Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill

I do not want to unduly delay the Committee and dwell unnecessarily on parts of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. These are largely technical provisions here. I think what is clear from the provisions, and what they illustrate, is the continuing transfer of the cost of the administration of family justice to the participants themselves. It reflects a flavour that is going right through this bill—and it has been commented on already in the debate on the bill today—and that is the departure from the principle that the State has a stake in the effective administration of family disputes and that the State has an interest in ensuring that family disputes are resolved to the best degree possible, in a way that preserves and protects the interests of children, and in a way that preserves the dignity of the parents or the separating couple.

This bill is all about transferring cost. In all the pieces of legislation referred to in Part 5, which is all about applications relating to aspects of a family separation—so that is the Child Support Act, for example, and other aspects of the Family Courts Act—any time the interests of a party, particularly children, need to be represented and there is the power to appoint counsel to assist, there is now an accompanying provision to effectively transfer, or at the very least share, the cost of that. That is the whole flavour of this bill.

So when my colleagues said in their contributions, much to the chagrin of the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, that this bill is about cutting costs to the State and about transferring costs and transferring risk, this part of the bill bears that out. That is exactly what this piece of legislation is all about. It is about the State saying, irrespective of the increase in the costs of family dispute resolution, that it does not want to take responsibility any more. It is not good enough for the Minister to say “Oh, there’s been the huge blowout in costs.”, without explaining actually what has happened. There are more parties to family disputes and separations participating actively in that process.

Once upon a time, even 10 years ago, very few men actually actively participated in a lot of these proceedings and exercised their rights of representation, whereas now that is happening. There is a fathers’ rights movement, a men’s movement, that has become more active—some would say more aggressive—in ensuring that men as partners in dissolving relationships start to get heard, in some cases make a fuss, and in some cases, which I think is what the Minister was adverting to in her comments, make what some might describe as an unnecessary fuss, or to at least be litigious. Whatever the reason—and it is not for us gainsay the motives of people who are asserting their legal rights, want to have an active role to play in their children’s lives, and are taking steps to ensure that that happens—that largely explains what has been happening in the Family Court jurisdiction over the last 10 years, and why the cost has blown out.

That is why this legislation is passed with this kind of headline motivation, which is “We’ve got to cut costs.”, without actually looking at what those costs have been going into. It has seen more family separations resolved in the interests of both parents and of the children, and that is the difference. This part deals with ensuring that the cost of any other application under any other piece of legislation that involves representation of the children now be shared. So impecunious parents who might otherwise rely upon legal aid, at least for their own representation, may now find themselves saddled with the cost, or the share of it, for counsel for the child, or even counsel assisting the court. There is that right if the court is concerned that any party is unrepresented and the court needs assistance, or if the issues are complex.

I know the Minister said that the issues of family law are not that complex. But, actually, the legislation says, yes, there are complex issues, and the court might need assistance, which is why a lawyer might be appointed to assist the court. Well, this says that that cost will be apportioned between the parties, as well. This part of the legislation, Part 5, is all about demonstrating that whole thing about transferring the cost to the parties. I do not know what the Minister is doing, whether she is playing Angry Birds or googling Marjorie Proops or what it is, but she might listen, to hear—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: That’s insulting. I don’t do that.

I am not quite sure what the insult is in playing Angry Birds. I am sure at least half the members of the Committee probably do it at some stage, if they were honest with themselves. If the Minister admitted to playing Angry Birds, she would go down, at least with some part of the population, as hip and with it. But if she does not want that, that is all right. If she wants to present a different image, that is entirely up to her.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: What’s the image?

Well, I can have a guess as to what the image is. I want to say this about Marjorie Proops, because I do not want her name insulted. I do not want Marjorie Proops’ name insulted in this Committee. She was a long-standing—over many decades—contributor to the Daily Mail. I do not think it was The Daily Telegraph; I think it was the Daily Mail. She dispensed advice to couples and to others for many, many years, and was highly regarded, at least in the United Kingdom. I do not think anybody should take her name in vain, nor should anybody who is likened to her think that that should be regarded as an insult.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Was someone doing that? Was someone taking her name in vain?

Her name was mentioned and somebody took offence. I think that was a problem.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: How could you take offence?

I do not know how you could possibly take offence at being compared with dear old Marjorie Proops. But that gets off the point—only a little bit, but it does get off the point.

The point that I wish to make is this. Part 5 is really the culminating aspect of the entire bill. It is all about cutting costs. It is about transferring costs to the families at a time when they are distressed, when they are in emotional trauma, and when they need assistance the most. They need a court that does not just know the law but is empathetic and sympathetic to those who are coming before it. That is what defines the Family Court. That is why it has been a good court for the last 30 years and why the measures in this legislation, which are about gutting the important role of the court and transferring the costs to parties who are facing the trauma of a dissolved relationship, mean that life is just going to get much harder. That is why we are deeply distressed at the provisions in this bill, why we are opposed to it, and why we will continue to oppose it. It is disappointing that the Minister, in spite of all the good advice she has received, including from the expert reference group and, indeed, from members of this side of the Chamber, persists with a piece of legislation that is going to be bad for families and bad for New Zealand as a whole.

Taloha ni, Mr Chairperson. Thank you very much for the chance to take a very quick call on Part 5 of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill, because I do not want to delay the proceedings of the Committee too much. That would be unfortunate. Just looking at Part 5, it does refer to the appointment of lawyers to represent children in proceedings. I thought that it would be a shame to have a part in this bill where the Labour Party does not refer to the regulatory impact statement, because it has been a very important document to prove our argument that this bill is not necessarily about making life easier for Kiwi families, but is actually around the cutting of costs. Page 13 quite helpfully helps us illustrate that, because it does talk about the targeted use of lawyers for children. In a very kind of bureaucratic way—I do not mean to say that to the detriment of any bureaucrats—it talks about changing “the way the Court appoints lawyer for child”. Moving along from the description of what they are trying to do and going straight to the financial implications, because that is what this is all really about for the Government, at least, the statement says that the estimated cost savings for changing the way that the court appoints lawyers for our children is $12.4 million per year, based on 2010-11 expenditure. So there you have it—another big whack of cash that the Government has saved. I guess if you think about the motivation for the Government and for the Minister of Justice, it has done its job, because $12.4 million has been saved by cutting children’s access to legal representation.

We have already heard from the submission of the Christchurch Family Court judges in the previous part, but I did want to just take another part of their submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee, because I think it is very telling what these judges were saying about the changes that are contained in this bill. I am quoting from their submission now, where they said: “Although the Bill contains reasonable powers for a Judge to appoint a lawyer to represent children, our concern is that control of their role and remuneration is transferred from the Family Court to the Legal Services Agency. We foresee they will be confined by regulations which are not part of this Bill but which would be enabled by it.” I just want to repeat what they said about the role of children’s lawyers in Family Court disputes. They said that the lawyers are “the machinery which enable us to make safe and appropriate decisions for children. They are the eyes and the ears of the Court. Without full participation, when needed, of the child’s lawyers, Judges will not be confident they can make the decisions which keep children safe.”

One of the more crass things that I have heard from the Minister this night is an attack on lawyers—about this being some kind of gravy train for them. When this piece of legislation was introduced, lawyers in my patch in Porirua were very, very fast to come to me and say: “We have grave concerns about what is in this piece of legislation.”, not because they thought their incomes were going to be affected, but because they knew that the changes within this bill would adversely affect the people that the law is meant to help: Kiwi families. They knew that the fee of $900 for the family dispute resolution service would be restrictive and would stop people accessing justice at one of the most vulnerable times of their lives. They knew that restricting the situations where children can have lawyers appointed for them would also take away the children’s voice in these disputes.

I did just want to—if I can find it in time—take a quote from a story that was in the media when this bill was first introduced. It is a very quick quote from Professor Mark Henaghan from Otago University. He said, around reducing the access to lawyers for children: “If we take their representation out, [then] we doom them not to be heard.”—then we doom them not to be heard. I think that is a very telling statement from someone in the legal profession who has got a lot of credibility about what this Government is doing for the voice of children in the legal process. The Government knows that children will not necessarily have a voice in this place. They will not necessarily turn up to make a submission to the select committee, so the Government is quite happy to take away their legal representation to save, per year, $12.4 million to meet the requirements of the Government’s motivation around this piece of legislation. I say to that Government: shame on it. If it is quite happy to take away the voice of the children—[Bell rung]—I said it was going to be short—in the Family Court proceedings, then I say the Government should front up to the Law Society and to those people who have submitted against this bill, say why it is quite happy to do that, and say why it is quite happy to take away their representation and doom their children not to be heard.

Again—I want to stress this point, because the Minister has made this point a number of times when she has made contributions to this debate—she says that this bill is about the care and protection of children. Well, I am not buying that. A lot of people who have submitted to the Justice and Electoral Committee are not buying that. This bill is not about kids. It is about cutting costs. It is about cuttings costs, and $12.4 million has been cut from the bill to make sure that there is legal representation for the kids by making these changes. We are very concerned about the access to justice for those kids and their families, because this Government seems to think it is OK to take money away from low-income families, as the regulatory impact statement has said, who need to access justice, and it is quite happy to give it to big business when it suits it, with the likes of Rio Tinto and with the likes of Skycity, and to also hock off our State-owned assets. It is all fun and games when there are millions concerned and it is bringing the money in, but for the little people out there who need some help in tough times, this Government does not care about them. It is quite happy to penny-pinch when it is people who are vulnerable and in difficult times, going through separations, but when it is big business, it is quite happy to write out the big cheques.

That is the kind of Government we have right now. That is the kind of Government we have right now. It will quite happily nip and tuck at people who are in vulnerable situations, who are on low incomes—[Interruption]—sorry, I will take that back—who are in Family Court disputes, but when it comes to big business and that comes knocking, the Government will quite happily write out the cheques. Mr Tau Henare probably is not happy about this privately. He is not happy about it privately, but he is going to have to go along with the flow because he knows that the people that he represents as a list MP in West Auckland will come to him and say: “Tau, this is not on. This is not on.”

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Oh, that subtle put-down, eh? That subtle put-down.

Oh, just being factual. They know—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member must use the honourable member’s full name.

Mr Tau Henare will know that he will have people coming to his office saying: “Tau, why can’t my kids access legal representation in this situation?”, and Tau will have to front up and say: “Because we are cutting costs.” They will say: “But we read the paper and Judith Collins said this is about caring for kids.” Well, the truth of the matter is that it is not. It is about cutting costs, not caring for Kiwi families. I think that is borne out by the fact that this Government seems to care more about corporates than it does about Kiwis. Thank you very much.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 5 be agreed to.