Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move, That the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

The family justice system supports children, parents, and whānau through significant times in their lives. An accessible Family Court that operates without undue delay is core to a fully functioning family justice system.

In 2019, the independent panel examining the 2014 reforms to the family justice system reported that the family justice system is not performing as it should. In particular, the panel found that delay is widespread in the Family Court. This delay impacts on most other areas of the family justice system. The Family Court deals with a diverse set of issues, including the care and protection of children, family violence, divorce, and relationship property. The effective delays in the Family Court can, therefore, be widespread.

Confidence in the Family Court system is undermined if people cannot effectively access the Family Court in a timely manner. Protracted proceedings can exacerbate parent, family, and whānau conflict. This is particularly harmful to children. Children’s sense of time is slower than adults, and protracted proceedings can amount to a substantial proportion of a young child’s life. In care of children proceedings, delay can mean that the children do not have contact with non-custodial whānau for significant periods of time. This can cause the relationship to disintegrate and be detrimental to the child and to whānau wellbeing. For victims of family violence who may find court processes re-traumatising, court delay can also exacerbate or prolong their trauma.

The Government is committed to addressing these barriers to justice in the Family Court. This bill will form just one part of a long-term programme of change in the Family Court. In 2020, the Government began its first phase of reform based on the panel’s recommendations, aimed at better supporting families and whānau through the family justice system. The reforms included the reinstatement of legal representation in the early stages of Care of Children Act proceedings; improved information for children, parents, and whānau; the establishment of Kaiārahi, Family Court navigators, to help parents and whānau navigate the system; and increased remuneration for lawyers for children to incentivise the recruitment and retention of skilled practitioners.

The purpose of the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill responds to a particular issue identified by the independent panel, which is that the high administrative workload of judges contributes to delay. The panel recommended a new position be established in the court to take on some of the judges’ workload. In response to this recommendation, the bill establishes a new role in the Family Court: the Family Court Associate. Establishing the Family Court Associate role is intended to improve outcomes for people participating in Family Court proceedings—particularly children—by making more effective use of judge time and reducing delay.

The Family Court Associate will be a judicial officer. A judicial officer is a statutory role with independence from the executive. As a judicial officer, the Family Court Associate can take on tasks currently performed by a registrar. They can also take on some judicial work that does not require a judge’s expertise or experience but could not be done by a court officer such as a registrar.

I expect highly experienced family lawyers will be appointed to the role. They will have jurisdiction over matters including those relating to care of children, child support, Oranga Tamariki, and family violence. They will have the power to deal with a range of areas, including directing parties to undertake dispute resolution and non-violence services, presiding over pre-hearing conferences, convening settlement conferences, and making orders by consent under specified legislation.

The Family Court Associates will spend the majority of their time doing work on the papers, but will also be in court for some matters, including for convening settlement conferences. However, the role is distinct from a Family Court judge. There are some matters dealt with in the Family Court that will always remain with judges due to their impact on people or their complexity. These types of matters include the final decisions about guardianship and those that materially affect children.

We want Family Court judges to be able to concentrate on progressing cases—which can be incredibly traumatic for children—through the court, instead of on time-consuming administrative matters. The Family Court Associate role will help them to do just that.

I want to acknowledge the panel for their report on the 2014 family justice system reforms, which has informed the creation of the Family Court Associate role. I also want to acknowledge the judiciary, the New Zealand Law Society, and the Remuneration Authority for providing comments on an exposure draft of the bill. These comments have certainly been very helpful in refining the bill.

The public will have the opportunity to share their views on the bill at select committee, and I look forward to the Justice Committee’s consideration of the bill. To enable the Family Court Associates to become operational as soon as possible, I am proposing that the Justice Committee report on the bill to the House after four months.

The establishment of the Family Court Associate is one part of the long-term programme of change to the family justice system. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill, as the Minister has outlined, is an item of work that fits within a broader context, and I think that she’s made some very sensible points in relation to that. I’ll delay no further before advising that the National Party does support this legislation, and I’ll explain why we think that it’s a useful step in the right direction, as I go through this 10-minute contribution, but I will, of course, also note areas in which we’ll be really interested to hear discussed at select committee to understand the extent to which it may be useful and to consider what other measures might also assist to solve the same problem.

First, though, I think it’s worthwhile to acknowledge that making legislation in the area of the way that the courts operate is something that we should do carefully in this House. I don’t mean to suggest that the Government isn’t doing it appropriately in this case, but I will say that I think it’s always fair to acknowledge that the courts, in a way, are a separate realm—they’re certainly a separate branch of Government. Mostly, there’s a degree of separation in terms of policy matters; you know, we make the laws, they apply them or interpret them and thereby also make them, I suppose. It’s worth acknowledging that. But, I think, in terms of the operation of the courts, while we don’t interfere with the decisions of courts at a day-to-day level, it’s appropriate for this branch of Government, the legislature, to give courts the tools that they need to be able to carry out their job independently.

So one of the tools that can be offered to them, we’ve heard from the Minister through her presentation now, in the form of the legislative statement and, indeed, the bill itself, is the creation of a role known as Family Court Associate. The problem that needs to be solved is—I suppose, the first question—the Minister has, rightly, pointed us in the direction of the independent panel that was established to understand some of the failings of the current justice system—more particularly, the court system, and more particularly than that, of course, the Family Court. It’s well known in the legal fraternity—but, sadly, all too well known among those who have had the unfortunate experience of interacting with the Family Court in the way of their ordinary lives necessitating that dealing, in a non-professional context—that the Family Court has been beset by difficulties over many years. I think it’s fair to acknowledge that these are longstanding issues that we’re discussing, effectively, tonight, and no Government has exactly got it right. I think that it’s important for all parliamentarians to take very seriously the problems that we face, and commit ourselves to trying to help to solve them.

So what, then, are the problems? Well, as outlined by that independent panel, one of them is the delay of resolution of issues in court that is a widespread problem that impacts on most other areas in the family justice system. I think, most importantly, it contributes to a deepening family and whānau conflict, including with parents but involving, of course, sadly, in a lot of cases, children being the pawns in the game of chess that is conflict played out in the Family Court, and that’s deeply unfortunate, to say the least, for the young lives involved. Delay will often exacerbate existing divisions or break down relationships that should otherwise exist between parent and child, notwithstanding the other parent may have different ideas about how things should proceed. So that was one category of problem. It’s easy to be glib and use expressions like “justice delayed is justice denied.”, and it seems so obvious to say, and we say it a lot, but we say it because it’s true, and, in the Family Court particularly, quite tragic consequences oft in times of these delays.

The second half of the problem that’s sought to be remedied by this bill is the high administrative workload of judges. That’s a contributing factor to delays. So these things are not entirely independent. But I think we should ask ourselves, as we go through, whether there are opportunities to reduce the administrative burden, as well as doing the thing that this bill is looking to do, which is to share the burden by creating a Family Court Associate who can help the judge with her or his work and so share that burden in a way that’s set out by law as prescribed pretty tightly, as we’ll see with the detail about the particular Acts of Parliament that are being amended in this way.

So the Family Court Associate is a new creature, I suppose, of statute—a judicial officer, we will call that person—and will have what I’d be tempted to call quasi-judicial roles—I suppose, actually, technically they are judicial roles; they’re currently conducted by judges, and so it’s appropriate that they won’t be able to be dismissed readily; there would need to be good cause for that. Their pay can’t be reduced while they’re in office, and so on. So there can’t be political interference, whether that’s in this place or, indeed, politics with a lowercase “p” perhaps being exercised in a court context. So we would see that they would be appointed for a certain period of time, with an opportunity for renewal, and they would fulfil various functions of the judges themselves, including that they would be able to transfer a preceding to a judge proper if the matter is too complex for the associate himself or herself.

So all this is very well, but it’s worth noting, and I did foreshadow this at the start, even as I said that National would be supporting the bill, that there are issues that we in this House and the select committee—and I note that its chair is present tonight and other members of that committee are present, so I ask them to take on board the questions that National has in this space. The first of which would be: the extent to which other measures are going to be needed in this, as well. Now, the bill only has a certain scope, but we have to see these things in context. We have to acknowledge this is something of a band-aid solution to a gaping wound. The court system is in turmoil. It’s been exacerbated by COVID-19. Yes, that’s there to acknowledge. But we do need more imagination, creativity, and urgency to be applied to the solutions to these problems. So this is a step in the right direction, but it’s a small step, and we need to bear that in mind.

Second, we need to have some understanding of the extent to which this is going to help—in the eyes of the Government or those who are advising them, to what extent can we expect delays and processing times, and so forth, to be reduced? That’s something that we won’t know with exactitude, and it’s an exercise in making a prediction and, therefore, trying to look into the future, but to at least have some sort of feel for what the Government is aiming to achieve by this legislation would be very helpful in terms of ensuring its continued support not only in this House but, actually, more importantly, in the courts themselves.

Next, we also need to acknowledge that these are measures that won’t be able to be undertaken immediately. The Family Court Associates need to be recruited—that’s an issue in itself; we’ll come back to that—and trained and then start operating in a way that is knowable and accountable in terms of the rules of the court. That’s probably with the courts more so than the Parliament or the relevant Minister. But these procedures need to be developed. The recruitment needs to be taking place. The related point there is that we will be recruiting from a pool of people who are already practising in this space. If we’re to have family lawyers who are experienced to the tune of at least seven years in this jurisdiction, then that means that these will be practitioners who aren’t able to operate on the other side of the bench, so to speak. So there’ll be an element of robbing Peter to pay Paul—that’s probably inevitable to set up such a system; I wouldn’t suggest or want to be misinterpreted as suggesting that we should have people who are inexperienced. So it’s probably a feature of the system, rather than a bug, but, nevertheless, there is a cost to these things. It’s not a silver bullet, as I say, that we’ll be able to establish this role, appoint people to it, and be out of the woods entirely in terms of the delays, the processing difficulties, and so forth.

And, finally—and it’s a very mundane point, perhaps, but, actually, I think an important one—the physical spaces, the courtrooms themselves. I think it’s been acknowledged in the supporting documentation provided by the Government, these areas need to accommodate the fact that there’ll be this additional person or persons conducting this role; they need a degree of independence. They certainly need to be able to have a workable situation to be able to perform these various functions.

So, for all these reasons, we’re cautious. We don’t think it’s a silver bullet, but we do think it is, in itself, a useful measure. So I say, National will continue to support the bill as long as we have a good-faith engagement from the Minister, the select committee, and others, who are, like us, committed to the ideal of a fast, fair, and efficient justice system, including, and especially, the Family Court, which has been left for far too long to languish as a very unhelpful institution. We certainly hope that it can be better in that, and we commit ourselves to that purpose.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This bill, the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill, is evidence in itself that Labour is committed to improving access to justice. The bill establishes a new role in our courts, and specific to the Family Court in particular, to help free up judge time and reduce delays, enabling judges to focus on the more substantive work and to enable a more fluid flow of material through our Family Court. This is a particular recommendation that was made in Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau, which has identified this one particular area.

It’s really heartening that National are going to support this bill, because it rebuilds some of the damage that was done by that party when they were in Government. National’s Family Court reforms back in 2014 resulted in lengthy delays for children and their families. Those reforms saw a significant increase in the number of without notice applications. They rose from 30 percent of applications in 2014 to a whopping 70 percent, and this is why the independent panel was appointed to find some solutions to the problems that had amounted. It’s important to note that at the sharp end of those delays are children, are families, are families who are trying to grapple with the breakdown of the family unit, and the longer and the more protracted those judicial pathways are, the more damage is done to our children, and that can be lasting emotional damage. So delays in the Family Court can be prevented, and delay in the Family Court in particular. It can really reduce the stress on families, it can reduce parental conflict, and it can also reduce those long-term impacts that we can have on the mental health of children. The Ministry of Justice has noted that they estimate the Family Court Associate role will potentially save up to 25 percent of judicial time, and that’s got to be a good thing.

So what does this new role do? The new role will take on some of the Family Court judges’ workload, and that will enable judges to progress more substantive matters far more quickly than we’ve seen before. They’ll also take on the work in the early stages of proceedings, and administrative work, and that will be things like appointing a lawyer for child, or a lawyer to assist in the court in various interlocutory matters, and keep those things moving in the early stages. They will also have the power to deal with a range of areas, including directing parties to undertake dispute resolution, non-violence services, presiding over pre-hearing conferences, convening settlement conferences, and also making orders by consent under specified legislation. However, it is important to note that this role is distinct from a Family Court judge and that there are some very important matters that will always remain in the hands of a judge due to their impact on people and also due to the complexity of those issues. Those types of matters include the final decisions around guardianship and also those that materially affect children.

I’d like to wrap up by saying that I’m really proud of the bill, which goes some way to undo damage that has been done in the past, and that it sits really well with the wider work that this Government is doing to reinstate legal representation in the early stages of court, particularly in relation to children and the wellbeing of children, by also, alongside of this, establishing the Kaiārahi Family Court Navigator role to help parents and whānau navigate the family justice system; also increasing lawyer for child remuneration to support the retention of skilled practitioners; and also giving young people and our courts the opportunity to participate in decision making which directly affects them. All these things go towards looking after our families when they enter through what can be a really hard time for a mum, a dad, and the kids. So I commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to receiving the submissions at the Justice Committee.

There’s a lot of talk tonight about people helping their kids through things, and whānau and family. The best way of keeping your kid safe is to keep them out of the Family Court and out of having to deal with the fact that their parents and their extended families cannot sort themselves out. It is an incredibly sad thing for people to expect judges to have to sort out all their problems for them and to sort out their relationships. And even worse, when I see—and I have seen, and many of us who have practised know that there are parents who, unfortunately, use their children to attack the other parent. That is an awful thing to see. So it’s good to see that we’ve got this new role here, which is to try and speed up matters in the court, but the best way of speeding it up is to keep them out of court in the first place.

Most people who undergo a relationship break up, particularly involving children, most people do not end up in court, and that is because they have decided to take charge of their own lives, that if they do have lawyers, those lawyers have tried to find them a solution that does not involve getting a judge to sort things out for them and does not involve them telling parents which days they can see children and what times and actually abdicating the responsibility of parents. It’s all very well to talk, as I’ve heard tonight, people talking about “Oh, these attempts of the Family Court; it’s all so terrible, since 2017.” Actually, it’s always been a problem. That’s why steps have been brought in.

The Family Court was first set up at a time when the District Court used to deal with these issues and it was going to be a fast, cheap service that was available to people when they needed it. It is now an expensive service that is actually utterly reliant on legal aid. Legal aid does not come from the Government; it comes from the taxpayers—the very people that, in these cases, often don’t have very much money because, in many cases, they had a home that is now split; they’re now both homeless or they’re renting or they’re trying to get ahead. And what we see in Family Court matters are people in most cases—not all; most cases—who are absolutely distraught because their relationship has failed, their children are upset, and their children are often under such stress that they may be playing up at school, they may be going through all sorts of other traumas.

I know it’s so old-fashioned, but, really, let’s just put the kids first for a start. Try and keep them out of court. When they are in court, it’s good to get it moving fast, but don’t kid ourselves that these parents are somehow made better by any Family Court system. The Family Court—and I often look at those judges who work in it and my heart goes out to them. I don’t know how they cope with the constant and utter negativity and watching people who once loved each other so much that they had children together now hating each other so much that they don’t even want to be in the same room together.

I’ve had to deal with those situations for other people, as a lawyer. I know some of my colleagues here have as well. It is really distressing, but to send people straight to a court rather than trying to sort it out through mediation is cruel. It’s cruel because there are things said in court, and in affidavits in particular, that can never be taken back. People tend to forget this. They seem to think that somehow a court will make it all better, but they will never take that back. It is really important that we understand that.

It’s good to have, you know, this new role. It hopefully will help. And, obviously, COVID has been very difficult, many people feeling the court system has ground to a halt over the 24 months where we’ve had massive disruption. Those of us who were lawyers and with practising certificates still get the notices about how we’re supposed to try and engage in the court system. Thankfully, I’m otherwise occupied in this system, but it is really hard for people, and rather than looking at how we’re going to fix everything for people, how about we actually just give people a bit of a chance to sort things out? Promote mediation, which has always been a primary role for lawyers to be able to do. It is actually a lawyer’s obligation to first try to sort these matters out and to help people to find a way, rather than charging off to court. Going into Family Court signifies a failure—a failure of a relationship, a failure of the legal profession to be able to keep the matter out of court, and a failure of people, in many cases, to put their families first, their children first. I guess that’s sort of slightly judgmental, but you know what? I think parents have to be able to sometimes stand up and be the adults in the room and say, “Our kids come first.” Children do not ask to be born; they are born, and it’s our obligation to do whatever we can to put them first. I just think sometimes we expect other adults, particularly with a gown on or something else, to be in charge. We’ve got to be in charge of ourselves; sort the matters out. My big plea to families caught up in the Family Court system: try and sort the matter out yourselves. Get lawyers. If you’ve got lawyers who just simply want to take this matter to court, think about: are they the best people for you? Do they want to help you or do they want to help the system? Put the kids first. Keep your kids out of court.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a very brief call in relation to this important bill, and it’s really positive to hear that the Opposition are supporting this bill.

For anyone who’s spent a bit of time with children and young people, I think what we know is that they feel time differently. So with court proceedings, where adults might feel that they’re long and they’re difficult, for children sometimes they’re excruciating. What we know is that 16,000 children and young people come in front of the family dispute resolution process in a year, and research has also shown us that when those proceedings are elongated, they’re four times as likely to have mental wellbeing issues. So this is a bill that really responds to that. It’s a bill, as colleagues have spoken to, that responds to Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau.

I am a member of the Justice Committee, so I do look forward to a robust discussion at that stage and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to begin by congratulating the Minister Kiri Allan Tapu—or the Hon Kiri Allan Tapu—for bringing this bill. Sorry! I’ve just been corrected. I’m just very excited.

I was in the justice system and, like the speaker from the Labour caucus—Vanushi Walters, who’s just resumed her seat—worked on children’s rights for much of my legal career. We together were in part involved in putting forward New Zealand’s non-governmental report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. I remember when the National Party policies that impacted the Family Court came into effect, and the absolute heartbreak—on behalf of children and young people, on behalf of families who needed access to justice—but also the absolute embarrassment of standing up in front of the United Nations’ human rights body and saying that a nation that can well afford rights for our citizens, that is well aware of their rights, is going to cut those ad hoc.

So I want to contrast the merits of this bill, which actually hastens access to justice, extends the right to justice and access to expert carers for our children like lawyer for child, to the speech of the Hon Judith Collins, who was the last speaker from the National Party caucus, who, when she was the Minister of Justice, and I sat on the Criminal Bar Association executive, was taken to court in relation to her legal aid policy, all the way up to the Court of Appeal. That policy was found to be unlawful. It was found to be unlawful because the Minister had gone outside of the mandate of the discretion provided by the legislation, the empowering legislation for legal aid, which said that legal aid policy must be made only to provide high-quality legal services for indigent accused. It was found that that Government’s policy on legal aid was made for cost-cutting only. That’s not good for the nation, it’s not good for access to justice for New Zealanders, and, when it comes to the Family Court, it’s deeply harmful to children.

So we’re repairing a little bit of that today with this technical bill. I am glad to see that the role of Family Court judges is protected to some extent and that we’re not just hastening the process, although access to justice in a timely fashion is incredibly important. I do note that we’re providing a broad discretion for Family Court Associates to actually do the work that’s needed in the Family Court to ensure that disputes are resolved in a way that that doesn’t delay things—because they are delayed; our justice system is so delayed as to be in breach of all sorts of rights to access to justice—but that we are actually preserving rights as well. So we’re preserving and remunerating the lawyer for child in a better way. We’re preserving the Family Court judges’ role in terms of making final decisions on issues that materially impact children and young people. But we’re saying, actually, most people that come through the Family Court need a resolution that’s fair and just and timely, and that we’re not going to cost-cut in an area that’s so fundamental to our democracy and to our human rights - based system of justice. So I do commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. It looks like, for the Minister, it’s support around the House this evening for what is a necessary bill. But just like our National Party colleagues, we do have a few little concerns. I think that we can sort these out through the select committee process, but I will outline what some of those are today.

As I said, we definitely do need to address the issue that we have in the Family Court and, regardless of who is in Government at the day, this actually goes right back to 2014 and before then. What we are seeing is an average age of Family Court applications sitting in the court process scene for about 175 days. When we have defended Care of Children Act applications averaging 384 days to clear, then we do know we certainly must have a problem. That is 69 percent of those Care of Children Act defended cases that have been sitting for more than 384 days.

So the Ministry of Justice wants to implement a Family Court Associate role, and they have stated that they believe this will clear up 25 percent of judges’ administration time, allowing judges to concentrate on their core responsibilities and having the Family Court move faster in their processes.

One of the questions we have is that while this is needed, is that the actual solution that’s going to achieve the outcomes that we all need to see, which is a Family Court process that moves faster and for the benefit of both the applicants and the children involved. The question is there because no reviews have been done to determine the causes of the delays. So we’re looking at a report from 2014, a panel that was implemented in May 2018 that again referred another report in June 2019—not able, at that time, I’m sure, to fully assess the impact of COVID on our court systems.

So the panel has made these recommendations—that’s Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau panel. But we do ask: where’s the added and updated advice since the 2014 report and since May 2018, when the panel was put together? Where’s the analysis to say that the problems identified will actually be solved by this approach and by when, and what are the key performance indicators so that we can measure how this is working and if it actually is working, and how we can improve it if need be?

But let’s get back to our intent, which is to support this bill because it’s about improving the outcomes for those that are participating in the Family Court process, particularly for the children. This omnibus bill will allow a Family Court Associate to hold powers additional to that of a court registrar, with some of the functions and powers of a Family Court judge. They’ll be making determinations involving quite a large number of Acts, and I think this is quite significant.

I won’t go through all of the years, but I’ll very briefly let you know that it’s the Adoption Act, the Care of Children Act, the Child Support Act, the Family Proceedings Act, the Family Violence Act, the Marriage Act, the Oranga Tamariki Act, the Property (Relationships) Act, the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act, and the Status of Children Act. So, by getting these associates involved across all of these areas, I expect we will see—or I hope that we will see—a significant movement in the number of cases so that we are no longer having some waiting 384 days on average just to be processed.

The intent is that they—“they” being the Family Court Associate—will make many of the administrative decisions, especially those at the beginning of, or the early stages, of proceedings, but not the substantive decisions as the social significance and their impacts on human rights, along with the sheer complexity of decisions, need a more learned appraisal.

So I do wonder, then, why is it within the bill that it states that if there is no High Court judge, District Court judge, or Family Court judge available in an emergency to make decisions, that a Family Court Associate will step in at that stage. So that’s probably me just needing to have a bit more information on that one.

This bill’s been brought to the House to deal with the delays. However, it appears to be more like a permanent adjustment rather than just dealing with the delays. That may not be a bad thing, but I do wonder around the appointments of the Family Court Associate.

We understand that there’ll be four to six lawyers in year one, and a further six to seven lawyers in two years after that. But the regulatory impact statement actually states that the judiciary and the family law section are confident that there are enough Family Court lawyers to fill these roles. They’ve actually gone on to say that there’s 173 active lawyers at the moment with 10 to 15 years’ experience. But the ministry itself is not so confident that those people will be wanting or willing to actually step up as a Family Court Associate. So we’re looking at a very small number of associates, but 173 lawyers to choose from, whereas the bill itself is actually only seeking to appoint any barrister or solicitor with seven years’ experience and a current practising certificate as someone who could be appointed as a Family Court Associate. So my reading of this is, they don’t even need to have any Family Court experience, and I think that that’s wrong. So I think that’s another issue that we will need to delve into once we get to select committee.

Seeing as this is a fixed term—albeit a rather long one, at seven years—why aren’t we ensuring that those with the skills are utilised in the Family Court experience? ACT thinks that this is important and here’s why: because one of the main aspects about our Family Court is the without notice applications. They’re essential to protect our kids. They’re essential to make sure that they’re a tool that’s available for child abuse or neglect in emergency situations. But the without notice applications can also take a very long time to process—as I mentioned earlier, 384 days on average. This is time that you can’t make up as a family; it’s time that you cannot make up as a parent. The strain is real and it’s damaging, especially when one parent is prevented from visitation rights with a child for very long extended periods of time.

Young 25-year-old parent Sam took his own life due to his frustrations with the system, leaving a note that said, “Fix the Family Court.” Another father, Jono, has waited three years for his case to be heard. He said he’s going to give up on the relationship with his daughter because he simply can’t handle the strain anymore. His partner, Lily, explained, “He jumped over barrier after barrier until he can’t jump anymore, and people say he walked away. No, he didn’t walk away. He was pushed out of her life.”

If this is the outcome for the parents going through the Family Court system, what the heck is happening to our kids? Parents and children alike are facing adverse health impacts, suicidal tendencies, and they’re broke. So we must put in the criteria that the Family Court experienced by those barristers and solicitors with current practising certificates is a necessity because of the type of situations that we are dealing with in the Family Court, and the emotion that has played out with these family members.

So, in summary, we do support this bill. We think that it’s a great idea, and we need to be able to move through the Family Court process faster. But we expect experience needs to be imported before the appointment of the Family Court Associates. We’d like to see how the success is going to be measured so we make sure we’re on the right track and can remain on that track in the future. So, in this first instance, we will support and we will work hard with the Justice Committee to make sure that it’s fit for purpose and we can continue down this route. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As a member of the Justice Committee, I am delighted to commend this bill, which is a further step in our plan to increase access to justice, particularly in this sensitive area. The Family Court, it is absolutely of no doubt, has become a very delayed and difficult jurisdiction and, having listened to the Hon Judith Collins earlier, I start to understand why. It is clear that she considers that it is some sort of simple jurisdiction in which naughty parents need to be told to sort themselves out.

The problem with the Family Court is that, by the time you actually get people coming to court, they are the ones dealing with the most intractable and difficult problems that we have. We are talking mental illness, drug abuse, child abuse, interpersonal violence—these are not quick issues to deal with; they are issues that require expertise. Unfortunately, what the Hon Ms Collins did was to strip out the expert help. She stripped out the counselling; she stripped out the access to Family Court lawyers at those early stages when people most needed it. Now, as my colleague Golriz Ghahraman said, this was done to save money—what an absolute travesty of justice. Justice delayed is justice denied, and nothing is clearer than the Family Court as an example of that.

Therefore, this is absolutely sensible. It is no band-aid; it is an important step that we not only roll back the ridiculous things that were done to our court but we now bring in this additional expertise with senior Family Court lawyers who will be able to take some of that administrative burden off our hard-working judges. It is a new role, but there are highly successful precedents in the High Court associate justice role, which is in itself a specialism, or even in the recorder role in the UK, which is, essentially, a judicial apprenticeship. Now, whether our Family Court Associates become an apprenticeship or a specialism in themselves, or perhaps both, is yet to be seen. I commend this bill to the House. I look forward to working on it with my colleagues.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. I’m happy to commend this bill to the House as one that National supports. This came out of the independent panel that examined the 2014 reforms of the Family Court in their report Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau and recommended the Family Court Associate role, which is a judicial officer role but not for the purposes of section 12B of the Remuneration Authority Act 1977.

As judicial officers, Family Court Associates will be independent of the executive and will have powers additional to those of the registrar. They’ll be able to take on some work currently undertaken by judges, including decisions made at early stages of proceedings, and this will enable judges to focus on progressing case work. Substantive decisions in proceedings, however, will continue to be made by judges because of the social significance of those decisions, the impact those decisions have on human rights, and the complexity of the decisions.

This is trying to solve a complex issue. As the speaker just immediately before me said very correctly, justice delayed is justice denied, and that is a real systemic problem in our court system. Certainly, as someone who practised for many years in our court system, one problem I have seen personally, time and time again, is people who are waiting to have their matters heard in court. A lot of the problems come through the uncertainty that is generated by waiting for their court case to be heard, because there’s no clarity about what the final position is going to be. People’s lives are, effectively, put on hold. And, as another Speaker before me said, time is different for children. So these matters that come before the Family Court, unfortunately, often involve children, and, unfortunately, often—quite accurately, as the Hon Judith Collins said—it’s parents who are not putting their children first. That’s something I have personally seen in our courts. In fact, we do see some quite inane things like parents fighting over calendars—so determining when the kids can be where, on what date, and on what time. So these are things that take up a lot of the judges’ time, and, unfortunately, it isn’t good for our kids. But we do need to find solutions for these intractable problems that people who have come to the court system can’t, for whatever reason, sort out with each other. So this comes to the Family Court.

This will not solve everything, I have to say, though, as there are a lot of other issues. Pre-COVID, we had some significant delays in our courts; COVID has just exacerbated those, and people are waiting a lot longer now for cases to be heard, which have been delayed, in some cases, to a point where one wonders whether “justice delayed; justice denied” really even has validity anymore, because people are waiting for so long. This is, however, a good step to address that issue and to try to reduce that delay and enable, in particular, children who are caught up in the Family Court system to have their matters heard, hopefully, faster. That is a good thing.

I note that point around the Family Court Associate. The pre-requisites are that they have held a New Zealand practising certificate as a barrister and solicitor for at least seven years, which is similar to what is required for someone to be considered for a judicial role, who also must have practised for at least seven years. I note it says that by reason of their training, experience, and personality the person is suitable to hold the office of the Family Court Associate. It will be interesting to see whether anything comes back from the select committee just going into a little bit more depth about what that means. This bill will say that they can be appointed for a term of up to seven years and may be reappointed for further terms. So there is some correlation between the time this person has practised as a barrister and solicitor and the time that someone who would be considered for a judicial role would have had to have practised as well. That is a good thing, because this is a court system that has a huge impact on families and, in particular, on children.

I have practised, as I said, for years in our court system. I have seen the impact of delays on people, on families, and on children. This bill, as I said, will not solve everything. In particular, it won’t solve the issue of people who need to apply for legal aid to get a Family Court lawyer. It’s incredibly hard in my region for anyone to find someone to do that role, and I know that’s an issue right around the country. But this is a good step in the right direction, and I am happy to commend this bill to the House.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I’m very happy to stand briefly, just to commend the bill to the House, in light of the fact that the Māori Party don’t have anything to say about this bill, which comes at a bit of a surprise to me. This is a bill which is, simply, designed to improve access to justice, to speed up resolution of matters in the Family Court and particularly those pertaining to children. An absolutely important bill. Great to see the support around the House. I commend it to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to make a short contribution to the House. May I start by thanking the Minister Kiri Allan for prioritising this piece of work, which will address some particular problems which we’re seeing in our Family Court system. We know—and have agreed around this House tonight—that delays in the Family Court are prevalent, and that the high workload of judges is contributing to that. It’s always good, you always hear from me in these opportunities, where there is cross-partisan agreement on these issues and they are forward-looking issues; they’re about our access to justice and about the way we promote people using our justice system efficiently and getting our value for money out of that.

It is an important service that people are able to access something, that when they come to the end of the road about what they can agree in their family, that they’re able to turn somewhere for help. That’s why I look forward to canvassing these issues in the select committee. I hope that the court lawyers of the National Party are able to join us. It’s always good to hear from some of those members, like Joseph Mooney before me, and like Chris Penk. I look forward to having these discussions later on.

Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I jumped the gun a bit, but I’m very eager to stand and take a call on this for the National Party on the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. I commend the Minister the Hon Kiritapu Allan for leading the way and shining the light on this. Members in the House will be aware that there’s a number of us who’ve practised in this area. This was a specialist area of legal practice that I devoted most of my legal career to, serving the Family Court and those persons who came before the Family Court, and with a particular interest in advocating for our children.

So what’s being addressed in the House tonight is that our children are central to most of the proceedings that come before the Family Court. What is often overlooked is the impact on our children, in the lack of timeliness with these proceedings being concluded. It’s been mentioned in the House this evening, and it’s also part of the regulatory impact statement, the average age for all Family Court application types—that’s excluding dissolutions of relationships, i.e., divorce, as once upon a time it was known as—is currently 175 days. However, for defended Care of Children Act substantive applications, which makes up 69 percent of all active Care of Children Act applications before the court, the average case takes 384 days to resolve in the Family Court. That’s the average case. I’ve known cases that have taken more than five years. That is totally unacceptable. That unacceptability is because of the delays that occur, associated with multi-tier, multi-layered complexities, and, as I say, unacceptabilities—part of that is dragging the system out. It’s about keeping a check on that.

It’s been identified in the review that was undertaken by the working panel, having released their report in May 2019, Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau: The final report of the Independent Panel examining the 2014 family justice reforms, identifying a range of issues. So this is just addressing, with the appointment of Family Court Associates, the tip of the iceberg really. There were 69 recommendations that came out of that panel report about law, policy, and practices that currently govern care of children matters, and it’s actually not good governance—some of the practices that have been happening. So it’s been identified that this may be one way to alleviate the burden, the pressures of lack of timeliness, but also the burden of judges’ workloads. I’d invite this Government to turn their mind to considering appointment of additional Family Court judges because the appointment of Family Court Associates is just addressing administrative burdens or overloads. This is a multi-tiered, multi-complex issue that needs to be addressed.

I’ve raised in the House before, a number of years ago, when there have been other bills coming before the House on Family Court matters, that in the criminal jurisdiction, which I also practised in, we had duty solicitors who were appointed at the early stages, and then, after that, that was to help navigate. So there’s been mention of Kaiārahi being appointed, Family Court Navigators. That’s actually similar to what’s happened in the previous district health boards with people who know the system well helping to navigate through it for those who don’t know it so well.

So I’ve previously also raised, in the jurisdictions, we have the duty solicitors that are there at a point of entry to enable the people who are seeking to access justice—whatever that means. “Justice delayed is justice denied” is a term that I’ve used frequently in this House. Duty solicitors in the Criminal Court jurisdiction and, in part, Family Court Associates, sort of help alleviate the pressures of administrative overloading with our judges. It doesn’t actually address those people who are coming into the Family Court system, who are trying to navigate how to access a Family Court lawyer through legal aid, many of whom who haven’t been eligible for legal aid. So I invite the Government again to consider and contemplate the benefit of a duty lawyer within the Family Court.

There was a time when I would go from Criminal Court jurisdiction, as a duty lawyer, to Family Court jurisdiction, representing my clients, seeing persons who needed—because they were self-representing, they weren’t eligible for legal aid, they didn’t have lawyers for whatever reason, because they didn’t like their lawyers sometimes, so we’d kick them for touch. But it was about having a lawyer there to help navigate with those initial proceedings before the court.

It’s been identified also that the Family Court Associates, and it’s of a 27-page piece of drafted legislation, a bill, of 95 clauses long with a new schedule to be introduced into one of the many Acts this is going to be addressing, known as an omnibus bill—that this going to take a bit of time. The Minister has indicated in the House the preference of a four-month engagement with the public. I commend that because it is sufficient time for engagement. The reason that I commend that is that this has to focus on child-centric issues and the impact on our children for these Family Courts and the Family Court proceedings.

So it was mentioned in the House this evening, concern about the suitability of who may be appointed into this role. New section 7A under the bill specifically identifies that the person may be appointed as a Family Court Associate if that person has, for at least seven years, held a New Zealand practising certificate as a barrister, or barrister and solicitor; and is, by reason of their training, experience, and personality a suitable person to hold the office. So that draws on the fact of suitability based on experience, notably within the Family Court, notably working with clients in distress, notably, and, more importantly, with clients that are children. So I don’t sit on the Justice Committee, I’ve just spoken with the chief whip and I asked if I might be permitted to come and join in on these conversations, partly because of the experience that I have of some 27 years as a Family Court lawyer working in this space.

What is also identified coming out of the review panel’s works is the multi-tier layer of this. So I’ve touched on the fact that there needs to be more Family Court judges. I’ve had conversations with very senior, experienced Family Court judges who are coming to the end of their tenure. With them about to come to the end of it, they take significant intellectual knowledge capacity and experience. With the introduction of new judges coming in, we need to calibrate that more, so we don’t have a high end dispense, dispersal, departure of our very senior, experienced judges, but more on a continuum, being appointed on a regular basis. I recall addressing this House on the Coroner’s Amendment Bill just last year, that’s when I used the line “Justice delayed is justice denied” repeatedly, because of the tardiness of the Government in appointing additional coroners. At the time, there wasn’t the full complement that was permissible under the law for coroners to be appointed. It was only a sub-appointment, or partial appointment, so it was incomplete in that.

So I’m emphasising the importance that, with the Family Court Associates coming in, being appointed, it’s only going to alleviate part of the issue. The other issue of complexity, of course, is that our facilities are not adequately set up. We have Family Courts—there’s minimal when we have Youth Court hearings that are happening, having to go between whatever space is available. So the physical configurations of our courts are not suitable. So I’m going to zoom in now to the use of technology that this country was exposed to when we were masked up with COVID. But we were also exposed to the use of technology because it was a matter of necessity. This may well be a matter of necessity, where proceedings can be—and it has through our audiovisual links—for bail applications with inmates who are detained out at the prisons, once upon a time, sometimes still occurring, put into the police wagon, transported in at quite considerable cost of time, of expense, of everything else, and that was not efficient utilisation of practice, time, and facilities. So we have technology. So it’s about how we move into that space more efficiently, more effectively.

So the bill itself, in terms of Family Court Associate appointments, is just dealing with one aspect of that. So there are 69 recommendations. I commend the Minister for advancing this through the House. It has the support across the House. I look forward to contributions, if I’m permitted to sit in there at select committee, because it’s about keeping the lens and the focus on those most affected, and I always come and speak on a Family Court issue or matters that are affecting our children—oversight of Oranga Tamariki. Our children often get overlooked. There’s an oversight in a lack of how central they are and pivotal. We must make and adapt our proceedings around them. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. This bill is based on the recommendations made in the 2019 report Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau. Now, translated, that’s very much around forming a korowai around a whānau, around protecting, around supporting, around empowering children, their parents, and their whānau as they work through parenting and guardianship issues. This piece of legislation goes some way to that and, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.