Simpson Scott: Legal Assistance Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Legal Assistance Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11588. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):It is always very interesting to follow the Hon Phil Goff and particularly one of his vein-popping angry presentations. That was I think probably an indication that he has been following Australian politics very closely this week. One of my colleagues was unkind enough to think that maybe a new name for him might be “Phil Rudd” but probably I should refer to him always by his true and proper name which is the honourable member for Mt Roskill.Speaking in the Committee stage on Part 2 of this Legal Assistance Amendment Bill there are several point that I would like to make. Part 2 is the part that makes amendments to other Acts—notably amendments to the Accident Compensation Act 2001 and the Care of Children Act 2004. Clause 26 relates to the costs of court-appointed counsel: “the court may if it thinks it is appropriate order a party to the proceedings to refund to the Crown an amount the court specifies in respect of any fees and expenses that relate to” the appointment of counsel. During the select committeestage the Justice and Electoral Committee considered this point carefully. It is appropriate that I just mention the good work of the committee. These were issues that were in some cases quite technical quite complicated and committee members addressed themselves to them with full keenness vigour and attention to that detail.The clause that I was referring to goes on to say that “no order under section 131A may be made against—(a) the Crown … (b) a person in whose custody the child concerned has been placed [following] an order made under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989.” Proposed new sections 131A through to 131C have been inserted into the bill. Proposed new section 131A allows for an order requiring refund of payments in respect of a lawyer acting for the child. Proposed new section 131A(2) says that each party must pay an equal share of the prescribed proportion and that such an order may be declined to be made by the court against a party if the court is satisfied that the order would cause serious hardship to the party or serious hardship to the dependent child of the party. The court would need to be satisfied that in its view of the circumstances of the case including the conduct of any party—that is important the conduct of any party—it would be inappropriate to require the amount payable in accordance with the court’s view.The test for serious hardship is important and one that I know the courts already take seriously and it is well considered in other legislation. Kris Faafoi in his contribution to this debate a few minutes ago spoke about this. Serious hardship includes significant financial difficulties that arise for a variety of reasons. Those reasons can include such matters as the party’s inability to meet minimum living expenses according to what is known as normal community standards. Also relevant for consideration in a determination of serious hardship will be the cost of medical treatment for an illness or injury of the party or a dependent child of the party and I think that is right and appropriate. Serious illness suffered by the party or by a dependent child of the party is also to be considered in the measure of what serious hardship is and I am pleased to see that the cost of education for a dependent child is another relevant factor the court would take into consideration in determining serious hardship.The clause goes on to exclude some factors that are not to be included in the definition of serious hardship. Again I think the legislation will address those matters appropriately. For instance social activities and the entertainment of the party or the dependent child are not to be considered. The party’s inability to merely fund or afford goods or services that are expensive or of a higher quality or standard than the normal community standard of goods and services is also excluded from the consideration in terms of the definition of serious hardship.As I said the committee has dealt very carefully with these sections. They are complicated. They are worthy of the careful consideration of this Committee. I am very grateful for the work done by all members of the select committee.