Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill

I move, That the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill be now read a second time. The bill is an omnibus bill that amends nine Acts. The Acts to be amended include the Care of Children Act 2004, the Domestic Violence Act 1995, the Family Courts Act 1980, and the Legal Services Act 2011. The bill will implement the Government’s decisions that are based on the findings of a Ministry of Justice review of the family justice system in 2011. The reforms will ensure a modern, accessible, and sustainable family justice system—a system that supports the children and vulnerable people who most need the Family Court’s protection. The reforms are the first significant changes to the Family Court since it was introduced more than 30 years ago. The slow pace of resolving Family Court applications is creating additional pressures on children and families. Currently, Care of Children Act applications are taking, on average, 238 days to resolve; domestic violence cases are taking, on average, 117 days to resolve; and relationship property applications are taking well over a year, on average.

The bill emphasises the needs of children and vulnerable people in order to ensure ongoing support and protection for them. It clarifies the provisions relating to care of children cases involving allegations of violence, and improves the Family Court’s response to domestic violence. The bill encourages parents to resolve matters themselves. Families will be supported to reach agreements and resolve disputes outside of court. The successful and free Parenting through Separation course will be expanded, and a new out-of-court family dispute resolution, or FDR, service will be introduced.

The bill focuses the Family Court on resolving parenting disputes that require a judicial decision. It targets the use of professionals, including lawyers, to help resolve the more serious cases. To help people to independently navigate the court for more straightforward matters we will introduce improved information services, a simplified three-track court system, and easy-to-use forms. The Government believes that parties should contribute to the cost of a lawyer used in Family Court proceedings, unless this causes serious hardship. This view is reflected in the bill, which also allows regulations to cap the proportion of cost to be paid by parties.

The Justice and Electoral Committee has considered the bill. I thank the committee and officials and commend them for their efforts. There was significant public input into the bill. There were 386 written submissions, and the committee heard 217 oral submissions. I have listened very carefully during the committee process to submitters’ concerns. The modifications to the family justice reforms support the Government’s key priorities—a court that protects vulnerable people, provides fast and efficient resolution of private disputes, and puts the needs of children first. I am very comfortable with these changes, and I have received positive feedback from many in the family justice community.

The changes to the family justice reforms are to provide up to 4 hours of legal support prior to court entry for parents who meet the legal aid threshold, to provide up to 3 hours of preparatory counselling to help eligible parents to make the most of family dispute resolution, to enable a judge to refer parties back to family dispute resolution or Parenting through Separation courses if it is likely to help resolve the case, to enable lawyers to participate earlier in the court process at the judge’s discretion if they believe it would increase the chances of a successful resolution, and to enable provisions of the Act to be brought into force by Order in Council, as opposed to a specific date, to provide greater flexibility in implementing the reforms. Cabinet agreed in April to these changes, most of which are now incorporated into the bill as reported back to the House. Additional legal support and preparatory counselling will be provided operationally.

The bill as reported back provides Family Court judges with more options to help resolve disputes. Judges will be able to refer parties back to family dispute resolution or Parenting through Separation courses. Judges will be able to allow lawyers to participate earlier in the process, where they believe that it is going to help the chances of success. As a result of the changes to policy, parents may be provided with some initial legal advice prior to court entry. They may also be provided with some preparatory counselling to help them make the most of family dispute resolution. Currently, pre-court, taxpayer-funded counselling is available to anyone on request, for up to 3 hours. Under the reforms, the focus will shift from dealing with private relationship issues to resolving parenting issues and reducing conflict, for the benefit of children. Family dispute resolution will be free for the estimated 60 percent of participants below the income threshold for civil legal aid. For those over the threshold, the cost of family dispute resolution is likely to be less expensive than retaining a lawyer and proceeding to a defended court hearing.

The bill recognises that the Family Court should be one part of the wider system that helps families resolve issues. The court is often not the best means, though, for helping families settle disputes. The reforms in the bill are designed to support people to more quickly resolve disputes out of court, where appropriate. They will ensure that the court focuses on the most vulnerable and on the most serious matters. They will also bring much-needed clarity to court processes and rules. Users will have more certainty, and it will be easier for them to understand and navigate the court system.

It is always good, I think, for the House to remember, when children are involved, that their parents once, at one stage, loved each other so much that they decided to have children. I think that is something that sometimes gets lost in the Family Court system. As a lawyer with over 20 years’ experience, I have seen it happen time and time again that people’s best interests have not been put first but, actually, those of professionals have been. I believe that this bill will help reduce that situation. As a result of the bill, the Family Court will better meet the needs of families today by reforming a system that was introduced into a very different world more than 30 years ago. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to talk on the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill and to confirm that the Labour Party will oppose this bill. Far from providing a better process for parents separating and for protecting vulnerable parties—both adults and children—it will do the reverse. The Minister of Justice made a play for the emotions by saying that this bill deals with the situation where two adults who once loved each other so much that they had children now find themselves moving apart. Well, actually, it is exactly that fact and that situation that explains the intensity of emotion around separation for separating adults and, in particular, separating parents. That is where the practicality of this legislation, I think, is going to be put to the greatest test.

The origins of this bill were honourable in intention. There were delays in getting some cases dealt with and disposed of; there is no question about that. There were participants who were playing, and continue today to play, the game or to play the court system off against each other to express their anger or whatever else it is—the sociopathological behaviour that they might have towards each other. It is correct that court time is being used for arguably trivial matters, although, of course, in matters of human affairs and the human heart, one is very reluctant to accuse anybody of regarding the matters that are important to them as trivial. I think there is some substance to the allegation that perhaps the Family Court, which was conceived with the intention of creating an environment of conciliation, has moved away from that in many respects. So all those allegations and those complaints about the Family Court were known and are known.

In response to that, the Minister of Justice of the day, Simon Power, convened a conference of stakeholders at Parliament, and that thrashed out the issues. That led to the establishment of an expert reference group. That led to other consultation, and the end product was this bill, which has been modified only slightly as a result of the Justice and Electoral Committee process. The original bill included measures that were not, however, reflective of that consultative process. The select committee was put in the somewhat embarrassing position of having the expert reference group come as a group to make a submission to distance itself from the bill as it was originally drafted. That is not a particularly pretty picture for a select committee to have to confront. At the heart of the reforms is what is called the family dispute resolution process. A mediation approach to family disputes is not unknown to, or unusual for, the Family Court even today. One of the changes made under the previous Labour Government was to promote and encourage greater mediation. One of the things that the previous head of the Family Court, Peter Boshier, did was to allow this process of lawyer-led mediation, which meant that the judges did not have to get so heavily involved in it. That process has been remarkably successful. It is interesting that the select committee heard that between 75 percent and 85 percent of cases that are filed with the Family Court are resolved without the intervention of a judge. Nevertheless, this Government has gone ahead with its family dispute resolution process. The family dispute resolution process is a pre-litigation process. If a party files a matter or makes an application to the Family Court, it will then be mandatory to undergo the family dispute resolution process before the court will properly seize itself of the application, unless there is an allegation of violence or abuse involved and then there will be a fast-track process that will place it before a judge. But in the absence of that, and the vast majority of cases do not involve allegations of violence and abuse, there will be this mandatory process.

The parties—and they are parents, let us face it—will be expected to participate in the family dispute resolution process without representation and support during the process. One of the concessions that the Minister made, announced on Easter Saturday this year, was that there would be some pre - family dispute resolution legal advice allowable, particularly for those who do not have the means and are reliant on legal aid. Legal aid will be available to those who need advice prior to the resolution process, as, indeed, there will be some counselling as well, bearing in mind that the amount of counselling available to separating parents was reduced at the end of last year from six sessions now down to three. Those three sessions will continue under this regime for the purpose of preparing parties for family dispute resolution.

In cases where the care of children is an issue, the separating parents will be expected to represent the best interests of the child or children in that situation. There will be restrictions on the appointment of counsel for the child. That is one of the issues that concerns us the most, not only because of our international obligations on the rights of children and their rights to be heard in judicial processes that concern them but because it is simply impractical for parents in the heat of and the intensity of separation to be able to properly represent the best interests of a child or children involved in that separation. It is just impractical for many parents. Indeed, the evidence that the select committee heard from parents who had been through the process was the important role that counsel for the child played in assisting mediation between the separating parents, which is something that counsel for the parents could not easily do. The role that counsel for the child played became a very pivotal role, indeed—a mediating role and a brokering role—between the other parties. That was the evidence that the select committee heard.

This bill will take that away. It will place on the shoulders of the facilitators, who will be registered and go through the processes—in addition to trying to get the parents to talk to each other in the intensity of this very difficult, emotional period—a focus on their view about the best interests of the child. And, guess what, we can predict it now. Separating parents will have a different view about what the best interests of the child are, and there will be no mediating influence at all. I want to read what the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says in this regard. Article 9 talks about ensuring that children shall not be separated from their parents against their will except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine. That includes where “Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.” Article 9 goes on to say in paragraph 2: “In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.” This legislation runs directly counter to it, because the children involved will not be represented in any discussion about where they should go.

Article 12 goes on to provide that “State Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.” Paragraph 2 of Article 12 goes on to say: “For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body,”. This bill does not provide for that. This bill places us in direct contravention of that United Nations convention. That is one of the reasons we are opposing the bill.

We are opposing it also because it is simply impractical. The expectation that parents who are going through the dreadful, unfortunate, and traumatic experience of separation, particularly when they have been together for a long time, have amassed assets together, and have formed a family together, will be able to, with the assistance of a single facilitator and without the benefit of advice on the legal effect or impact of what they are doing, happily form some agreement over a period of time is just, frankly, bananas. It is off the planet and it is out of this world. It is for that reason that we simply do not see that this bill is going to achieve the so-called efficiencies that the Minister thinks that it will.

There is no question in my mind that this bill is driven by fiscal considerations. It is not driven by practical considerations about what is needed for the effective resolution and disposal of family disputes. For the avoidance of any doubt, let me make it very clear that on the Labour side we believe that the State does have an interest in effective family dispute resolution. That is why we have a Family Court. That is why, in 1980, the Government established a Family Court. Everything this bill does runs counter to that notion, and that is why we are opposed to the bill.

It is a pleasure to stand and rise in the second reading debate of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill in the name of the Minister of Justice, the Hon Judith Collins. As chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee I am more than a little disappointed to hear the comments from Andrew Little, the previous speaker. I think that, probably, what we have heard from him today really goes to the core of the differences between how members on this side of the House see people’s individual private lives and their ability to solve their own issues, versus members on that side of the House, where they take the view that the State must be in control of every aspect of people’s lives. We would accept that the State does have a role, but, as a first priority, people should be allowed to and encouraged to sort their affairs out for themselves in a way that is going to be far more productive to them than going to court. The evidence is overwhelming. The evidence is overwhelming that if couples can sort out their matrimonial relationship issues out of court, then that proves to be a better result every time.

This bill aims to ensure a modern and accessible family justice system. As the Minister said in her address, it is the first major, significant reform of our Family Court system in the more than 30 years since it was established. I would like to thank the Minister for her careful consideration of the submissions that were received by the committee. I would also like to thank the other committee members, because I think that, notwithstanding our political differences and our philosophical differences, the committee did an exceptionally good job. There were 386 written submissions, and we heard 217 oral submissions. That is a big piece of work for a select committee to do. I wanted to thank members for their patience and for their careful considerations of all the submissions. We heard evidence in Wellington here, in Auckland, and in Christchurch. The committee’s recommendations changed significantly the first draft of the bill, and I think that indicates that in fact the select committee system can work very well when there is an opportunity to allow it to do so in a way that produces better legislation.

The changes that have been incorporated into the bill, for instance, will provide up to 4 hours of legal support before entry into the courts for parents who meet the legal aid threshold. The bill will provide up to 3 hours of preparatory counselling for eligible parents, so that they can make the most of the family dispute resolution process. A judge will be empowered to refer parties back to family dispute resolution or the Parenting through Separation course if it is likely to help resolution. These are all steps designed to bring about a good solution for the people and the children involved. Lawyers will be able to get involved earlier in the court process, at the judge’s discretion, if that would increase the chances of a successful resolution. Provisions of the bill will be able to be brought into force by an Order in Council, as opposed to a set date, and that is to enable a more flexible approach in terms of implementing the reforms that the bill contains.

This bill has its genesis arising out of serious concerns about issues that users of the Family Court have made clear over such a long period of time. We heard some evidence from people, some of it in secret and some of it in private, and that evidence was harrowing. The sorts of concerns that people have, the type of time frame that is taken, and the amount of money involved are very, very scary. So this bill really is based on trying to make the system better and to get better outcomes. There was a review, and the review found that although the complicated court process can cause lengthy delays, that was probably no surprise to the people who have had experience of being involved in the Family Court. People know that it is adversarial, that it places stress on already stressed relationships and situations, that it is negative for the children involved, and that it is not focused enough on their needs.

I commend this bill to the House. It is a significant advancement in the course of our Family Court system. The process will ensure better outcomes. I reject completely the suggestions from the Labour Party lead on this, who said that in fact it will cause problems. This is a bill designed to create solutions rather than problems. Thank you.

I believe that this legislation, the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill, represents a very serious retrograde step in the history of the Family Court. I remember when the Family Court legislation was passed. I think it was back in 1980. I do not have the information in front of me, but I was completing my law degree at the time. There was a lot of interest in the Family Court—[Interruption] Yes, I know. I was just a child. The point was that the Family Court course was changing because the law was changing, and that was the point I wanted to make. It certainly was designed, as we said in our minority report, “… with its jurisdiction covering care of children, domestic violence and property matters, with a high degree of state assistance provided to the parties, [signalling] an important policy principle: the state has an interest in effective and just resolution of family disputes.” That is what the law was based on.

Apart from the money-saving driver that really is behind this bill, the ideology that lies underneath it is that family disputes are private matters. Two adults whose marriage, civil union, or relationship is unravelling cannot expect to call on the State for any support in resolving the disputes that necessarily arise in such a case, and potentially the conflict that arises. Of course, we all know that conflict can be healthy. How one manages conflict is really the primary consideration. The Minister of Justice made it very clear in her comments that it was really up to private individuals to deal with their private disputes, and that that was not an issue for the State.

The chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, I will say, has chaired the process extremely well, but we do disagree on this matter. It is not a matter purely for private consideration, and I do not think that the divide is as he stated it to be. He said that the Government has a view that a family dispute is private and the Government should stay out of it, and therefore the opposite is that Labour believes that we have an interest in the private context. No, we do not. It is the peaceful resolution of the dispute—it is the conflict resolution—that is very much in the public interest. That is the public good and that was what the counselling services that were made available—six sessions per couple for free, funded entirely by the State—were for.

I think that that public good could actually be framed by reference to the legislation from the Family Proceedings Act at the time, which had the focus of everyone on reconciliation and conciliation. That really does put a line underneath what is the most fundamental aspect of the Family Court legislation as it was established more than 30 years ago. It was also very much focused on ensuring that the best interests of the parties were able to be served, in dealing with what was a difficult situation. When we go to the regulatory impact statement, we find why the Government wants to get rid of the six free counselling sessions. As my colleague Andrew Little has already said, that was reduced to three sessions, and it is down to one session, I think, in October. We discover in the regulatory impact statement why we are getting rid of the counselling sessions. It is not because we do not like people sorting out their own disputes; it is because it is costing $9.7 million—$9.7 million. That is the reason for getting rid of the counselling provisions. Nowhere in the regulatory impact statement can I find what the absence of free counselling sessions will cost in the medium term or the long term.

Reduced relationship breakdowns—we have been told that there were a number of couples who reconciled as a result of the free counselling, and that, of course, there are flow-on effects to children as a result of relationship breakdown and how that is managed. Agreed day-to-day care arrangements, more understanding about the relationship, more ability to cope, less disputes between separating parents—the list goes on and on. I could go on to the intergenerational impact, because we know that relationship breakdown has an ongoing effect with children. We know that domestic violence is intergenerational. All of these issues are matters that should be the subject of the regulatory impact statement, but the regulatory impact statement is very short-sighted. It is interested only in how much cost is going into counselling at the moment. It does not seem that the Government is really interested in the long-term costs. It is really about individual Ministers who are interested in reducing their budgets in the here and now, and it does not really matter that a future Government will have to pay the price in another Minister’s budget down the track.

The process for changing this law was excellent. It was the best process that you could possibly imagine. Members might have heard me commenting on a previous bill about how important it is to get people around the table to look at the evidence and to actually bring the experts to the table—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, not that evidence again!

I know that an evidence-based approach is not popular with the Government, but I do think that it has got something to offer us as a nation. What happened was that the Government released a discussion document and the Minister got together with the profession, the academics, the officials, and the NGOs. Everyone who was anyone in the whole area came to the table or actually came to Parliament—to the Legislative Council Chamber—where they held an in-depth conference where they workshopped the issues, where they traversed the issues, where there was good, healthy debate and understanding. Out of that there was an expert reference group established.

So what could possibly go wrong? What could possibly go wrong when such a good process was established? Well, I think the requirement to cut money out of the justice budget is what went wrong. An online survey was given more weight than the expert advice, and that is unfortunate, to say the least. What we ended up with was legislation that pretended that early legal advice does not make a difference to people’s behaviour. We had lawyers, but not just lawyers; we also had some of their clients—previous litigants—who came to us and said that they understood that their rights were quite different, until they had received advice from their lawyer. There were a lot of men who felt that the Family Court was biased against men, against male litigants. There were a lot of women who assumed that they were automatically entitled to have day-to-day care of their child. There were a number of misconceptions that were remedied in that first consultation with the lawyer.

Then, second, we heard what happened. These clients had the initial conversation with the lawyer and then the lawyer would refer them off for counselling—as I say, reconciliation and conciliation. There were a number of lawyers who told us that they saw people for that initial advice, they sent them off for counselling, and they never saw 95 percent of them ever again. That is because the counselling service works. It might cost $9.7 million, but it is incredibly effective. So why would we remove the one thing that is known to be effective and replace it with something—the family dispute resolution process—that we do not know the detail of? And, actually, we will make people pay for that and we will actually indicate that that could be as much as $900 for X number of sessions because we do not even know the number of sessions that we will pay for either. That is nuts. Why would you throw out what works and replace it with the unknown, unless all you cared about was saving the money up front, instead of thinking of the long-term consequences.

The cases that came back had a range of problems that were highly complex. So, basically, the Government wants to see only those cases going to the court and everything else being dealt with in family dispute resolution before they can come near the court. I think the trouble with that is that it ignores the dynamics of a relationship in meltdown—completely ignores it—especially where one has already made the decision to move on and has maybe entered into another relationship. We heard that from submitter after submitter after submitter. It depends where you are at. Whether your husband comes home and says: “I’m leaving you for the person I’ve been having an affair with for the last 15 years.”, or, the other way round, the woman comes home and says: “By the way, I’m leaving you for the person I’ve been having an affair with.”, the bottom line is that these are enormously emotional, difficult issues for people to face up to. These people actually need support, and power imbalances can be extremely well hidden when they do not know who is on their side. At least when they have a lawyer sitting with them, they know that they have got somebody who is on their side whom they can tell everything to, and we can get good results.

I think this bill has a lot of problems within it, and that is why the Labour Party will not be supporting it.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Let us just be really clear about who the people are who will be most affected by this Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill and its attack on the rights of New Zealanders to access genuine justice. Because that is what the Family Court has been designed to do: to provide for those most vulnerable New Zealanders, particularly women and their children, access to a system that can provide them with genuine justice and support, particularly in circumstances where their lives and their well-being are threatened.

First, let us have a look at some of the numbers in this country. One in every three women in this country has suffered some form of psychological or physical abuse from their partners—one in every three. There are around 2.25 million women in this country, so we are talking about 750,000 women in this country who have suffered from some form of psychological or physical violence at the hands of their life partners. There are 14 women, six men, and 10 children killed by a family member every year in this country. They are women, men, and children who are living in unsafe environments in their own home who are killed by a member of their family because they could not escape.

The police attend around 200 domestic violence incidents every single day. That is around one incident every 7 minutes in this country—200 a day; one every 7 minutes. That means that a women, most likely, or a child, often as well, is in a situation where their life and their well-being are being threatened by someone who most likely lives with them in their own home. The cost to the public purse of these statistics is somewhere around $8 billion a year. Those are the costs of the police. Those are the costs of failed housing because a person has to run—a mother, particularly, with her children—from an abusive partner. It is the costs of the hospitals dealing with the beatings and the bruises. It is the costs of loss of schooling for the children who are suffering in these circumstances.

What institutions do we have that make it possible to help reduce these appalling numbers in this country? What options do women and children have when it comes to finding someone who will help not only with the practical issues of finding somewhere else to live, securing an income, and getting on with their lives but with making sure that the legal arrangements that they must provide in order for their kids to do well and be settled are available to them? What are those legal avenues open to them? It is the Family Court, actually. The Family Court is the only legal avenue for these women and children—some 750,000, arguably, in this country—who need to know that they have a legal institution that they can go to that is accessible to them, that provides justice for them, and that provides services for them and their children, so that when they are in really difficult circumstances where they fear for their safety and well-being, they have some legal protection.

So what does this Government do with the institution that is designed to protect these women and these children? What does Judith Collins, so-called Minister of Justice, do with this institution? She complicates it enormously from the process that is available currently, she increases the cost significantly for the women who are trying to access justice and support, and she cuts access to legal advice and support for exactly those women. And what does she say? How does she justify this? She justifies this on cost-cutting grounds, when she knows—she must know, just as I do, from the statistics—that it costs about $8 billion a year to deal with the consequences of this kind of family violence that occurs. She must know that the fewer the women who are able to access the Family Court to get justice and real legal protection when they need it, the more the cost to the public will increase.

But, you know, she would rather see that $8 billion being spent on fixing up the bruises and repairing the broken bones than on providing counselling sessions or providing a lawyer for the child or making sure that women are able to access free legal advice that they can then use to protect themselves and their kids in the Family Court. She would much rather see that cost being borne by the public overall than make sure that the Family Court is able to provide genuine justice and support to the women, families, and children who need it the most.

This bill is an appalling piece of legislation. We have known that from the start. In fact, when the Minister put out the proposals for this review, the legal profession was horrified by what she was trying to do, because of the cost that their clients would bear, not just in money but in terms of the safety and well-being of the clients who desperately need legal support and justice to protect them from some of the worst violence and the worst circumstances.

Let us have a look at some of the provisions. It is now going to cost families around $1,000 in order to access the compulsory family dispute resolution service. The median-income family in this country has around $2,000 in the bank. That is a couple with a couple of kids and they are doing OK, right? They have got a couple of thousand dollars, maximum, in the bank, on average. Yet this Government wants to take, in effect, half of those annual savings that these families have got in the bank in order to pay for family dispute resolution services that have been provided for free in the past, and that are asked for and sought because these parents and these families are wanting to find a way to resolve their issues so that they do not continue to bear the costs of a failed relationship or a difficult circumstance.

What does Judith Collins do? She makes them pay up. “Give us the cash.”, she says. The bureaucratic costs will be imposed on these families. Report writing costs will be imposed on these families. The costs of the lawyer for the child will be imposed on these families. Where do children get access to justice when they do not get access to genuine legal support? Judith Collins has decided to take away legal advice for our most vulnerable citizens. She says that somehow this is a good thing, and that it is going to provide better access to genuine justice for children. No, it is not. We all know that the whole process of court can be a very complicated one, and that it does often need real skill and understanding of how to navigate through any legal process. Yet that has been denied to the women and, particularly, to the children of this country because Judith Collins has such a mean approach to the real costs that families bear when there is a relationship breakdown.

I have said before that the Green Party opposes this legislation, and I agree with other colleagues who again have also stated their clear opposition to this legislation. This Government intends to take dollars, take money—desperately needed money—from the most vulnerable families while, in the process, denying them the justice to which they are entitled. She will do it with a smile, no doubt, and try to sell it as being a good thing for our country and for our kids. At the end of the day, the one in three women who we know have suffered some form of abuse by their partners, and their children, many thousands of their children, whom these women are trying to protect from the worst circumstances of domestic violence, are the ones who bear the cost of this legislation. It is a disgrace.

E rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou. Ki aku nui, ki āku rahi, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the esteemed of a hundredfold, greetings to you collectively. To all my superiors and numerous, hello there.]

That speech by Metiria Turei was probably the worst grandstanding speech heard in this House for over 50 years, or by me as a new member. What concerns me is that that member can walk out of the House and can make those assertions. Yet if she was really serious about doing something about it, she would have subbed on to the Justice and Electoral Committee, she would have heard over 270 oral submissions, and she would have made a contribution that makes a difference. Instead, we just heard a whole lot of gobbledegook. But what is of most concern is that she uses the statistics of everyday men, women, and children who are suffering under family violence, and what the Minister of Justice has done in her wise leadership is look at a bill that will actually address these issues.

In April 2011 Cabinet directed the Minister of Justice to undertake a review of the Family Court. This included the concerns raised by the public, judges, lawyers, and counsellors. This was a wide consultation of all those key stakeholders, and this is what they said. They found that the Family Court was adversarial at times, placing additional stress on already strained relationships; it was negative for children and not focused enough on their needs; it was not focused enough on the most serious cases of domestic violence that were talked about; it spent too much time on simple, private matters that are better resolved outside of court; and it was too complex and too difficult to resolve these disputes. The purpose, then, of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill is to ensure a modern and accessible for families justice system that is responsive to children and vulnerable people, and is effective in that regard. We have heard about the growing costs over there, rising up to 70 percent—from about $84 million to $142 million—and yet the number of applications for court proceedings has been lower.

I want to just actually talk about some of the concerns that have been raised. I note that Mr Little talked about Christchurch, where we heard some of the submissions. He regarded it as a bit of a shame that we heard from one of the members of the expert panel, which was Mr Garry Collin. He spoke there. In fact—I want to give the fullness of that story—he talked about the good things in the bill and the intent of the bill. He applauded that. There was one aspect that he was concerned about, which was new section 7A. So I just want to give the full picture. You are absolutely right, Mr Little; there were concerns. But there were also some areas that the expert panel of judges, of those in the judicial system, and of counsellors as well, who actually gave an overall picture around recommendations that have been followed through.

Just very quickly, Family Court lawyers said: “The new system is a complex maze of procedures with different entry points, criteria and exemptions.” So here is the response that is coming through from this bill. The reforms will support people to resolve disputes out of court where appropriate. Improved information services, simplified contracts, and easy-to-use forms will be available to help people navigate the parts of the court system independently. The bill still removes the right of a party to choose to be legally represented in all Family Court processes, which was also talked about. In court, people can have a lawyer represent them in complex matters, such as for a defended hearing or without-notice applications. Judges will be able to allow lawyers to participate early in the court process if it would increase the chances of successful resolution.

The reform was talked about in regards to counsellors. I know about and have supported the work of the counsellors, as was talked about by Mrs Dalziel, and the importance of their role. So there is a concern at the reduction in the level of counselling. We heard from Relationships Aotearoa in its submission. It talked about the fact that counsellors were contracted for four sessions, but they were averaging three sessions in all. So here is the response from this bill and from the select committee. Currently, pre-court taxpayer-funded counselling is available to anyone on request for up to 3 hours. Under the reforms, the current focus on private relationship issues will be replaced by a focus on resolving parenting issues and reducing conflict for the benefit of the children.

I also want to commend the Minister, the chairman of the select committee, and members of the select committee, because we went the extra mile. We actually even had a session on Parenting through Separation. We saw the importance of this role around information that was given, so that the impact on children was clearly understood by parents in that situation.

My final comments are this. We know that children are often at the heart of these matters. They are the ones who are most vulnerable. These reforms are designed in a way to improve the system, for it to be accessible. Where possible, where these disputes can be addressed outside of the court system, they should be. That is simply what we are doing here. We are responding to the concerns and ensuring that there is a clear and direct process that is accessible. We hope and we know that it will truly make a difference to the lives of these children, who often go through very difficult circumstances. I commend this bill to the House.

At the first reading of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill I thought that, overall, it was a good bill, but I said then that the devil would be in the detail and, in particular, in the costs that it would impose for the out-of-court processes. I said that the bill would fail to attract cross-party support if those issues were not reviewed, and that New Zealand First would then have to reconsider its support.

We in New Zealand First have carefully examined the detail of the bill, and we have listened to the very large number—over 200—of extremely well-argued submissions in various parts of the country. We initially supported the overall thrust of the bill, which was claimed to be as follows. Firstly, it would encourage faster and less expensive resolution for broken families who have issues concerning the custody and care of children, by requiring parties to participate in a new family dispute resolution process instead of having to go to court for determination unless that was necessary, especially in cases of family violence. Also, lawyers were not to represent parties at family dispute resolution, but were able to give initial advice if a party was on legal aid.

The bill would focus the Family Court on matters genuinely needing a court decision, where protection of vulnerable people and children were prioritised. It would encourage parties to take responsibility for their own arrangements concerning the care of their children where possible. The bill would also seek to reduce the exacerbation of family disputes by making it not so easy to get to court, because legal proceedings often make relationships worse, but, of course, the court would still be there as a backstop.

The bill would also seek to be more responsive to the victims of family violence. We note that the bill expands the definition of “psychological abuse”, increases the maximum sentence for this from 2 to 3 years, and improves delivery of mandatory non-violence programmes. The intention overall was to make the Family Court more efficient and cost-effective by refocusing its resources. It was always clear that the major objectives were to save money and also, of course, to speed up court applications by reducing the court’s rapidly increasing workload.

But New Zealand First’s support was always on the condition that, firstly, access to lawyers and to legal aid was preserved from the beginning of a dispute, including the family dispute resolution process; and that, secondly, access would be provided to publicly funded counselling prior to family dispute resolution—and that means preservation of the full system of counselling, not just 3 hours—and, of course, that the costs of the proposed family dispute resolution process would need to be reasonable, that children’s rights to separate representation would need to be preserved, and that the effect of the bill would have to be to reduce and not increase power imbalances that would result from a party having financial means, whether privately or through legal aid, that the other party did not have.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.