said around reducing the access to lawyers for children: “If we take their representation out [then] we doom them not to be heard.”—then we doom them not to be heard. I think that is a very telling statement from someone in the legal profession who has got a lot of credibility about what this Government is doing for the voice of children in the legal process. The Government knows that children will not necessarily have a voice in this place. They will not necessarily turn up to make a submission to the select committee so the Government is quite happy to take away their legal representation to save per year $12.4 million to meet the requirements of the Government’s motivation around this piece of legislation. I say to that Government: shame on it. If it is quite happy to take away the voice of the children—[Bell rung]—I said it was going to be short—in the Family Court proceedings then I say the Government should front up to the Law Society and to those people who have submitted against this bill say why it is quite happy to do that and say why it is quite happy to take away their representation and doom their children not to be heard.Again—I want to stress this point because the Minister has made this point a number of times when she has made contributions to this debate—she says that this bill is about the care and protection of children. Well I am not buying that. A lot of people who have submitted to the Justice and Electoral Committee are not buying that. This bill is not about kids. It is about cutting costs. It is about cuttings costs and $12.4 million has been cut from the bill to make sure that there is legal representation for the kids by making these changes. We are very concerned about the access to justice for those kids and their families because this Government seems to think it is OK to take money away from low-income families as the regulatory impact statement has said who need to access justice and it is quite happy to give it to big business when it suits it with the likes of RioTinto and with the likes ofSkycity and to also hock off our State-owned assets. It is all fun and games when there are millions concerned and it is bringing the money in but for the little people out there who need some help in tough times this Government does not care about them. It is quite happy to penny-pinch when it is people who are vulnerable and in difficult times going through separations but when it is big business it is quite happy to write out the big cheques.That is the kind of Government we have right now. That is the kind of Government we have right now. It will quite happily nip and tuck at people who are in vulnerable situations who are on low incomes—[Interruption]—sorry I will take that back—who are in Family Court disputes but when it comes to big business and that comes knocking the Government will quite happily write out the cheques. Mr Tau Henare probably is not happy about this privately. He is not happy about it privately but he is going to have to go along with the flow because he knows that the people that he represents as a list MP in West Auckland will come to him and say: “Tau this is not on. This is not on.”Hon Tau Henare: Oh that subtle put-down eh? That subtle put-down.KRIS FAAFOI: Oh just being factual. They know—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member must use the honourable member’s full name.KRIS FAAFOI: Mr Tau Henare will know that he will have people coming to his office saying: “Tau why can’t my kids access legal representation in this situation?” and Tau will have to front up and say: “Because we are cutting costs.” They will say:“But we read the paper and Judith Collins said this is about caring for kids.” Well the truth of the matter is that it is not. It is about cutting costs not caring for Kiwi families. I think that is borne out by the fact that this Government seems to care more about corporates than it does about Kiwis. Thank you very much.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 5 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 5 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 5 as amended agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Well I think this debate and this day will go down as a day of great disappointment for this House—that we have allowed to pass through even to this very humble stage a piece of legislation the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill that has as its sole purpose the cutting of the State’s responsibility for fair family dispute resolution and the dispensation of justice in the family arena.Everything about this legislation—the failure of the Minister of Justice to heed the advice of the expert reference group and the failure to hear the myriad of submissions that raised concerns raised issues and pointed out the risks associated with it—in spite all of that we still have a piece of legislation that is going to deny a proper voice to those who need it most when they are at their most vulnerable: couples who are separating particularly poor couples and children of any couple with children being the most vulnerable in these circumstances.This legislation says that the State no longer regards itself as having responsibility in the interests of harmony family peace and community stability. We no longer have the responsibility to assist families to resolve their difficult issues and ensure that any separation and any dissolution of a marriage is done so in a dignified and sensible way that respects the rights of all parties.This legislation is a giant leap that departs from that principle that we have had in place for the last 30 years with a specialist court and a specialist jurisdiction that we have developed. That is the sad thing about it. So a more appropriate name a name that more correctly reflects the objects or the real intent behind this bill might be the “Family Justice Destruction Bill” because that is what it is.The Family Court will be there. It will be there in name only. There will be judges there and they will struggle to ensure that justice is done. They will rise to the occasion to their professional standards and their professional calling but they know—and this iswhy they came to the select committee—that measures such as putting in place a process that denies parties the right of representation and that denies those who cannot afford legal representation the right of access to legal aid can be only destructive. It is a process that denies children the right of a voice to be heard in that process. They know that that can be only destructive when it comes to dispensing justice in the family jurisdiction. That is what this legislation will do. No matter how we slice it or dice it no matter how we cut it there is no question about it the fears that we have expressed and the fears that others have expressed before the Justice and Electoral Committee and more publicly are very real. They are very real.When it comes to dealing with family disputes we need a court and a system and a process that is sensitive and sympathetic and we have had that. It might not have been perfect. The Minister is right and I agree with her about this: there have been delays. There are some people who appear before the court who because of their personality or for whatever reason have made a real fist of it and have drawn proceedings out making it difficult for their partner and perhaps for any children involved—we know that. But they are few and far between. There are very few cases that are that bad and that extreme. But we are for the sake of changing the baby tossing out the bathwater—I have completely mangled that metaphor. That is the disappointing thing about this bill.I know that members opposite—members like Tau Henare and Jonathan Young from New Plymouth who has dealt with families in difficult situations—know this bill is wrong. They sit there and look and they know that this is wrong but so far they have voted for it. That is the disappointing thing—that we know that the fears that have been expressed are very real.This is not a good bill. The bill is wrongly titled. It needs a different title. The “Family Harmony Destruction Bill” might be an even better title than the first one I suggested. This bill will be very disappointing. We will come back and we will thrash this out to the bitter end. But let the record show that we spoke for families and for couples. We spoke for children and we spoke for justice because that is more important than anything.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Labour spokesperson on justice Andrew Little is quite right that the title of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill simply does not reflect what this bill does. “Reform” suggests in the very use of that word that you take something with major problems and you improve it so that you get better outcomes. This bill is fundamentally dishonest in its claim and so is the Minister of Justice in her claim that this is about making the justice system better for families.The honest title of this bill would be the “Slash Justice to Make Savings Bill”. It is about cost cutting. The regulatory impact statement said that it is about cost cutting. The submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee said that it is about cost cutting. The Minister got up and on one hand said: “It was all out of control and they were spending too much but we’re not doing anything to harm the system.” Minister you are cutting millions of dollars out of this system and as the regulatory impact statement in its honesty says the only impact this bill will have is on those people who cannot afford to pay for their legal representation. That is the impact of it. The people who will be disadvantaged by this bill are those who will be denied legal aid—who will be denied legal representation in the process when they need it to create a balance that would not otherwise exist between them and the party they may be in conflict with.This bill is about cutting representation for children. The amount of time that there will be representation of the child’s interest in court by counsel for the child will be cut back. This is about cutbacks for the most vulnerable—our children and those people who lack resources to represent themselves.If the Minister was honest about this bill she would acknowledge that the expert reference group that her predecessor set up was absolutely right when it summed up this about the bill: “If this Bill proceeds … the very fabric of the New Zealand family justice system will be destroyed.” Let me say that again for you Minister: the very fabric of the New Zealand family justice system will be destroyed. Who said that? The expert reference group set up by National’s previous Minister of Justice who perhaps had some sense of what the word “justice” means. This Minister does not.This Minister is prepared to subordinate the principles the goals of justice to cutting money because she says that the Government does not have the money to spend. But as this debate has proceeded we have seen that the Government had money to spend when it came to subsidising RioTinto. It was no problem to give $30 million away to RioTinto so that you could get a bit more money for Meridian Energy if it does indeed get a bit more money. It was no problem to give it to Warner Bros. Give it another $16 million. It was no problem to give tax cuts to the wealthy. But it is a problem for this Government to provide the funding that will ensure justice for the vulnerable.I want to know from the Minister how she can call this a reform bill when it makes the system worse. I want to know how the Minister can call this a reform bill when as her regulatory impact statement shows this was not based on proper evidence. It was not based on data. It was not based on piloting the system. Indeed it was not even based on consulting with the very group that her predecessor set up to make sure they got it right. The ministry paper says that the bill aligns with the views of the expert reference group. The group is appalled at that statement. It says it was not consulted on the outcomes for the Family Court. This bill does not align with the group’s thinking. The people who have spent a lifetime on this the people who were appointed to the reference group because they were the acknowledged experts and the pre-eminent people in the area of family law say that this is a bad piece of legislation. The Minister gets up and crows that this is a reform bill. That is what the title says: “Reform”. There is a new meaning for the word “reform” in National’s lexicon. It means to make worse. That is what National means by “reform”.The expert reference group says that this is not based on empirical evidence. It says that it is contrary to extensive existing evidence of the best outcomes for families and children. It says that it will create an unjust situation a two-tiered family justice system where the most vulnerable members of society have limited access to the services they need to assist them in the resolution of family disputes.The bill is even going to cut out the psychological reports that will assist the court to find the best outcome for the children. That will save you money in the short term Minister but it will cost us in the long term because those children affected by the breakdown of their family life will go through the next 10 or 20 years carrying the wounds and the scars and the traumas of that experience. But you think it is more important to save money so that you can give tax cuts to the rich. That is not reform Minister; that is a step backwards. That is a denial of justice. That is wrong in anybody’s understanding and anybody’s language.What it says in the expert reference group’s submission is that the bill will “prevent the resolution of unsatisfactory and unsafe domestic arrangements for parties and most significantly for children;”. This bill will not reform the system to make it better; it will “prevent the resolution of unsatisfactory and unsafe domestic arrangements” most significantly for the children.The group says that it will “create injustice and unfairness in the resolution of family disputes;”. What is a justice system about? It is meant to be about creating fairness about seeing justice done yet the experts say that this bill will create injustice will create unfairness and it will not remedy it. This is not a bill that will make the FamilyCourt and the family justice system better; it is a bill that will make it worse and make it worse for the people who are already the underdogs who are already the most vulnerable who are already likely to come out of this second-best—and the Minister proudly sits in the chair to ensure that that will happen. Shame on you Minister.This will not save money for the system. It will on the surface. It will save $12 million that you take out of the pockets of the hard-working battlers and strugglers who are trying to see a fair outcome from the breakdown of the family relationship. It will take the money out of their pockets to pay for legal assistance and it will leave them without it.The Law Society and the expert reference group say that it will “significantly increase costs for the Family Court.” It does not save time when you do not have legal representation for people who do not understand the legal system; it takes longer. The judges will be taking longer struggling to try to see justice done without a professional there to represent the parties in the dispute and without professional advice on what impact any outcome may have on the well-being of the children. That again is a disgrace.It will create risks for parents by requiring parents to deal directly with ex-partners. We are not talking about the 85 percent who can resolve the situation themselves. They can do it under existing processes—85 percent of them do it. We are talking about the 15 percent where the differences are entrenched and where the damage is going to be greatest unless you can help reconcile or bring those parties to an agreed settlement so that they can move on in their lives. The limits on the rights to legal representation will mean that people will have to deal with ex-partners with whom they are in fundamental conflict without assistance negotiate the Family Court processes and represent themselves. The judges and the lawyers say that that is unrealistic. It will have a detrimental effect on the parents on the children and on the efficient functioning of this court.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The honourable member Christopher Faafoi.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Talohani. Thank you very much. It sounds like my mother telling me off.The debate on clauses 1 and 2 when bills are debated in this Committee is an opportunity from time to time for members of Parliament to have fun with the title of a bill. But I am not going to do that tonight because this bill the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is simply not funny. It is not funny that this Government under the guise of making life easier for Kiwi families and protecting kids is slashing millions of dollars out of the Family Court budget and has claimed it is going to make things better. It is simply not going to make things better. As my colleagues have said it is going to make things much worse—not for those people who have plenty of money who might find themselves in the situation but as the officials in their regulatory impact statement said it is going to make life much worse for those low-income families who find themselves in the tricky position of separating.As the regulatory impact statement says on page 11 under the heading of reducing legal aid: “This option only affects those parties who because of their low income are eligible for legal aid.” So not everyone is going to be affected by this—not those who have lots. Those who have a bit will not be affected by this but it is the people on low incomes who are very vulnerable in these situations who are going to be the ones most adversely affected. We are going to find ourselves in a situation where those people who probably are not well-equipped to represent themselves in the Family Court are going to be asked to do that. We have already been told by many submitters and hadadvice from the officials that this could make things much worse and in fact could make situations within those families much much more dangerous.I have quoted almost ad nauseam from the submission from the Christchurch Family Court judges but I just want to point this out to the Minister in the chair—and to those on the other side of the Chamber who have taken zero calls in this debate because they are so proud of this bill—“We are concerned that without the benefit of the moderating effects of the lawyers in these situations there may well be an increase in violent behaviour by frustrated litigants.” So we have got ourselves into a situation here that those people who deal with these families every day who deal with the issues that they see with these families who are breaking up are saying that if you remove the legal representation that these people have available to them at the moment and the legal representation that they have for their children the violence in the families could actually get worse.Is this what this Government is after with these reforms in this legislation? I am not sure that it is—I am not sure that it is. What it is after though is cutting costs—it is after cutting costs. And I guess you could say that the Minister has achieved that but to what effect? The representation of the families is shot. We no longer have effective representation of children in our Family Court and the access to justice for families who are in these situations is much much harder.Part of this bill refers to family dispute resolution. Much has been made of the cost that it is now going to impose upon families to access that. It is $897. To parliamentarians that might not be a lot of money—Andrew Little: Hey?KRIS FAAFOI: —to some parliamentarians. But those families out there who are struggling on low incomes whom the officials have talked about are really going to struggle to get across that first hurdle. That cost is very restrictive for those low-income families. I have many low-income families in my electorate and that is why I praise the efforts of the family lawyers who came to me almost instantly when this was mooted. It is going to be very restrictive on those families to access what in the past has been a service that has helped them get through a pretty tricky situation.In the past they have had access to six free counselling sessions so that it could prevent them from getting to the point where they may have to go to the court. They could sort things out before they got to that situation but under this legislation that has gone. What they have to do is stump up close to $900 to get their foot in the door to start resolving their dispute.As the Law Commission said in its submission or its opinion on this bill when it was introduced: “Imposing a large fee puts a big barrier in front of those who want to resolve issues that they are unable to resolve themselves. Access to justice is a fundamental mark of a democratic and fair society.” And by introducing this fee: “That access will be impeded in New Zealand ...”. So there we have it. The Law Commission is saying that those people who cannot afford this fee to start a family dispute resolution are going to be seriously impacted in terms of their access to justice.The regulatory impact statement—I think it is the third or the fourth sentence—sets out that the Government wants to reduce costs and have a much more efficient and effective Family Court process. Well you are certainly going to reduce the costs but is it going to be more efficient and more effective? On this side of the Chamber we do not think so.The Law Commission asked itself the question of what should really happen then and we agree with this statement wholeheartedly. It went on to say that “New Zealand families will benefit from the introduction of Family Dispute Resolution if it ispresented as an accessible and equal opportunity. Charging people a large fee is a huge barrier.”So as I said at the beginning I am not going to try to make up some funny title for this bill because this simply is not a funny issue. This is going to impact on the daily lives of children and parents who are going through a pretty tough time and who are probably on low incomes. It is all right if you have got money in your back pocket but it is not going to be all right if you do not. It is not going to be OK if you do not.I think the reason we have had no calls from the other side of the Chamber is that those members want this bill to go through very quickly and for no one to notice. Well it is going to get noticed OK because there are family lawyers out in every community in New Zealand who hate this legislation. It is not because as was proposed by the Minister their legal bills or their salaries are going to go down. Some of these lawyers or most of these lawyers actually care about the families that they represent. They know that in many cases there are kids involved and that what this Government is planning to introduce with this legislation will make their lives worse—not for everybody but probably disproportionately for people who do not have enough money.If that Government is OK with that then pass the legislation. But we in the Opposition are going to fight this tooth and nail because we care about those people whom this Government has forgotten. It is quite happy to give money to big corporates to the likes of RioTinto the likes of Warner Bros—give them tens of millions of dollars. But it is going to nickel-and-dime people with kids who are going through relationshipbreakups to save money in the Family Court. If you are OK with that vote for it. But we are not OK with it on this side of the Chamber. In the communities where lots of these people cannot afford to access justice this bill is going to make things worse for them. There is almost silence from the other side of the Chamber.Hon Member: He’s repeating himself. Repetitious.KRIS FAAFOI: Oh now they start up. There is almost silence from that side. Not only do they know but they have been advised that this is going to make things worse. They have been advised that this is going to make things worse.Those Family Court judges from Christchurch—[Interruption] Oh those members on the Government side think it is funny. They think it is funny. Just put it inHansard that they think this is funny. They think that reducing representation for families that are going through tough times—low-income families—is a funny issue. Put that inHansard. There is no laughing now. But let it be known that we on this side of the Chamber fought this and there will be a price to be paid. When things go haywire when costs go up when things get worse as predicted by the Family Court judges and Kiwi families that Government is responsible—that Government is responsible not the Opposition. That Government is responsible. It has been warned that costs are going to go up and things will get worse with violence in families and this Government has done it.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Committee divide the bill into the Care of Children Amendment Bill (No 2) the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) the Family Dispute Resolution Bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 3) the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 2) the Family Courts Amendment Bill the Family Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 350.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the motion be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.