Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present the legislative statement on the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

💬 Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: I move, That the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

I thank all the members in this House for their contributions to the debate on this bill. I acknowledge my predecessor the Hon Andrew Little for initiating this work under the previous Government.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why?

💬 Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Because he was a good man. The importance of improving the process for children and their whānau when they’re going through the separation process cannot be overstated. This bill forms part of the Government’s commitment to getting things right for children and young people. It is one important step towards a family justice system that is more accessible, safe, and responsive, where all the parties have a voice. It supports the Government’s Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy, particularly our aim for New Zealand to be a place where children and young people are loved, safe, and nurtured.

The bill emphasises the importance of the child’s right to participate and of engaging children appropriately in processes that affect their care. It will help ensure that children feel supported, safe, and informed as they move through the Family Court. The academic literature is clear about the benefits of appropriate and safe participation, both for children and for decisions made about them. Studies show that providing children with opportunities to participate can help parents focus on the needs of their children rather than their own conflict. It can also help children adjust to their parents’ separation.

There can be both medium- and long-term consequences for children who are not listened to. The immediate effects include feelings of isolation and loneliness, anxiety and fear, sadness, confusion, anger, and difficulty coping with stress. Longer-term effects include a deterioration in closeness in parent-child relationships, feeling of loss, and loss of trust in parents and adults. The bill will help us avoid these outcomes. Its purpose is to reinforce the expectation that a child should have reasonable opportunities to participate in decisions affecting their care and welfare, (2) ensure that lawyers appointed to represent children in proceedings are suitably qualified to represent the child and that they can explain proceedings to them, (3) require lawyers to facilitate the efficient resolution of disputes in order to minimise harm to children, families, and whānau, and (4) reinforce the need for the court to respond appropriately to family violence, particularly its impact on children.

I want to thank the submitters and the members of the Justice Committee and all those who participated in the select committee process for giving their time, making submissions, and sharing their experiences and expertise. I’d particularly like to thank the Justice Committee members for their efforts to improve this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The member opposite, the Minister on behalf of the Minister of Justice, Hon Aupito William Sio, didn’t even make four minutes for his speech. That is how little he actually believes in this bill. I can understand that, because, as I said, standing here at the first reading of this bill—and I still say—it is a really well-intentioned bill. I think the soft-headed thinking over the other side that it is nice and it is about children and that is really good is—yeah, it is well-intentioned, but we can’t support a bill that, actually, in the end, is going to make things worse. The reason I say that is because, actually, the system we had in place wasn’t perfect, but on the Ministry of Justice’s own numbers, in terms of what it meant for children and time in court and the period of time to resolve these things, they are better under the system we’ve got than, I am sure, they will be under this system. See, the answer from the other side of the House—and I accept, they’ve got red members all the way through, they are about to pass this law—is simply this, can sum it up in two words: more lawyers. That is literally all this bill does. They are going to supply more lawyers into a Family Court system—

💬 Shanan Halbert: Who’s a lawyer?

—as if somehow—well, I am a lawyer, and that is why I know it is such a stupid idea, right? It is not going to make the difference; in fact, I think it will make it worse.

By the way, yep, I talk with lots of lawyers, and a few of them, you know, I think, ultimately, because they are institutionalised, think it is a really great idea. But what was surprising to me was, at the Justice Committee, in terms of the oral submissions we had, the overwhelming majority did not support this bill. I’ll come back to that point very shortly.

But it will make things worse—more lawyers; in this case, lawyers for the child. It will result in more disputes, a more legalistic approach, and a prioritisation of in-court—which, as we know, whether it is sexual abuse, whether it is in this family arena, which, of course, can involve physical and sexual and not to speak of emotional abuse as well, they are prioritising that in-court process, with the trauma attendant to it, over out-of-court solutions, which, as I say, in the laws that Judith Collins, when justice Minister, passed have been shown to work and resolve things better, quicker, and more smoothly.

Even from the perspective of the child, we heard at the select committee that this law will not—from experts; quite a number of them—necessarily be positive. You see—and I’ve already mentioned this point—I just want to make the point that this is what experts on sexual abuse and physical abuse and child psychology, who came to the committee, said to us: the court process can, if not done well, result in more trauma, acrimony, with—and I wish I could think of a more felicitous phrase to use, and I certainly don’t mean this about our children—a sense of piggy in the middle for the child, where they are being pulled each way and have to choose. And that is what the court process will have done to them. The reason for that is because this bill is—as is true for so much that the Labour Party in Government unthinkingly, well intentioned, but with soft thinking, puts through this House—putting the cart before the horse. More lawyers for the child, but real concern at the select committee stage from not one, not two, not five but from many submitters, actually, about a lack of training and skills for lawyers that they need when dealing with children.

So we give children their own lawyer in the process. This bill, fundamentally—it’s got a few other bells and whistles—prioritises lawyers for the child. But as, as I say, so many who came along made quite clear, when—when—at any time in their career, does a lawyer in New Zealand get training and skills in child development, in child psychology, in sexual violence, in trauma? I’ll tell you the answer: never. They just don’t. You get—and I don’t mean to be mean to them; I fit most of these criteria—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Hopeless!

middle-aged—no, no, that’s the member for Wairarapa; he shouldn’t be so hard on himself!—white men who get their law degree, and then suddenly they’re away and they’re counsel for the child. There is no ongoing education. There is no sense of understanding of child development and all of these things that are so important, and would be important for someone when dealing with a child in the most traumatic experience they’ve ever seen or had: the separation of their parents. As one expert—I think it was the Law Society—said to us, only the bad stuff comes before the court. Right? You are not dealing with functionality; it is only dysfunction, ultimately, that ends up in these court cases, and we are leaving it to lawyers and not the real experts.

And I want to say this, as well, I think it was the departmental report that we got at the end—I could be wrong; I think it was—that made the point: almost invariably—we asked to see what was happening in other jurisdictions—other jurisdictions, the Canadas, the Australians, the United States, and the United Kingdoms of this world put much more emphasis on psychologists, social workers, and the like with the real knowledge and training; not on lawyers doing this kind of work.

Finally, I just want to make the point I’ve already made but with some examples from the select committee process. I was surprised, actually: I knew, and had a sense, that this wasn’t good law, because, actually, what we were doing was working, and this was a solution looking for a problem—not saying that it was perfect, but a solution that didn’t fit the problems here. But I was surprised that the majority of submitters who came along and gave oral submissions in one way or another opposed this bill. I remember a child sexual abuse specialist who made quite clear, actually, that, in the court process, children are subject to manipulation before they go in, with treats, with other things. Prior to talking to their lawyer in the court process, they are readily susceptible to manipulation. This not something that lawyers, counsel for children, are in any way equipped to deal with.

We had iwi leaders—I think it was Dame Naida Glavish, a very clear, forthright leader amongst Māoridom, who warned “Don’t”—I’ve got it here in quotes; I wrote it down—“create a cottage industry.” That’s what this bill is doing. It is creating a cottage industry for middle-class lawyers who actually aren’t equipped to make the system, let alone the Family Court, better and to resolve things in a less traumatic and more just way for children and their whānau.

The Children’s Commissioner described the bill as—I wrote this one down, too—“weak, insipid, and inadequate”. I think I said to him at the time, “Tell us what you really think, Child Commissioner”. But that’s what he said: weak, insipid, and inadequate. And he said, as his daughter would say, “This bill is a real de-buzz”.

I want to quote probably one of the most eminent Queen’s Counsel in the area of family law Simon Jefferson, from an interview on From Nine to Noon, talking about a lawyer for the child. He said, “The risk, sounding a bit banal, a lawyer”—he was talking about lawyers for the child, as I say—“is someone with a law degree; that does not necessarily equip you to ascertain the views of a child or to exercise a judgment as to just what is relevant and what is not, and then to convey it to the court. Lawyers are lawyers. Now, of course, it’s a legal system, so that’s why they’re lawyers. But is it the best model? I’ve got my doubts. The lawyers who represent children, and I am one of many, we don’t really have much in the way of in-depth training; it’s just dumb experiential. What we pick up on the way about child development and understanding adult dynamics, understanding some of the typical dynamics that occur between parents in a Family Court, but it’s a bit crude; it’s a bit simplistic.”

I wish we could support this bill, but it’s the wrong track in family law—

The member’s time has expired.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity, but I am quite concerned that the previous speaker, the Hon Simon Bridges, was, in fact, in fairyland, and I think we need to put it straight. We need to bring this room out of fairyland and into reality. So one point I’d like to make is the only thing I got out of that tirade of fairy dust was that this bill, evidently, provides more lawyers. Now, if we take a short trip back in history, the exact problem was brought in back in 2014, under the previous National Government, which actually took away the rights of people in the Family Court to have lawyers, which caused a huge backlog of cases. Madam Speaker, I would like to put it to you that justice delayed is justice denied, and the delay in the resolution of issues—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I would prefer to be left out of this debate.

Sorry, Madam Speaker. Delay in resolution of issues in court is widespread, and these are the findings of the report that came back in 2019 on those changes: “It is a significant factor in undermining [the] confidence in the Family Court and can contribute to [the] deepening [of] parent … [family] whānau conflict.”

So what this bill does, in fact, is it restores the child at the centre of the case, it enables legal representation, and, furthermore, it puts a lens of family violence across the court that previously was lacking. So there are some excellent changes that will make our Family Court far more responsive to young people and far more equipped to resolve issues, instead of making them wait and wait and wait, as we’ve seen in the past. I would like to commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the chance to speak at this, the third reading of the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill. This is a piece of legislation that’s worked its way through the House over, of course, a number of months, and a little bit of time, of course, at the select committee. I wasn’t involved in that select committee process, but I made a point of trying to read and understand as many of the submissions as possible in that time, to get a flavour of the inherent tensions involved in this area of law and life, of course, from the perspective of families, and especially children going through this kind of situation.

I think the two fundamental tensions involve the role of the lawyer and the role of the child, if I may put it like that. In the case of the lawyer, we’ve heard already a couple of different perspectives across the House about the positive or negative aspects of a lawyer being involved, and I think it’s probably fair to say that all would agree that there are pros and cons to the involvement of the lawyer. Of course, the general thrust of the legislation is to increase the role of the lawyer, whereas the reforms of the last Government had been in the direction of wanting disputes to be settled without recourse to legal representation. The opposite now is true, and so I just want to explore a little bit the ways in which that might be helpful and also unhelpful.

So on the positive side of the ledger, the lawyer is trained and, indeed, required ethically to preserve the position of her client. The relationship between the lawyer and the client is a fiduciary one. It’s characterised by privilege, obligation of confidentiality, and so on. So we have a very traditional understanding of the fact that the lawyer is there to fight the corner of their client, or perhaps we might say the child who is in their care, so to speak—probably the incorrect phrase to use in the family law context, but I hope that the House knows what I mean by that.

On the other hand, to be less positive about the situation, even with the best will in the world, while the advocacy from the lawyer’s point of view might be in the best interests of the child as well as one or other of the parties—generally the parents, let’s say, for shorthand—the trouble with that, of course, is that there can be a hardening of positions, there can be a crystallisation of positions such that it makes it harder and slower to reach resolution. I think the previous contributor to the debate, Ginny Andersen, made a fair point in that, you know, the hoary old truism, justice delayed is justice denied. That’s fine as far as it goes, but the potential for this legislation to move us in entirely the wrong direction in that regard is very high indeed. The involvement of lawyers, traditionally, would lengthen rather than shorten proceedings, and while there are good reasons that we have lawyers advocating on behalf of parties in an adversarial system, and also in ways of operating our justice system that are perhaps a bit softer, the reality is that it seems inevitable to me that time frames will blow out even further with the greater involvement of lawyers.

Perhaps more importantly, though—well, actually, definitely more importantly—the role of the child and the place of the child in all this is something that we should consider very seriously as a Parliament. I think the case for involvement of a child is less finely balanced than in the case of the lawyer. I think, in the case of the lawyer, there are serious pros and cons either way. I think, in general terms, for a child to be involved in the proceedings in the sense of being kept informed and given opportunities to participate, I think that’s mostly positive, because, of course, it does relate to their situation, their life. We’ve got international legal obligations that say, of course, that the best interests of the child are to be met. Instinctively, it would probably feel to most of us as though the greater involvement the child has, the better chance they have of having their say about what is best for them.

On the other hand, though, it does need to be stated for the record that over-exposure of a child to what is an essentially difficult situation, one of dispute—that’s the nature of these things, as the Hon Simon Bridges has noted. You know, no one’s coming to Family Court to have a chat and pass the time of day; it’s characterised by dysfunction, not function. So the over-exposure of children to that process, however well-intentioned it may be, the reality is that that is a considerable potential avenue and cause of stress for a young person. As I say, those points were made by submitters to the select committee process.

So how do we bring these two together? If we think about the role of the lawyer and the role of the child, these being the two key players who are affected by the legislation, I think the answer must be that while changes should be made to the system—because, as I say, we don’t pretend that it is perfect now; certainly, it is not—the answer, surely, must lie in having better dispute resolution, and to the extent that lawyers do need to be involved, that they have better training to deliver the kinds of outcomes that the Government envisages by this bill. Because merely to state that the appointment of the lawyer for the child should take into account such considerations as the cultural background, personality training, and experience of the lawyer to represent the child—that’s all very well, and I don’t think anyone here would disagree with that. But to simply prescribe that without a corresponding shift or lift in the ability of the legal profession to actually deliver that, it is something in the realm of, well, I mean, good intentions, let’s just say that.

So, you know, again, you can understand the intent of having the age and the maturity of the child taken into account to the extent that the lawyer must explain proceedings to them. Again, I don’t think anyone would disagree. Again, I would say—actually, I would go further than to say that that would be a matter of common sense; I would say that’s already a matter of ethical obligation. I think that it’s clear that any lawyer who fails to keep the child involved to the extent that is appropriate would be failing in their duty. So that’s non-controversial, as far as it goes, but it also doesn’t do anything really to solve the practical problem of how a child’s interests are best served.

Just a couple of quick further notes in passing, this being the third reading. While a couple of issues were aired in the committee of the whole House stage, including by yours truly, the common practice oftentimes for people trying to understand the background of legislation is simply to go to the third reading speeches. If anyone’s reading this now in the years to come, I say you’ve made a good choice. The commencement of the bill reflects the fact that there will be a stocktake, so-called, of matters that are relevant to the passage of the bill, and so it’ll come into force at different times, as indicated in that commencement section. More detail on that I don’t think we need, at this stage.

So I think I’ll simply close by again highlighting that on this side of the House, we’re not convinced that these fundamental tensions will be resolved in a way that is helpful, that of the role of the lawyer. In particular, we fear that there will be an increase in time, not a reduction, by requiring and encouraging greater involvement of the lawyer in this, as opposed to experts such as those in the realm of psychology, and so forth. Of course, in relation to the child, we do sound a note of caution about the intent of maximising involvement potentially being one that is limited at best and potentially actively counter-productive when a child is over-exposed to negative matters in what is already, of course, a stressful situation. So I’ll end my contribution there, reiterating the position, as already stated by our first speaker on the bill, the Hon Simon Bridges, that we cannot support it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do feel sorry for the member, Mr Bridges, who I suspect may receive a call from the Children’s Commissioner at some stage this week in relation to that partial quote of his submission. I’d recommend to those interested at home that they review the Children’s Commissioner’s full submission, many of whose recommendations were picked up in this final version of the bill.

As my colleague has mentioned, this bill takes its genesis from the findings of the Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau report—the report of the 2014 National Government reforms of the justice system. And the nub of that report essentially said that the system at the time reinforced that decisions be made about children, not that decisions be made involving children, and that is the nub of the problem. That is the nub of what we’re trying to resolve with this bill. What the situation was then was not a smoother, better, quicker system. We base our changes based on evidence. We base our changes based on the recommendations of the experts who produced that very thorough report. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to mihi to the work and the kaupapa of my colleague who has just resumed her seat, Vanushi Walters, in the space of children’s rights, because we have worked in that space together. I also hoped to raise some issues that might educate the member who resumed his seat before her, Chris Penk.

The genesis of this bill might, in fact, go further back than any report that took place in Aotearoa New Zealand and our broken system of justice when it comes, in particular, to treating children and young people, right back to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—one of the most binding, universally accepted, consensus-based pieces of international human rights law, which New Zealand has ratified. In fact, the views of the child must be taken into account as a matter of law in order to uphold their welfare and their wellbeing in all decisions that impact them. So this bill is ensuring that New Zealand’s justice system is more compliant with law that we’ve already acceded to in the international space. It is already domestic law that we were breaching when we abolished the lawyer for child under the last National Party - led Government. In that way, it will mean that our justice system is more effective, more compassionate, and more consistent with what we know as being the absolute bottom-line rights of all children and young people. It’s not about expediency of decision making; it’s about those decisions being right, and this bill moves us toward that.

Lawyers for child were some of the most highly trained, specialised, effective members of the bar. They don’t need extra training. They were made redundant by a Government that didn’t believe in human rights or children’s rights, or respect the expertise that already existed at the bar, and we are restoring that. This is an evidence-based piece of law because we know that decisions that impact the wellbeing and welfare of children, the rights of children, will only ever be effective if their views are taken into account appropriately, both culturally and in terms of their age. The lawyers for child have that training. That’s what makes this effective.

More than that, if members opposite are concerned about the exposure of children and young people to the justice system being harmful, they are right. I suspect that this would then mean that they would agree with us that the age of criminal responsibility should never have been lowered to 10 years old, that 17-year-olds should never have been left in the criminal justice system. They don’t agree with that, so that isn’t their concern. What we’re seeing with this bill is a return to a human rights - based child rights system in our criminal justice system. We have a long way to go, but this is a step in the right direction, and so I do commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand and take a short call, and I won’t be taking the full 10 minutes on the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill.

Now that we are at our third reading, we know that this bill is actually going to go forward into law without our concerns having being met, both from this side of the House and from the National Party. But there are some things that we do like about this bill, and I think it’s important that we pick out those things, because the ACT Party will be supporting this through its third reading, and I think it’s quite important to pick out what we like about it.

What I do like is the stocktake that’s going to occur, because what we are, effectively, doing is assessing in real time what works well and what doesn’t, and then we look to implement what works well in our Family Court system. I think that that’s a far better try than doing nothing at all, and after many years of watching our Family Court system fail our children, I’m pleased to see that we have a way forward. I think a stocktake in the first instance is pretty good, because we don’t have the ability right now to be able to say that certain things that will be implemented will work. We need to trial them first.

We know as well that the Family Court are struggling under tremendous pressure at the moment. Their workload is absolutely huge. And with that, I do understand what the National Party has raised, those points that they’ve made, but don’t feel that doing nothing at all is right. I don’t feel—well, the ACT Party does not feel—that that’s an option, to do nothing, and we’re willing to back this bill because of that.

One of the other things I like is the implementation dates. If used smartly, they can ensure that when parts of the trial are proven, they can be confirmed instead of unnecessarily waiting for a magic date for it all to happen. So I think that being able to have that stocktake and then implement a rolling implementation on the Act is actually beneficial for our children.

That brings me to what I like the most about this bill, and that’s the focus on our tamariki, the focus on our children, making sure that they have an understanding of what is actually going on around them. We’ve raised concerns during the select committee process and also during the committee stage about how we would like to ensure that the best lawyer is appointed for the child, not a lawyer based on what their ethnic group is or their skin colour may be, and that has been ignored. But, hopefully, during the stocktake and during the trial, we can find what works and what doesn’t work. We have put our concerns on record and we will be looking to see how that actually works out in practice. Nevertheless, we still think that this is a good way forward, and the setting out of both the stocktake and that staged implementation should mean that we see some improvement overall and better outcomes for the families at the end of it.

There was much to be agreed upon here, and it’s sad when so many raised concerns that were brought before the House, hoping in a way to get some sort of middle road and finding that there was no middle road to be got at all; it was just forging ahead. Ultimately, the middle road would have seen benefits not just for our tamariki but also for the families and, hopefully, for the courts as well. Because at the end of the day, when we do create these laws, we are placing them on the communities and, hopefully, for their benefit. In that respect, I hope that this does go through for the benefit of families as well as our tamariki.

ACT believes that this is a good bill for our children and we do support this through its final reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good on the ACT Party. We may not agree on many things, but for the second time in a week they have demonstrated that they’ve been able to apply some principles and despite some misgivings, they can vote for a bill because, on the balance of things, actually they can see the sense of it.

What a shame the National Party can’t do the same. Here we are in the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill and the root of the need for this bill comes from the 2014 reforms that the National Party brought in under Judith Collins, the Hon Judith Collins who was justice Minister at the time, forcing us to bring in an independent panel to look into it. And they say, “What we have heard, seen, read, and researched has convinced us that the elements of the 2014 reforms must be changed.” And here they are with an opportunity to admit to the country that they tried something, it didn’t work, let’s go back to what it was and actually make some improvements. They can’t do that because they cannot admit that they were wrong and they cannot admit that their leader was wrong, and I think that’s a shame.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Taking this call this evening—I only have a short call, but I will share with you, Madam Speaker, the House, and listeners that it’s somewhat galling to hear people in the House this evening speak on something they do not know other than based on what they have read.

So I speak, having been a Family Court lawyer and also lawyer for children, and I speak from experience, and I’m not going to talk about politics; I am going to talk about good law. This, in my submission, is not necessary, and therefore it’s not good law. We, as Family Court practitioners, have been directed by Family Court practice notes—as lawyer for children, as counsel for children. This bill is not necessary. What it replicates, again, is the State telling Family Court specialists, Family Court lawyers—those lawyers who are in continuing legal education; we prize the relevance and the significance and importance of learning more about what we do as child advocates, and giving the best of what we do to the children, their welfare, their best interests, and articulating their view. This bill is not necessary to do that.

Also, it’s somewhat galling that the members in this House and Government fail to deliberately listen to the views of the experts in this field. The submissions that were made by the New Zealand Law Society family law section, representing 1,100 family law specialists—half of whom have 20 years’ experience in this field; I happen to be one of those—and referencing to my former colleagues the fact that this Government and, regrettably, the Justice Committee declined to listen to the relevance of their views and the application of what we know best in terms of advocating and representing the welfare and the best interests of the children. Apparently, this Government seems to know better.

The National Party, for good reason, did not support this bill. It is not necessary. When it came to the committee of the whole House, there was just total dismissal of some amendments that were proposed, and it’s interesting, because this bill is flawed in many ways. It highlights the fact that there should be evidence-based research as to how best to deliver the representation of the children’s interests and the children’s views. This bill is also deficient when it highlights that there’s amendments just to the Care of Children Act and just to the Family Violence Act. Interesting, because, as a Family Court counsel appointed specialist for children, our practice note actually talks about representation under the Care of Children Act, the Family Proceedings Act, the Oranga Tamaraki Act, the Family Violence Act, the Property (Relationships) Act, the Child Support Act, the Marriage Act, the Civil Union Act. However, there’s only two amendments that have been expressed within this view overlooking the application of counsel for children, representing them in all those other specialist areas of law that impact on the child.

So, as I say, it is somewhat galling to hear members in the House advocating as if they know best, but interestingly enough, as I said in the first reading and in the second reading of this bill—and I do happen to know more about this than any other member in this House—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Ha, ha!

—in this area of law, and it’s interesting that those who laugh and smirk and sneer are actually not doing that to the member, as I stand and address this House, but to the children and to the advocates. That’s why I’m passionate and so fired up, because the members in this House are doing a disservice to our children.

I gave my career in making sure that our children and our vulnerable were given the best service, were given the best articulation of that representation, and, regrettably, this bill fails to do it. That’s why I’m disheartened, and I’m disheartened that members in this House who laugh and who smirk and who toss discourtesies across the House are unbecoming and inappropriate, because this is not about the member who’s addressing the House or the public; this is about our children. As I said, this is a done deal, and irrespective of what other members in the House will express, I shall continue to articulate and to advocate for those who are most subjected to vulnerabilities. This is a done deal, and I am saddened and do not support this.

I rise in support of this bill. I was actually an employment lawyer, but I was married to a senior family lawyer who did exactly this kind of work. I often actually was pleased to be doing something that meant just slightly less to people than their families and their children. I was absolutely admiring of the work done by counsel for children in the time that I saw them working. They were extremely selfless. They were sensitive, and they were not egotistical. They didn’t actually make themselves the most important person in the room. They often made the children that, and that was one of the things that will be very important to fulfilling that role.

In 2014, the National Government got rid of a whole lot of support that people had in the most terrible crisis of their lives. They lost their buddy. They lost their lawyer. So I don’t agree with Mr Bridges when he talks about lawyers in the way he does, because there are different kinds of lawyers, and these lawyers that are supported in this legislation are going to do an excellent job supporting our children and their whānau, and they will look to conciliation, and they will be an asset to this country. Thank you. I support the bill.

It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill, the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill, which I very much support, but I’d like to take a short opportunity to discuss some of the amendments here which have been made by a very hard-working Justice Committee. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the House, from the ACT Party, from the National Party, who also participated in what has been, despite all appearances of fire and brimstone in this debate, a very collegial process, one of finding consensus around very complex points of law, where we have relied on the lawyers’ expertise in the room and those presenters to us.

I will commend the committee on what has been, as far as my observation of select committee goes, an unusually proactive approach to the development of policy. And may I just highlight the opportunities for children to participate in decisions affecting them being one of those nitty-gritty issues which everyone in the committee room, even those members who ultimately opposed it, has gotten into in a very detailed and complex way, and I commend everyone’s work on that, and the Office of the Clerk, who has ably assisted us in calling experts and discussing these issues with the experts in the room. So thank you to all of the members, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That member, Arena Williams, spoke for one minute and 11 seconds. Congratulations!

It’s great to take the opportunity to take a call on the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill, a bill which the National Party will not be supporting. But I do think it’s important here to highlight that this is dealing with a very important and a very complex area of law and one which does have a huge impact on many, many New Zealanders. I think it’s important to acknowledge all of the different people who play such a critical role helping families, helping children through these situations, trying to seek resolutions in these difficult times.

The National Party is not supporting this bill because, effectively, it is not actually going to provide much of a solution to the challenges which we do face in our Family Court. Effectively, we have a situation whereby this bill simply does one simple thing, which is it seeks to put in place more legal representation without trying to deal with the underlying issues which need to be dealt with. Nor does it seek to actually try to ensure that those lawyers representing the child, who are now put in place, will actually have the necessary qualifications or experience or tools to be able to do this.

It ignores the, I think, very important submission from the Law Society, which said that the bill should be deferred until more appropriate participation models are researched in order to ensure that the child’s voice is actually given a voice appropriately in the process.

So we’ve heard lots of impassioned speeches—very short speeches, I must add—from the other side, talking very briefly about their passion to ensure that children have ability to have lawyers and representation and talking about the people that they know of, who they know are lawyers and can do this job. But, effectively, what this bill does is it says in clause 7, “When appointing a lawyer to represent a child, the court or Registrar must, so far as is reasonably practicable, appoint a lawyer who is, by reason of their personality, cultural background, training, and experience, suitably qualified to represent the child.” Nothing in this piece of legislation does anything to ensure that there will be lawyers available with the appropriate personalities, cultural backgrounds, trainings, experiences, or qualifications to represent those children.

Effectively, it’s putting in place a situation where it says, “These children must have a lawyer and their lawyer must be able to do all these things.”, but no ability to actually ensure that lawyer can do all of those different things. So this piece of legislation is a piece of legislation which, to put it kindly, like the Law Society says, “Should be deferred.” Or, to put it bluntly, as the National Party says, “It will make no difference.”, and therefore we will not be supporting the piece of legislation.

I think it’s important to point out that the Ministry of Justice review of the 2014 reforms that the National Party did undertake showed that out-of-court proceedings take on average 37 days, whilst in-court proceedings take approximately, on average 268 days—a substantial increase in number of days where proceedings are taking place in court rather than outside of court. And therefore, the Government’s role and the Government’s focus should be in seeking to try to see as many cases being dealt with out of court as possible, because we are dealing with family situations where there are children and where 268 days—whilst it might not seem a long time to Kieran McAnulty on the other side, it is a long time for a young child like me! No, no—like the children elsewhere.

💬 Hon Member: They are awake.

And now they’re awake. I was just checking to see if he was actually listening and he is listening, so that’s fantastic.

💬 Hon Member: Five minutes till bedtime!

Five minutes till bedtime, Kieran. Five more minutes.

💬 Arena Williams: Five minutes of this!

Five more minutes of this, that’s right. You have me to keep you awake, Kieran, before your bedtime.

💬 Hon Member: Or lull you to sleep!

Or lull you to sleep. So the priority here for the Government should be about ensuring that the process is undertaken in the most time efficient and effective manner and as that Ministry of Justice review found, that the out-of-court proceedings was the most timely and most effective way of dealing with these situations. Our concern on this side of the House is that by simply inserting more legal representation into these situations—particularly without ensuring that they have the adequate training or qualifications in these situations and without, as the Law Society says, actually having the research basis to ensure that this is the most appropriate form of trying to deal with these situations—that all this piece of legislation does is change the law. It means that the Labour Party MPs can say they’ve done something, ticked a box. But, actually, the families and particularly the young people, the children who are involved in these situations, are no better off at the end of the day, and, in fact, we may see more cases going through the court proceedings, which we know will take that much longer and with much more difficultly and challenges for those young people as they go through this process. So the National Party will not be supporting this piece of legislation.

This bill is about refocusing the Family Court on the children, at its heart, and focusing lawyers for children on children, but it has tonight become an opportunity to relitigate the frankly disastrous Collins reforms of 2014, which so incredibly lengthened the times taken by Family Court cases for the very children that the other side claim to be able to protect. I am delighted to stand up and support this bill not just as a member of the Justice Committee but also as a lawyer of some 25 years in the Family Court—not only that but as someone who, just before she was elected, was in the process of completing a study on whether Family Court lawyers add or take away from Family Court resolutions for children. I can tell you, having spent the 18 months prior to my election doing that work, the international research and the New Zealand research is in fact conclusive: lawyers shorten disputes, not lengthen them, and that is what the disastrous experiment of the Collins reforms proved. I am delighted to recommend this bill to the House.