Family Court (Supporting Families in Court) Legislation Bill

I move, That the Family Court (Supporting Families in Court) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to just take the opportunity to respond to some of the points raised in the first reading debate on this bill. I know the Hon Mark Mitchell had raised concerns about this being a complete roll-back of the 2014 reforms. Actually, it isn’t that, and there is still scope for the family dispute resolution service, which was a feature of the 2014 reforms. For some families, that has worked, and the scope for that will continue, but the reality is, for a lot of families, what they most needed was access to advice and support from the outset so they understood what they were going to be facing, they could get advice about it, and, actually, what they most needed was a moderating voice and a source of advice so that things didn’t kind of fly unnecessarily out of control in what is a very emotional and difficult time for those going through it.

The member Chris Bishop raised three questions—two of them were really the same: what is the urgency and why Budget urgency? The fact is this: going into the COVID-19 lockdown, the Family Court already had a backlog, and by that time they already had the additional judicial capacity that was funded out of last year’s Budget. That was an additional eight judges with 80 percent of their time allocated to the Family Court. So that was considerable. But the court still had a significant backlog of cases. Throughout the level 4 and level 3 lockdown period, they were operating at around about 31 percent of capacity. There were a lot of applications that were lodged, and many cases that were due to be heard during that time that either could not be processed or could not be heard. So that backlog has now grown considerably.

We also, I think, on reasonably reliable information and understanding, expect that the consequence of the lockdown period—which for many families has been a blessing as an experience but for some families has been horrific—will be an increased demand and a call on the services of the Family Court. And so we are expecting a significant increase in demands on the time of the Family Court—really starting in the next two or three weeks. This bill will take effect from 1 July—the funding will take effect from 1 July and will enable parties to get access to that advice—and will, with the benefit of all of the other services that the Family Court has, not only clear the backlog but deal with those cases that will come up as a result. So this will deal with an intensification on the court’s time and services as a result of the COVID-19 lockdown and the existence of COVID-19.

Chris Bishop also asks: why no select committee? This change is very simple. And, in response to the member Harete Hipango, I say that—I know she referred to her former colleague Judge La-Verne King, who was a member of the three-panel group that put together the report—these changes in this bill are directly a recommendation of that report. In recommendations 46 and 47 of that report, they said, “Amend the Care of Children Act … by repealing section 7A, to allow people to have legal representation at all stages of proceedings”. Recommendation 47 says, “Amend the Legal Services Act 2011 by repealing section 7(3A) and providing for legal aid for [the] Care of Children Act … applications.” That report came out of a considerable consultation process conducted by that panel—over 100 meetings nationwide, several hundred submissions to that committee, an expert advisory group consisting of academics, specialists, practitioners, and those who work in the court but not on the legal side of it, and they came up with that recommendation. This is just a couple of the recommendations, out of many in that report, that we are now implementing. This has been exhaustively canvassed by people for whom this matters.

And I want to acknowledge again, if I could, too, the members of that panel—convened by Ros Noonan, and consisting also of Judge La-Verne King and Chris Dellabarca, a family lawyer operating here in Wellington—for producing that report. This is about making sure that, rather than good money being thrown after bad, actually making sure legal aid money that is spent in the Family Court jurisdiction is wisely spent so people get the advice and support they need so things don’t kind of get bogged down and fly out of control. One of the most troubling things you’ll hear judges saying is that the thing that takes up a lot of their time is having to assist unrepresented parties to make sure that they are fairly represented, that they get their information out, and that they don’t go down the various rabbit holes that it’s easy to go down in proceedings in the Family Court.

I said in the second reading of the 2014 reform bill—at that time—“The expectation that parents who are going through the dreadful, unfortunate, and traumatic experience of separation, particularly when they’ve 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 [the] advice on the legal effect or impact of what they’re doing, happily form some agreement over a period of time is just, frankly, bananas.” And I stand by that statement. These changes in this bill seek to reinstate some common sense, some practicality, to parties going through separation, going before the Family Court, so that they can make best use of their Family Court time and the services that are there and, hopefully, preserve what can be preserved for the benefit of their children. Really, the ones who are suffering the most as a result of those changes are children, who are going for longer and longer without the certainty of arrangements being agreed to or ordered by the court for their living arrangements.

I reject what the Hon Mark Mitchell said, which is that we just work a little bit harder on the system. There is a reality about the human factor here: when a critical part of their life, the person who they loved the most and formed a family with—when that falls apart, it is very distressing and very difficult and very emotional, and people ought to have assistance for that. Children ought to have a proper voice in that process, and that is to fulfil our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So this bill does that, and on that basis I once again commend it to the House.