Goff Phil: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7032. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 In the Minister of Justice’s Cabinet paper taking this proposed piece of legislation for approval through the Cabinet process she described the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill as making the biggest changes to the family justice system since the Family Court was established in 1981. So we are talking about a huge change and because of the scale of the change the Opposition would want some assurance that this was a well-thought-out piece of legislation that it was properly researched that it was based on adequate data that it had been the result of full consultation and hopefully some consensus and that the process had been trialled. 
On each one of those counts from what I have read about this bill the National Government has once again fallen down on a piece of legislation that it has brought before the House. I base that not as a party political statement but simply on reading the regulatory impact statement and what it says about the background to this bill why we have got it and the processes that it went through. 
I base it on recent past experience. The Associate Minister of Justice who introduced this bill also introduced a new system for cases through the Family Court in Auckland and it has been an absolute shambles because the Government did not get it right. Even the Minister has admitted that it is a shambles. The Minister the Principal Family Court Judge the lawyers involved in it—everybody. I will come back to that. 
Thirdly it is based on the fact that the Government set up an expert reference group on Family Court reform. Think about those words: “expert reference group on Family Court reform”. You would think that that group would have been at the heart of this reform but what do we find out? We find out that that group was not consulted on the key proposals in this legislation Minister. The group was not consulted despite the wrongful claims of the Ministry of Justice. 
On all of those grounds there are real causes for concern that the Government once again has got it wrong in a piece of legislation it has brought before the House. Look if you took it simply on what the objectives were of this bill you would say there are some merits to it as long as the mechanism for delivering it was well-thought-out and equitable. 
 “The purpose … is to ensure a modern accessible family justice system that is responsive to children and vulnerable people and is efficient and effective.” Who could be against that? Nobody could be against that except that it is wrong. It does not make it more accessible to the vulnerable; it makes it less accessible. How can you make something more accessible to the vulnerable when you first of all put a charge of $1000 on going there when it used to be free and how can you make it more accessible and more understandable when you deny people who have trouble understanding the process access to their legal advisers? It falls down on all of those grounds. 
Let us look at what the regulatory impact statement says. Well in its opening paragraph it lets the cat out of the bag. This is not about reform of the justice system. It starts off by saying: “Given the overall fiscal situation urgent steps must be taken to lower the cost of the current justice system …”. That is what it is about. It is about cost-cutting. At least the regulatory impact statement is honest about it even if the Minister of Justice and the speakers on the National Party side have not been. 
Then what is the next paragraph headed? This is astounding. It is headed “Gaps and/or uncertainties in policy analysis”. The Government’s own regulatory impact statement talks about the serious gaps and the lack of policy analysis behind this bill which the Minister says is the biggest thing in 30 years. It says there has been limited research on New Zealand families and their involvement in the family justice system. That is not my accusation; that is the Government’s own admission. It says: “There is insufficient historical fiscal and statistical data to accurately predict the average costs of performing some tasks associated with Family Court processes.” Then it goes on: “There was insufficient time for piloting proposed processes or for undertaking” a proper look at court documents to form the databases for a new system. Here is the Government admitting that the biggest change in 30 years has not been subject to adequate research has not got adequate data and has not been piloted. What has this Government learnt from its botch-up in reorganising the court system in Auckland? It has learnt absolutely nothing. 
Finally from the regulatory impact statement have a look at this statement: “… because of the timeframe there has been limited opportunity to discuss the final proposals with stakeholders.” It has not done the research it has not got the data it has not piloted it and it has not talked about it to stakeholders. This Government is an incompetent Government that is rushing in legislation that on its admission is ill-prepared and will not do the job that it is designed to do other than one factor and that is to cut costs. First and foremost and last this is about cost-cutting. It is not going to deliver. 
Let me come back to the Government’s advisory group the expert reference group on the Family Court—top judges top Family Court lawyers. The Ministry of Justice claimed that this group approved of the proposals that the National Government has brought in. The chair of that committee said that that is wrong that is not true that is inaccurate. Actually he could have said that was a lie. He said: “We were not consulted on four key proposals in our discussions with the Ministry which if implemented will potentially place adults and children at risk.” This is from the expert reference group on the Family Court established by the Government itself saying not only that it was not consulted but that this puts vulnerable people at risk. What is it about that that the National Party members speaking on this bill do not understand? 
It goes on to talk about the parties having a user-pays system and says that they are going to have to fully fund this—$1000. What does that do to access to justice? Maybe they will help a few people right at the bottom but the people who are lower-middle income who are really struggling and are finding difficulties—all the things associated with a family breakdown—how are they going to afford the $1000 and why is it that we put a cost on access to justice when access to justice should be guaranteed as a birthright to New Zealanders? It is wrong in principle. 
The expert reference group goes on to say that parties and children will not have the automatic right of access to a lawyer. What does this mean? Mr Mahon said this means that “parents are intimidated into agreeing to settlements which disadvantage them or their children”—which disadvantage them or their children. What is it about that that the National Party does not understand? And is this going to save money? No Mr Mahon says. This is going to cost money because there will inevitably be delays in the court process because the court will not have the information it needs to go on to make a properly informed decision. That will result in prolonged cases and greater conflicts between the parties. 
I want to come to my last point and that is if you do not believe all of the things that the experts have been saying about this as to why it will not work let us look at the Government’s most recent experiment with the Family Court. It was in Auckland and it was a new system for processing Family Court cases. Well what did Patrick Kennelly say about this? He is one of the most experienced family lawyers in Auckland. He says that “the wheels have fallen off the Family Court since the new system was introduced in February as part of widespread changes aimed at making the district courts more efficient and more cost effective.” Does that sound familiar? 
The claim the Government is making for this legislation is the same claim it made for the last system change it tried to introduce just this year. The lawyers have said the new system is an absolute shambles. Affidavits have gone missing judges are not being given complete files there are delays of up to several months for hearing dates sealed orders are not being sent and emails and voice messages are going unanswered. Like other areas of Government reorganisation this has been a total shambles. 
Peter Boshier has said that something that used to take 14 days—a serious custody case involving family violence—is now taking 2 months. Is that the Government’s reform? It used to take 2 weeks; now it is taking 2 months. It is a serious custody dispute involving family violence. Did it save money? No. The cost blowout has been $1 million—far more than the savings the system was supposed to deliver. 
All of the evidence here is that this is a half-baked idea with half-baked plans to implement it. It will not succeed. The Government should go back to the drawing board.