Collins Judith: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCollins Judith: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13494. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Far be it from me to sit back and be lectured on peace breaking out by a member of the Labour Party. Andrew Little by the way has used his 10 minutes to do nothing other than to insult to insinuate and to show why he is likely now to be the second justice spokesperson about to be followed by the third in the Labour Party whom I have had to deal with in the last 2 years. Let us just give him some facts. It is not at all abnormal Mr Little for people involved in matrimonial disputes or family disputes to reach agreement regarding their children without going to court. If we listen to Mr Little we will hear that it is absolutely ridiculous—and he went on to call me all sorts of insulting names—to think that people should put their children first. Actually that is just not true. Only 20-odd years’ experience in the real world in legal practice tells me that it is absolutely normal and usual for people to arrange these situations and resolve them themselves. What is abnormal is rushing into court to talk about where a child is going to spend Christmas or a weekend. That is abnormal. But if you listen to Mr Little you would think that that is the normal behaviour and what is abnormal is expecting loving parents to put their child first. That is a very very dim view of the world that Mr Little has and I have to say that if I was sitting on the backbenches of the Labour Party at the moment I would be feeling a bit dim too. But there you go. Mr Little does so I forgive him those awful insults because I am that sort of a person. But I am sure he knows that he will get it back double one day.Chris Auchinvole: Forgiving.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: And forgiving. I can see Phil Goff wants to be forgiving too.The other issue that Mr Little raised was the issue of accountability. He said that the Secretary for Justice could appoint anybody whom he wanted to have the role of a family dispute resolution service provider. He went on to say essentially that I as the Minister should be making those appointments—that I should be accountable for that. He said that on that basis then I could appoint anybody I like. But what he has failed to recognise—and if he only turned up to the Justice and Electoral Committee a bit more often he might know this—is that there is in fact a select committee process around the estimates around the financial review where the Secretary for Justice is in fact absolutely accountable to members of Parliament and to members on that select committee and can in fact be questioned about that. At the same time there is this thing called written questions where Mr Little could write to me about this issue if he was so concerned about the appointment of a provider. And there is this other thing which he is not allowed to use at the moment and that is oral questions to me about this issue if he is so concerned about someone being provided with a contract that they should not have. Well quite clearly we want to be able to leave the Secretary for Justice the ability to use his or her discretion to get the best providers of this service. The last thing that I want to see as the Minister is to have the Secretary for Justice tied up in judicial review from disappointed providers of services who do not get what they want. I want all the money in this area going to the people who need it the people trying to use the services.There is another thing that Mr Little could use and that is this thing called an Official Information Act request. He could use that too but it is not for me to tell him how to do that. He should get advice from his new senior whip who I am sure will be able to help him. She is doing a much better job in ACC these days than he ever did.But anyway the critical element in family dispute resolution is something that actually says: “Let us create a system that provides a faster less adversarial resolution of parenting issues.” because for most people this is what they want. Most people do not want to spend years in court going in and out of court regarding their children’s issues. But Mr Little has also said that some people will not be able to access this because of various reasons. I think it is very important to note that under the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill—and the question that was asked in the previous part by Mr Faafoi was about violence and how people would be able to access the courts and I would suggest that he reads the bill too—if there is an accusation of violence or any evidence of violence which of course also involves the economic violence that we have now brought into the definition of domestic violence then this issue will be fast tracked. Mr Little has also raised an issue that people will claim domestic violence or might make claims on this to get into court before a judge. Well under the bill as amended in Supplementary Order Paper 349 a judge will be able to if they see any evidence of the courts being misused in this way get that matter back into the family dispute resolution service.I believe it is absolutely crucial that we enable people to make good decisions. It is all very well to say that people are upset and yes they are—yes they are—but ultimately most people already resolve these issues themselves the vast majority. But I have certainly seen instances where people have been encouraged in a family dispute issue into court when the best thing for both of those people and their children is for them to be able to sit down with somebody who is absolutely neutral to help them to resolve the issues. That is where people’s focus and their attention should be—on their children and how to resolve these issues.Only people appointed as family dispute resolution providers by an approved dispute resolution organisation or the Secretary for Justice will be able to provide family disputeresolution. So it is not the Secretary for Justice just sitting there deciding this person and that person; it is actually an approved provider. The Government Supplementary Order Paper 349 sets out what will happen to family dispute resolution providers when their dispute resolution organisation’s approval is suspended or cancelled. Where a dispute resolution organisation is suspended the organisation will continue to be responsible for its current family dispute resolution providers and the family dispute resolution providers will continue to be recognised.Part 3 defines the duties of a family dispute resolution provider. Part 3 also provides for a number of regulation-making powers. Dispute resolution organisations will be approved in accordance with criteria which Mr Little has forgotten set out in regulations that still need to come into force. So it is not that there will not be criteria but the criteria will be in regulations. I think that is a very sensible thing because we know it takes a long time for legislation to come through the House and it may be that the criteria need to be changed more quickly to better suit the circumstances of what we have found. So there will be criteria. It is not willy-nilly as Mr Little says. But if he was at the select committee a bit more often he would know. In fact they will be set in regulations and if he wants me to let him know what they are I am sure I will because I am just that sort of person really.The suspension or cancellation of approval must also be in line with grounds set out in those regulations and likewise regulations will outline the qualification and competency requirements for family dispute resolution providers and the matters that disqualify a person from being appointed as a family dispute resolution provider. So all of the talk that we have heard this afternoon about how it is just going to the Secretary for Justice willy-nilly appointing anybody whom he wants with no accountability is utter rubbish Mr Little. Read the bill. Read the amendments.Andrew Little: Thank you MarjorieProops.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Where the family dispute resolution provider—well Mr Little wants to call me whom? Marjorie somebody? No my name is Judith Collins Mr Little. But anyway having said that he is into insults. Where the family dispute resolution provider determines it is inappropriate to start or continue family dispute resolution it will provide the parties with a form stating its opinion as to why family dispute resolution is inappropriate. It may be inappropriate because the parties are unable to take part effectively or because at least one party or the child has been subjected to domestic violence by the other party. Family dispute resolution may also be inappropriate because one party refused to attend or continue family dispute resolution and that is absolutely crucial. We cannot have one party holding up the other or holding up resolution of these matters for their children. Thank you.