Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill

I move, That the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee.

The Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill will create a modern, accessible family justice system that is more focused on the needs of children and vulnerable people. It is an omnibus bill that amends nine family law Acts. The reforms the bill implements are the most significant changes to the Family Court since it was established in 1981. The bill implements the Government’s decisions resulting from a review of the Family Court.

The changes in the bill respond to widespread concerns that the court is not able to focus enough on the most serious cases, has processes that are difficult to understand, and has seen its costs greatly increase in recent years. The cost of running the Family Court grew 70 percent, from $84 million in 2004-5 to $142 million in 2010-11. This increase in cost is despite application numbers remaining comparatively stable.

The Government recognises that the Family Court forms one component of a wider family justice system that needs to support families to resolve disagreements. Through these reforms, the Government will provide more support for people to resolve their disputes out of court. We are also changing the role of the court to ensure it is focused on the most vulnerable people and on the most serious matters requiring judicial decisions. The bill will shift the focus of the family justice system towards supporting people to resolve their disputes about their children out of court, where appropriate.

The bill renames the Family Courts Act. It will become the Family Disputes (Resolution Methods) Act 1980 to signal a shift away from the court being the main way family disputes are resolved. Resources are being developed to help people reach agreements and settle disputes without going to court, as a vast majority of families do already. For example, the successful Parenting through Separation course will be mandatory before applying to court for a parenting order. These free programmes teach parents to understand and focus on the needs of their children when they separate.

The most significant reform in the bill is the new family dispute resolution service. Parents who are not able to agree on arrangements for their children will need to attend family dispute resolution before applying to court, unless an exemption applies. A person may also decide to attempt family dispute resolution for other family disputes, such as disputes about relationship property. Out-of-court dispute resolution will give people the opportunity to resolve disputes more quickly and with less conflict. Research shows that prolonged exposure to frequent and intense parental conflict is associated with a range of psychological risks for children. Family dispute resolution will encourage people to focus on the needs of their children and take ownership of the agreement reached.

Family dispute resolution will be free for those who meet the legal aid eligibility threshold. It will replace most Family Court counselling and mediation services. It is estimated that family dispute resolution will help resolve about 1,200 cases that would otherwise end up in court and will keep 2,000 children from being exposed to the court processes. Of course, access to the court is still available if family dispute resolution does not resolve all the issues. Also, people will still have direct access to the court for cases that are not appropriate for out-of-court dispute resolution. For example, applicants who need the court’s assistance urgently or who have suffered domestic violence will continue to have immediate access to the court.

A targeted form of publicly funded counselling will be retained for in-court proceedings about the care of children. A judge will be able to refer people for counselling if the judge considers it is the best way to improve the parenting relationship and make the outcome more durable.

The bill will improve the Family Court’s response to domestic violence through three key changes. First, the bill expands the definition of “domestic violence” in the Domestic Violence Act to include financial and economic abuse as an example of psychological abuse. Second, it increases the sentence for breaching a protection order, from 2 years’ imprisonment to 3 years’ imprisonment. Third, the bill will provide for greater flexibility in the development and delivery of stopping violence programmes. Currently, domestic violence programmes are largely one size fits all.

The bill will focus the Family Court on resolving disputes that need a judicial decision. It encourages faster, less adversarial resolution of family disputes and empowers judges to focus on the most serious cases. The bill targets the court’s resources towards those children and vulnerable people who most need its protection.

Lawyers for parties will attend care of children proceedings in which they are needed. Lawyers do not need to be involved in the initial stages, except for urgent cases. This reform is designed to give family members the opportunity to resolve their disputes themselves, with the assistance of the judge. But if a case proceeds to a defended hearing, parties may choose to have a lawyer. This is a big change and I expect it will attract a number of submissions.

There are two areas to which I would like the Justice and Electoral Committee to pay particular attention, following feedback from Family Court stakeholders. The first is the appointment of a lawyer for a child in care of children cases. Under the bill a lawyer for a child will be appointed where a judge has concerns for the safety or well-being of the child and considers an appointment necessary. I expect that a lawyer for a child will still be appointed in the majority of cases, but it is important to get this test right.

The second area is how allegations of violence are dealt with in care of children cases. The bill replaces the current process with a more flexible and proportionate response. Allegations of violence are to be dealt with in accordance with the welfare and best interests of the child. The first principle that a person must consider is that the child’s safety must be protected.

Other changes in the bill will make the court more efficient and effective. For example, if a person received a judgment less than 2 years ago, they will require the court’s leave to commence similar proceedings about the care of children. Transferring relationship property cases from the Family Court to the High Court will also be eased.

The changes in this bill are only one aspect of the Family Court reforms. The changes will be supported by a comprehensive information strategy to help parties resolve their disputes themselves, or, if that is not possible, to help them navigate the court system. There will be amendments to the Family Court’s rules to simplify court processes and to make forms easier to use.

This Government is committed to improving outcomes for children. It is best for children if their parents are able to resolve disputes about their care without going to court. The Family Court should be there for those cases that need its assistance and it should be able to resolve disputes in a timely and proportionate way. I commend this bill to the House.

There are some real problems with this legislation, the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. They have been set out, I think, very ably by a number of groups that have great experience with dealing with the Family Court, most notably the existing body of Family Court counsellors and also the family law section of the New Zealand Law Society. What I want to do is just put on record some of the concerns that I have heard from those quarters and from lawyers up and down the country with whom I have met who have real concerns about the way in which the reductions to entitlements, which this bill represents, to use the Family Court will affect the lives of ordinary New Zealanders.

We have heard the Acting Minister of Justice talk about the proposed Family Disputes Resolution service. There are many things that commend themselves around that service, but one of the problems with it is the cost of accessing it. There is to be a fee of $897 plus GST in order to get through the door. I know that we will hear from Government speakers that there will be waivers available for those who experience financial hardship and who cannot afford to spend the $1,000 that it will cost to actually get through the door of the first basic step for the Family Disputes Resolution service. Let us just reflect on that for a moment. The fee is the fee. In order to get around it, it will be necessary to apply for a waiver, to go to the registrar of the court and to ask, essentially, for the charity of the State to be exercised in favour of a particular family or family member in trouble. Who knows how many people will have the capacity or the wherewithal to ask for that indulgence? Then, when they do, what guarantees exist, because the statute itself is pretty scant on this, as to how the discretion will fall to be exercised?

When a single person on a benefit with one child earning, at the moment, $170.80 per week is faced with the need to avail themselves of the Family Court—the court that this Parliament set up in 1981 to be free to access, irrespective of imbalances of power in the family relationship, irrespective of whether or not children were at risk and needed the protection of the court, irrespective of the income levels of their parents—how will vulnerable people be able to still feel that they can access this court with any degree of comfort? That is the fundamental issue that has to be raised right up front. Making access to the Family Court contingent on the party’s ability to pay a fee of over $1,000 to get through the door in order to access the initial Family Dispute Resolution service, as has been agreed will be the initial step, is the first major problem that is going to be faced by people trying to use what has hitherto been a court that has been free to access, and, not only that, has provided six free counselling sessions to people who need to use the services of the court. So if people have relationship difficulties, particularly those involving children—and we all know how heart wrenching and how awful those situations can be—at the moment they can go along to the court, they will be referred to counselling, and they will be able to get up to six sessions without having to pay a charge.

I want the House to reflect on what a drastic change is being made by this bill. Instead of that system being available, which actually deals with so many cases before they even have to go to judicial determination, we are now saying, no, it is going to cost over $1,000 to access the Family Disputes Resolution system. It is not going to be free of charge, and the reality is that that will simply be a major deterrent for many, many people who otherwise would be able to use those excellent existing services. How many children will suffer as a result of being locked out of the system is the question that the House needs to be asking today. How many couples will remain in a miserable relationship situation, or simply allow their affairs to lack any legal resolution and simply live in a situation that has no legal sanction to it, because they have not been able to afford to go to the court or to formal dispute resolution services and have their problems resolved? That is the tragedy of this legislation. It is mean-spirited and it is unnecessary in terms of where this court needs to go.

Early on in this process, the Minister’s predecessor, Simon Power, referred the issue of the way in which the Family Court could be improved to the practitioners and stakeholders who had worked in the court for many years. They produced an excellent report. It was presented at a symposium held in the Legislative Council Chamber next door. The Minister at the time, Simon Power, said “Look, this is a really good example of how we can get answers on a consultative basis from people who know the issues, know what things are like on the ground in the Family Court, and these are reforms that will save money, and that we will look to implement.” Well, that approach under this Minister has gone out the door. We have this position where the ministry and the Minister will dictate responses, and what they say will go. I say that what we are going to see in response to this legislation, in the event that it passes in its current form, are two things: a go-slow by practitioners, who are essential in terms of their cooperation to making the system work, and, worse, a go-slow by the Family Court judges, because they are simply not going to be able to cope with the pressures that are going to be put on them by this legislation.

That brings me to the second major objection that must be taken to this legislation, and that is the restriction on representation that this bill will bring about. Basically, in respect of a large number of proceedings that will come before the court, lawyers are going to be excluded. Everybody likes the idea of excluding lawyers on the face of it. The stereotype is that they just add cost to the system, they are going to add complexity, and they are going to add difficulty. The reality is that people who are represented in proceedings generally have a better idea of their rights and obligations. They present better documents to the court and they know the sorts of things that have to be said to the judge, and the judge is going to have to spend less time disposing of the matter if the parties are represented. The reality is that even if the Minister’s attempts to do away with representation in many cases in the court succeed, parties with resources will be able to get good legal advice before they go to the court. They will be able to apprise themselves of their rights and obligations. They will be able to get good documents drawn up—good affidavits—and they will go to the court with a very, very good idea of what the process is about. Those who do not have those resources will not be in that position. The reality is that that imbalance of power that we were so careful to keep out of the Family Court will be a reality of the system again. The only way that that will be able to be dealt with in practice is by the judges themselves taking time in each proceeding to make sure that they try to redress that imbalance of power. That is going to mean longer proceedings, more delay, and more cost. It is not going to save money, and this House should not kid itself that it will do so.

The other major problem with the legislation that needs to be highlighted is the changes that will restrict the ability of the court to appoint lawyers for the child. That is an essential part of the system at the moment. Children do get buffeted by these proceedings. It is essential that they have their own advocate who can speak to their interests, rather than the interests of the warring parents. To do away with or to restrict the ability of that appointment will cause major hardship to vulnerable children, and it is something that we should be very, very concerned about.

In the context of other cuts to legal aid, and in the context of court delays in the system, which are now becoming chronic, this legislation must be rethought. It is bad legislation, for the reasons I have outlined. That does not mean that there are not good features in it—there are one or two that should be persevered with—but the three that I have outlined are major problems. What I want to say is that if the Acting Minister of Justice gets to his feet later and moves a referral motion that means that submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee will be cut off in February or late January, that will make a mockery of the process. We do need to make sure that submitters have proper time—not just the January period, when their offices are closed—to make submissions on this incredibly significant and far-reaching bill.

It is a pleasure to take a call on this, the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. I was a bit disturbed to hear that just about the whole of Mr Chauvel’s speech was in relation to lawyers, and I think that a great thing about this bill is that it is actually trying to wrap more protection and more rights around children. I think in this country there has to be a strong focus on children and children’s rights, because there are some social issues that we are facing.

The bill does aim “to ensure a modern, accessible family justice system that is responsive to children and vulnerable people, and is efficient and effective.” In response to serious concerns that were raised by court users, including the public, judges, lawyers, and counsellors, Cabinet directed the Ministry of Justice to undertake a review of the Family Court in April 2011. The review found that “In addition to concerns about rapidly rising costs, the Court lacks sufficient focus on meeting the needs of children and on achieving sustainable, durable outcomes for families. The review also found complicated court processes caused lengthy delays.” It found that the Family Court is “negative for children and is not focussed enough on their needs”. It is “not focussed enough on the most serious cases”—the most serious cases normally being cases that involve family violence or domestic violence. So the bill is all about improving the court’s response to domestic violence.

The bill better supports vulnerable people, including through improving responsiveness to domestic violence, and I think this is a very important part of the bill. It is expanding the definition of psychological abuse in the Domestic Violence Act 1995 to include financial and economic abuse. I think something that goes on a fair bit within domestic and family violence is people, partners, or parents actually using what should be financial support as a tool to try to manipulate and create even more stress within the family unit. I think this is actually something that has been overlooked in the past, so I am very pleased to see that it is being addressed in this bill.

This legislation responds to concerns raised by the public, judges, lawyers, and counsellors during a very comprehensive review of the Family Court. I commend Minister Borrows for bringing this bill to the House. I am sure that my colleague Tim Macindoe, the chair of Justice and Electoral Committee, is looking forward to receiving this. I must say, it would have been nice to have got it on the Law and Order Committee. I look forward to it coming back to the House. Thank you.

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 $1,000 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—$1,000. 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 $1,000, 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.

Although it is good to see that the Government has made some changes to this legislation, the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill, from its original review and proposal, we are none the less opposing this bill because we think it is going to cause significant harm to families and to children, and particularly to vulnerable women who are in situations of family violence. We are looking forward to seeing what changes might be made at the select committee and in the Committee stage of this bill, and we certainly make no commitment beyond the first reading.

This legislation is going to harm our people, not help, and this is because the safety of women and children is being placed at even further risk. The reforms, as has been set out so well by the Hon Phil Goff, show that they are strongly focused on saving money and much less focused on saving women and children from the risk of violence. There is an obsessive user-pays ideology that pervades these reforms, and, of course, that is what will hurt these families.

Not a single thing that the National Party has said about this bill justifies the extreme increase in costs—not a single thing about children, about families, or about simplified processes. None of that justifies the extreme cost.

One thing that we agree with in this bill is the decision to make economic abuse part of the definition of domestic abuse. We agree with that change; it should be part of it. Economic abuse, economic control, by one partner over another does cause serious harm, particularly to a protective parent in a family environment and to any children in that relationship. A person who is without financial resources is highly vulnerable, is trapped in a dangerous relationship, and is locked out from the support services they may need.

It is, therefore, quite ironic to see that that same level of economic abuse against vulnerable women and children is now being played out by the National Government through this legislation. The new cost structure imposed by this bill is a form of economic abuse, in my view, against those people who need this system the most. You place a barrier of $1,000 as an entry barrier to accessing support and dispute resolution for vulnerable families. That is a form of economic abuse against those most vulnerable people.

This bill could have been much better. It could have been much more responsive to the needs of families and children. It could have met the principles that the National Government says it wanted to set out, but, instead, it is imposing massive new costs and will lock people out from justice. As has been said, the new compulsory Family Disputes Resolution process will cost around $1,000. There is a $220 filing fee, and there are also additional costs to a family—to parents—as they go through the process. For example, the payment for psychological reports or for specialist report writers will be imposed on the families going through this process. The court will also decide whether to charge the parents for the cost of a lawyer for the child.

These last two costs around report writers and costs for the child could be charged under the existing system, but they seldom were, because the inference was that these were services that should be supplied to families and to children where they are needed. Now they will be imposed unless the family can make a case for serious hardship, and there is no real evidence as to what criteria might be applied and how that process might work. All of that is being dealt with elsewhere, not necessarily through this legislation.

If you add up all of the expected costs that will now be imposed on families and children, during a very stressful and difficult time in their lives, we are talking somewhere around $5,000 for a family to go through the compulsory Family Disputes Resolution process—$5,000. Families simply cannot afford that. I understand from what the Minister has said previously that legal aid will be available, in some cases, to those on very low incomes, but, as the Hon Phil Goff said, those on low and medium incomes simply will not be able to afford it. They will not be eligible for legal aid, and they will not be able to afford something between $1,000 and $5,000 just for those initial costs of going through the compulsory process.

I guess it is just that maybe people in the National Party just do not understand what it is like for an ordinary family to live an ordinary life. Maybe they do not understand how much $1,000 is to a family who is on the minimum wage, or to a family who is on the median income. When a family breaks up and one of the partners has to go and set up a new household, and make sure that they have got a big enough household so that their kids can come and sleep there on the weekends, and when they want to set up a decent family home—so that in that family you now have to have two good quality, decent family homes to take care of your kids in the way that you want to—the costs of that process alone can be extraordinary. But then these additional costs are imposed by the Government for no reason, and for no justification. It does not help the children to charge a family $1,000. It does not help the vulnerable mother to charge her $1,000 for this process. It is simply a cost recovery process by this Government—by people who do not understand what it is like to live an ordinary life.

But, of course, cost is just one of the major concerns that we have about this bill. The new Family Disputes Resolution process could be a good thing for some families, but certainly not for all. It will be compulsory for most families, unless there is some reason why you can get an exemption. Making people go through a process that could be painful and making it difficult for them to access justice is just wrong. It is just wrong. Having a compulsory Family Disputes Resolution process relies on women having the support that they need to speak up about domestic abuse in their relationships. Those women would be able to get an exemption and move straight through the court. But there are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of women who are living in situations of serious family violence who, because of that family violence, are too frightened to speak out when it comes to the court process. They will not reveal that violence to the registrar, because of fears of what might happen afterwards. So those people will not get an exemption from the $1,000 charge or get an exemption from the dispute resolution process. That means that those women—and it is women, in the main—who are in situations of serious family violence and are too frightened to say so will not only have to pay but also have to face their abuser in a personal dispute resolution process.

Not only that, but this legislation will make it much more difficult for parties in this process to get access to legal support. So in a situation—and there are thousands of these in New Zealand—where a woman is living in a situation of family violence, has very few economic resources as part of that relationship, is wanting to go to resolve some of these issues, is too frightened to say so, and does not have the money to afford a lawyer to prepare for her legal argument that she can take either through the dispute resolution process or through the court, she is left out in the cold. She has nowhere to go. This system traps her out of justice. This is the system that is supposed to work for her and her kids. What does it do? It locks her out, because there is no understanding in the way that National has written this legislation on the Family Court—no understanding of that real, lived life. Thousands of women—[Interruption] David Bennett is sneering, as he does when it comes to talking about women in vulnerable situations—

💬 David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, that is not a point of order.

These women are turning up to refuges every day, and they are ringing up the helplines—which might still exist after funding cuts every day—asking for help and support. Now the Government is changing the Family Court system to make it even more difficult for them to get help, either through dispute resolution or through the Family Court, to establish their legal rights so that they can go forward and live a well life with their kids. This is a Government that would rather take $1,000 from the poorest women in this country than provide them with real justice. Thank you.

I rise to take a call on the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. The Hon Phil Goff read from the Family Court review regulatory impact statement. He talked about the gaps and the uncertainties, and the significant constraints. He also talked about the engagement with key stakeholders. What he carefully did was leave out a sentence that said this: “There has been extensive consultation on identifying the issues facing the Family Court and the options for reform. Consultation included meeting with stakeholders, a public consultation paper and an online questionnaire for court users.” In April 2011 Cabinet directed the Ministry of Justice to undertake a review of the Family Court. In response to serious concerns raised by court users, which included the public, judges, lawyers, and counsellors, the review found that, in addition to concerns about rapidly rising costs, the court lacked sufficient focus on meeting the needs of children.

Comments were made that we members of the National Party do not know what ordinary lives are for ordinary people. I have been an advocate and a supporter in the Family Court. I have seen the heartache and the distress that that has caused. In the Family Court it has been adversarial. It has been negative for children. It is not focused enough on the most serious cases, even, of domestic violence. As a previous member of the national Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families, and proudly wearing, as an ambassador, the White Ribbon, I say that we, even on this side, do understand the causes of domestic violence and the effect that it has on both women and children. The courts are spending too much time on simple, private matters that are better resolved outside the court. It is too complex, and in recent years has had a huge growth in costs, despite the overall number of applications.

The purpose of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is to ensure a modern, accessible family justice system that is responsive to children and vulnerable people, and is efficient and effective. It is an omnibus bill. It amends nine different Acts. As was commented, it has been over 30 years since there has been any form of review, so this Government has taken that initiative. The changes in the bill will be supported by the amendments to the Family Court rules of 2002.

There are three key provisions in this bill. The bill establishes a Family Disputes Resolution process to focus the family justice system towards supporting people to resolve their disputes, where appropriate out of court. I have personally seen the heartache and the heartbreak that descends when children have been at the centre of these disputes. In the regulatory impact statement it was very clear under “Status quo” that the proposals for reform focus largely on the resolution of parenting disputes. For so long, the focus has been on adults. The focus has not been on the provision to care for the needs of our young and our most vulnerable. This bill is about caring for those who are most in need. I commend this bill to the House.

The Government was right this year to review the Family Court, and the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill, as we know, is the outcome. It is an omnibus bill amending several Acts dealing with children and families.

Family cases, especially those dealing with the custody of children and related issues, are taking up a rapidly increasing amount of court time, and they are taking up a very large share of the legal aid vote. Many cases are not really suitable for the court and do need mediation rather than determination if possible—if practicable. There is very little benefit for families or children where there is unnecessary resort to the courts, where the family itself can best sort out its issues with some help. Some separated spouses, by the way, not entitled to legal aid are being intimidated by the other spouse, who can get legal aid, resorting to the Family Court when a dispute can be better resolved by mediation and agreement where appropriate and practicable.

The thrust of the bill, therefore, is to encourage faster and less expensive resolution by requiring parties to participate in a new out-of-court resolution process and in a parenting information programme before going to the Family Court for a parenting or guardianship order. But that will work only if these services are well resourced, are accessible, and, in particular, are not too expensive. That is the challenge for the Government to demonstrate through the next phases of this bill.

It is wise, however, to focus the Family Court on matters genuinely needing a court decision where protection of vulnerable people and children can be properly prioritised. It is also positive that an objective of the bill is that Family Court cases be less adversarial in their proceedings, but that is easily said; it is not, of course, quite so easily done. It is right and more beneficial for parties to take responsibility for their own arrangements, with the assistance of the court, concerning the care of children where possible, and this also has upsides for the children and the family. Children never profit from sometimes acrimonious and pointless family disputes, especially over parenting and guardianship. Family disputes can be easily entrenched and worsened by making it too easy to get to the court. Requiring a genuine resolution by way of mediation will help that situation, but, of course, the court must always be there as a backstop.

Another objective is to try to make the Family Court more responsible to victims of family violence, and that is a worthwhile objective. The new requirement for a mandatory out-of-court resolution process does not apply to family violence cases, so they can still go straight to the court, and that is necessary and a good use of the court’s time. Also, the bill expands the definition of psychological abuse, increases maximum sentences for this from 2 to 3 years, and improves delivery of mandatory non-violence programmes. I think those are welcome measures.

Overall, the result should be to make the Family Court more efficient and cost-effective by refocusing its resources in those ways, and it should speed up court applications by reducing the court’s rapidly increasing workload. But this must never be at the expense of access to the court or because of excessive expense.

Of the issues and matters that I believe still require discussion in the next stages of the bill, the first and foremost will be the cost of the out-of-court resolution processes. As I have said, this must not be an excessive barrier. It should be reconsidered by the Government because $1,000 is far too much as a cost for those alternative processes even if legal aid is available for that purpose.

Secondly, the bill targets the use of professionals, especially lawyers for the parties and lawyers appointed to represent children separately. That is also going to need further investigation, and New Zealand First will never agree to penny-pinching resulting in lack of adequate legal representation where it is really needed. The legislation must be even-handed and not unfairly empower a party that has greater economic resources than another. I therefore welcome the Minister Chester Borrows’ commitment to get it right, and I hope he will listen to some of these concerns.

The bill requires parties to contribute to the cost of expert reports and witnesses in some circumstances, and I agree that it is currently too easy for parties, especially those on legal aid, to get expensive and sometimes unnecessary expert reports, but this has to be balanced against the cases where such reports are really needed. This too needs further discussion so that where a matter goes to the court it is not hamstrung by inadequate expert evidence.

The bill requires the court’s leave for new proceedings where it has been less than 2 years since the last similar application. This is to discourage repeated applications for parenting and guardianship orders, especially when a party can get legal aid. I am personally aware from my own experience and practice, and as a previous member of the Legal Aid Review Panel, that this has been a problem, and so New Zealand First will certainly support this aspect of the bill. But this is a large bill with many technical issues to examine in the latter stages.

We think that overall it is a good bill. The devil will be in the detail, and in particular in the costs that it will impose for those out-of-court processes. The bill will fail if that is not reviewed, because $1,000 is grossly too much, and that is not good enough. New Zealand First would have to reconsider its support if that were persisted with. We wish to examine all of the detail of the bill in its later stages, but we are happy to support the bill at this stage because of its overall thrust. But that will be on the condition that the issues I have mentioned are adequately and sincerely dealt with by the Government, which must listen to some of the concerns that we and these parties on this side of the House have expressed. So with those conditions, with those reservations, New Zealand First will, at this stage, support the bill.

I thank the member resuming his seat, Denis O’Rourke, for his contribution. I cannot say as much, unfortunately, for the Green member Metiria Turei, who makes some rather interesting submissions in regard to domestic violence. It is a little unfortunate that those over in the watermelon patch are not so inclined to support many of the measures that we as a Government are trying to put in place in regard to the criminal justice sector and ensuring that the right balance is achieved. It seems that they want to run with the hounds and hunt with the foxes on matters of this sort.

There are just a couple of points that I want to cover off. Seventy percent of those who currently apply for a fee waiver within the Family Court system get it. Actually, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that that sort of trend will not continue under this new model.

💬 Andrew Little: Yes, there is. It’s a new law—it’s a new regime.

None that I have seen, but I will continue on because Mr Little, I am sure, will be quite interested to hear what I have to say on this one.

I would like to commend both Minister Borrows and Minister Collins for the work they have done in terms of addressing the whole criminal justice pipeline. As a former policeman, I can certainly vouch for the fact that it has many moving parts. There are many deficiencies—somewhat like a balloon full of water, it is squeezed in one direction and bulges in another—and it is in the interests of all members of this House, and certainly members of New Zealand society, in my view, that we are prepared to address these deficiencies.

This bill really is a response, as has been mentioned, to deficiencies and issues that have been signalled by the court users: judges, lawyers, and counsellors alike. Those, really, are centred around the rising costs, the lack of focus on the needs of children—highly ironic within a Family Court setting—and the lack of focus on durable and sustainable outcomes. Certainly as a former policeman, but also as a new member of Parliament, the concerns that I have seen through what can be a diabolical process are very worthy of addressing. This bill sets out to do that.

In summary, the process is unnecessarily adversarial, it is a very negative experience for children, and it is very broad-brush in its nature. It sort of uses this adversarial sledgehammer to crush the walnut. It is not focused enough on the most serious matters. It tends to treat private matters that could be better dealt with outside of the court in the same way as matters that need the jurisdiction of the court to oversee them. It creates many issues, and I think we would all concede that.

Just to highlight a couple of points, this bill really refocuses the Family Court on matters that, in fact, need that judicial direction, and it does it in a far more timely fashion. It clarifies the principles that are important around, and relevant to, children, and also it provides a much greater focus on out-of-court resolutions. Although there have been some issues on that—I am sure the select committee will help tease out these processes—when you get a legally aided client and one that is not, you so often see a completely different track and a protracted track in the way that that matter is carried out, and some cynical people in society may see that there is a vested interest in those matters being protracted. It is in everyone’s interest that these matters are dealt with in a timely fashion, and I welcome the opportunity for those to be done outside of the court. What we are looking at, really, is 4,000 fewer court applications. This will result in about 2,000 fewer children in front of the court. As I said, I welcome the select committee submissions, which I am sure will be very well traversed by the select committee.

This bill is about efficiencies. It is about creating timeliness, and I think it is about improving the means of resolution in a far more pragmatic, child-friendly, and community-friendly fashion. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House. Thank you.

I believe that a very good process was begun by the former Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, in respect of instigating the Family Court review, but that process has somehow got sidetracked into this efficiency drive, and it has become a drive to save money. The concerns, I believe, that we are raising on this side of the House are that, in fact, this may have unintended consequences so significant that they could place at risk some of the people whom we all in this House seek to protect.

I want to read out 12 key points that were set out in a very important document, and I want to explain where that fits within the context of this legislation, the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill, that we are debating this evening: “That the Family Court and its processes warrant review and reform is unarguable.” Everybody agrees with that. “The problems of cost, delays, inefficiencies, and ineffectiveness are easy to identify. The Family Court of 2011 is not what was envisaged by the Beattie Commission, and that model has never been effectively implemented. There is a fundamental confusion of roles. Is the Family Court a court or a social agency? This confusion inhibits a rational examination of the Family Court. The Care of Children Act 2004 is the most significant source of pressure on the court. That is where the focus of this review properly lies.” I would add to that the Child Support Act, because I believe it is a silent player in all of the dynamics that occur in a breakdown of a relationship involving children. No. 6 states: “Reform does not need to jeopardise those who can be properly categorised as vulnerable. The role of the State in private disputes needs to be revisited.” When I use the word “revisited”, I would say “re-examined”. There needs to be a better understanding of the role of the State in the settlement of private disputes, because there is a public interest. I want to come back to the public good when I go through the regulatory impact statement, which, of course, I want to do.

It continues: “Reforms should be governed by an overarching strategy.” That is a very good idea, to have an overarching strategy when considering reform in such a fundamental area of the law. “Focusing solely on economic fiscal factors may give rise to untended negative consequences.” I really do urge the House to think very carefully about that. “An effective, simple, and accessible pre-filing, pre-court process is called for. Use of the court as a court of law should be a last resort, and where use of the court as a court of law is called for, efficiencies are available in the form of the laws of evidence, Family Court rules, case management programmes, and assured competencies. These may need refinement, but the tools are already there. Less, not more, process is called for.” This was from the family law symposium held in June last year by the family law section of the New Zealand Law Society. I believe that the lawyers of our country have, actually, come under some unfair criticism from the Government tonight in relation to this particular piece of legislation. All of the advocacy that they have put into this area of law has been firmly founded on principle, in my view, and I think we should be very grateful that they took the opportunity to bring together some of the greatest legal minds in this country, and also some of the people involved in counselling and in the social work fields, in order to debate the fundamental issues that underpin the Family Court review. So it was a very good process—unfortunately, now thwarted by an efficiency-driven Government.

That leads me to the regulatory impact statement and the agency disclosure statement at the beginning, prepared by the Ministry of Justice. One of the members opposite spoke of the statement about consultation, but before I get to consultation I just want to highlight for the House the constraints that were highlighted in the report. “Given the overall fiscal situation, urgent steps must be taken to lower the cost of the current justice system while, at the same time, delivering more effective and efficient court services. This means the options we have considered must be able to be implemented quickly.” So the driver is cost. That is it, and I think that the House should be very wary of the driver being costs when we are talking about such a major reform. For the sake of speed and cost and efficiency, it has meant that the ministry has been prepared to accept gaps and uncertainties in the policy analysis—and a consultation period.

I want to continue to read the section that one of the colleagues on the other side of the House referred to, where he talked about “extensive consultation … meeting with stakeholders, a public consultation paper and an online questionnaire for court users.” He went “full stop” there. Let me read the rest of the sentence: “However, because of the timeframe, there has been limited opportunity to discuss the final proposals with stakeholders. There will be an opportunity for consultation at the select committee stage of the future legislation.” Can I just remind this House that consultation is not receiving a submission in a public hearing. That is not consultation. It cannot be even regarded as a substitute for consultation. We have had hearings in front of select committees where we have told submitters that because they are an individual, they have 5 minutes to present their case, and could they leave a little bit of time for questions, and we have had major organisations given 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes, and sometimes we stretch to 20 minutes—usually the Law Society, on a bill like this, would get half an hour. But that is not consultation. That is about persuading the numbers of members of Parliament who are sitting there, and the officials who are advising them and supporting them, that their case has some merit.

I want to remind the House what the Minister said in introducing this legislation, and I am quoting now from Judith Collins, who is the Minister in whose name the bill is introduced: “Our reforms will ensure the Family Court renews its focus towards those who need it most.”, said Ms Collins. “The Court must put the needs of children first, rather than those of private couples with relationship issues.” That is the fundamental flaw in her thinking and it is the fundamental flaw in the legislation. It explains about how we can privatise the cost, because we can say that this is just about the private interests of couples. But can I say that the speedy, sensitive, judicious settlement of disputes that involve the care of our children actually has a huge public interest that must be met, and it is not met by a piece of legislation that will drive the cost into this Family Disputes Resolution service—a solution that we support. We support the concept of the Family Disputes Resolution service.

Can I just say what the family law section of the Law Society said in response. It was not consulted on the proposal that the parties would have to meet the full cost of Family Disputes Resolution, unless they were exempt on the basis that they were eligible for legal aid, and this is its quote: “Our recommendations were made on the presumption that parties would make a contribution to costs of professional services.”—so that is the profession, to the lawyers—“but on the basis FDR would be predominantly funded by the Ministry.” You know, it is over $900, and it is a cost to be split between warring parties, in some instances, if they agree. And what if they do not agree? How is that going to resolve things? I think that we have to think very carefully about the impact of this.

I just want the House to hear another thing from the expert reference group: “Hidden power and control dynamics in relationships will mean parents are intimidated into agreeing to settlements which disadvantage them or their children … Also there will be delays as the Court will not have the proper information needed for making decisions with the result that the conflict between parties will intensify and those cases where a parent is consciously alienating a child from the other parent will be harder to resolve.” That is the problem, that these hidden dynamics in these private relationships get exposed only when there are people independently acting in the interests of children. So I believe very strongly that we need to proceed with great caution, but we will not be supporting this bill to the select committee and we will have to see significant change before we would change our mind further.

I welcome the opportunity to support the introduction of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill, which, as has already been noted, will be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee if it gains support at its first reading.

I have been listening very carefully to the concerns expressed by some Opposition members this evening. Some of them, I have to say, are unduly alarmist, but, nevertheless, I have taken them on board. I am pleased that they do support some of the bill’s provisions, but I just remind them that both of those aspects will undoubtedly attract submissions when the bill is referred to the select committee, so they will receive due consideration. For that reason, I have to say, I particularly reject Mr Goff’s fairly hysterical contribution and his criticisms that this measure is being rushed and is poorly conceived.

As the Hon Chester Borrows indicated when moving the first reading of this bill, it is an omnibus bill that is aimed at ensuring that a modern, accessible family justice system, responsive to children and to vulnerable people who come before it, will be in place to meet the ever-changing needs of modern families in our society. Those changes seem to be more dramatic each year and do put particular pressure on the courts and, of course, on the families themselves. So the bill unashamedly focuses on the needs of children—I think that is a good thing—first and foremost, rather than of those couples whose relationships have become strained. Important that those needs are, it is the needs of the children that are rightly being put centre stage when we consider this bill.

I commend the proposed establishment of the Family Disputes Resolution process—in fact, I am pleased to hear that most members seem to agree with that. It is aimed at supporting people to resolve their disputes, where that is possible and appropriate, out of court. It is so much better if that can be achieved out of court by agreement, rather than by some sort of court-imposed settlement. Where it is not appropriate or possible, of course, the bill focuses the Family Court on disputes that will require a judicial decision. That is logical. That is an appropriate evolution.

The changes proposed in the bill are designed to make the operation of the court more efficient and more effective. That has to be a good thing. They are designed to reduce or to mitigate the adversarial nature of Family Court proceedings. That has to be a very good thing, particularly where children are caught in the middle of heart-wrenching and often acrimonious disputes. Where we can avoid that, that has to be a good thing, and particularly, as Alfred Ngaro so passionately articulated during his very impressive contribution a short time ago, the bill is focused on improving the court’s response to victims of domestic violence.

I want to discuss a few of the features of the bill that may be of interest to those who are listening. What is changing here is that for some private matters people will be supported to resolve their disputes without the need to go to court. The Family Disputes Resolution process is focused on achieving lasting outcomes that the parties can accept and live by. It aims to give people the skills that they need to resolve problems. Surely, that is a healthy move. It is encouraging parents to be responsible for reducing the negative impact that their conflict has on the children involved. The process is better for children than going through the court system.

I want to conclude by assuring the House that the Justice and Electoral Committee will work to ensure that the bill’s admirable objectives are achieved. I repeat my support for its introduction this evening.

I understand the next call is a split call. I call Andrew Little.

It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. The thing is this: family law is, as we know, one of the most difficult areas of legal practice. It is not like a commercial dispute, where the parties might have some money or an asset at stake. It is not like an employment dispute, where somebody’s feelings might be hurt, or their dignity might be attacked, but they can be assuaged through reinstatement or through a compensatory payment. Family disputes go to the heart of who we are, and when family disputes erupt, people have a huge emotional interest at stake and they have offspring to consider, often a family home, and memories, and all those things that go with it. These are very difficult disputes. So we need to have in place an institution, a Family Court, and family institutions that will help parties of all types to get through their disputes.

It is interesting to read the regulatory impact statement—its analysis of the figures. It says that about 39 percent of the Family Court’s time at the moment is taken up with parental disputes—that would be about right—and that because they do not have accurate figures on how many disputes actually are fractious, difficult, and disputatious, they extrapolate from the English experience and say that about 10 percent of family disputes go to court and about 12 percent of those go on to a hearing. That is what we are talking about. So all this nonsense about how we will just let the parties sort it out themselves—the parties who are capable of sorting out their disputes themselves are already doing so, and they do not need to be patronised any further by an uncaring, unknowing Government that does not know what it is doing and has brought this ill-thought law to Parliament because it, actually, does not know what is going on.

We do not need to be patronised, either. But what we do need to make sure, if this Government is genuinely concerned about the children whose interests and livelihoods are at stake, is that they have a means to get their interests properly and independently advocated, and that they have an institution that will nurse parents, who will be experiencing all sorts of levels of difficulty, through a very difficult period. It will require professional reports and advice, and they will require their own advocates. Some will be difficult and some will be accommodating, and we need a system that can deal with all shapes and manner of those disputes.

So the reason why we are opposed to this legislation is that this is nothing other than a cost-saving device. This idea that fractious families will go off and sort it out themselves with the benefit of a mediator, without professional advice and professional reports, is just cloud-cuckoo-land stuff, and it will do more damage to young people, to children, and it will do more damage to the litigants. It is just something that we should not and cannot tolerate, if we are serious about the State playing its useful and constructive role and representing the public interest in family breakdown.

If any political party should know about the impact and consequences of serious family breakdown, I would have thought it would be the National Party, because it is a party where even the party president has had to suffer the experience of the Family Court and family breakdown. The idea that it will now be assisting families and, in particular, the children of families in breakdown with a $1,000 or more cost and fee is just absolute nonsense. So we are left with no option but to oppose the bill, because it is not about reforming the family disputes procedures. It is about putting up barriers, and it will not assist those families in breakdown in the period of significant need.

It is presumptuous of the bill, as it says that it presumes families can sort out these disputes themselves. It is presumptuous to do so. Families have to make the judgment. Individual parental parties have to make the judgment about when they need assistance and when they need advocacy, and the court must be in a position to afford and to accord representation to children at this time. When they are at their most vulnerable, when no one is thinking rationally, when everybody is driven by emotions and a sense of loss and grievance, that is when they need the most support, and the Family Court system must be able to do that. So the idea of limiting access to legal advice and support is just plainly ridiculous. For those reasons we will be opposing this bill.

I call David Clendon—a 5-minute call.

This Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is an important piece of legislation. The Family Court plays an important part in our judicial system. It plays an important social role in New Zealand. It is a more than 30-year-old institution and so it is entirely appropriate that we should have a review of its functioning to acknowledge its shortcomings and to seek better outcomes for those who are obliged to seek out its services.

We can modernise—yes, that is a good word—and a key focus, a word that keeps popping up in this bill, is “accessibility”. It is important that we have access to the court processes, but it is more important that people have access to justice, that people who are vulnerable have access to the protection of the State to which they are entitled, and that people’s well-being is protected. Access in that larger sense is something that perhaps is lacking in this bill, and that is one of the reasons we are unable to support it in its current form.

It is proposed that the court and its processes are not sufficiently focused. That is a fair criticism. The fact that some of the processes are poor—equally, these are reasonable criticisms and those we can take on board and seek good solutions for. But, sadly—and Mr Goff in his far from hysterical contribution made this key point—the primary driver of this bill seems to be the focus on cost-saving. We have this bald number thrown up: $84 million to $142 million, without an equivalent increase in applications. That is not a trivial sum of money, but there is not a lot of detail given us around that. I think if we drill into that we will find that perhaps the implication of this massive cost explosion is actually not particularly well warranted.

But, critically, it is almost an inevitable phenomenon of these sorts of cost-saving exercises that you end up not saving money but simply exporting costs. You find that the money that is saved in one place will be imposed elsewhere. If we create behavioural dysfunction and social dysfunction as a result of inadequate court provision of services, we will relocate those costs to elsewhere in the justice system, to the education system, to the welfare system. There will be no net saving in dollars and there is likely to be considerable net increase in cost imposed on individuals, on women, on children, and, indeed, on fathers who are involved in these processes as well. So let us not imagine for a minute that cost-saving in itself is a sufficient reason for the level of intervention and change that is being proposed here.

We are told that this obligation to go to a dispute resolution process will mean something like 1,200 cases coming to the court, and 2,000 children will not of necessity be exposed to a court process, which is unlikely to be a happy process for them. But, again, those comments are very superficial. The point has already been well made by Mr Little that there is rather an odd logic at work here. It is revealed in the regulatory impact statement the proposition that there is this flood of cases inappropriately coming to the court. We do not have the information. One of the key data sets that is missing is that we do not know what percentage of cases of separation actually come to the court, but we can assume it is around that 10 percent, based on evidence from the UK. So it is actually 12 percent of 10 percent. It is a very, very small proportion. And to suggest that there is, in fact, an overwhelming default to the court, that too few people are sorting out their own lives and their own business and the welfare of their kids, is simply not sustained by the information.

We have had already submissions directly from some key organisations: Relationships Aotearoa, the Association of Counsellors, and the Law Commission. It is unfortunate that some of those submitters have been accused of self-interest, the lawyers particularly. We know that lawyers typically rate around there with politicians and used-car salesmen in public perception, but I would argue that people who go into family law—lawyers who specialise in family law—are very unlikely to be motivated by personal wealth. If you want to make a lot of money in the legal profession, I suggest you would not be very bright if you chose family law as your area of expertise. We have highly capable, very committed people in the legal fraternity working on this stuff, and I think it is a fairly cheap shot to suggest that the lawyers are simply feathering their own nests.

It is my pleasure to take a call in the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill in its first reading tonight. I am going to take a brief call. I think this has been well debated already in this House and I look forward to the Justice and Electoral Committee and the submissions that we are going to hear in that process. I do want to respond to a couple of the comments that have been made already in this debate. Andrew Little, just before he sat down, talked about an unknown, uncaring Government that does not know what it is doing. Well, I am just looking at who spoke on this bill tonight from our side of the House and I would just like to let him know that we had the Hon Chester Borrows, who was a policeman for over 20 years and then a lawyer, speak first. We had Alfred Ngaro speak. He was an advocate in the Family Court and on many task forces appointed by both Governments. We have had Mark Mitchell speak on this, who also spent numerous years in the police force. Mike Sabin, who also spent numerous years in the police force, spoke on this, as did Tim Macindoe, who also has a law degree. So if we want to know about people who understand what they are talking about, look at this caucus, because we have got a true depth when it comes to law and order and justice. So when you say we are an unknown, uncaring Government that does not know what we are doing, you are absolutely wrong. I look forward to debating this further in the House and when it comes to our select committee. Thank you.