Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill

Members, we come now to the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

I move and seek leave to have all parts read as one.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and it’s good to have the opportunity to speak on the subject of the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. That’s the full name of the bill, by the way, unless anyone should think I have a stutter—a stutter.

The background to this bill—as members will know and as members of the legal profession and, more importantly, even families throughout New Zealand and children particularly will know—is that we have in this country a Family Court system that is creaking under the strain of a huge demand. The supply—if I may put it like that—of the service, namely the Family Court processes, simply does not keep up. It’s well accepted and understood—and it’s not a matter of debate, I think—that changes are needed, and we owe it to New Zealanders who find themselves in the situation of needing the Family Court services that improvement in this space is needed. It’s been a longstanding problem.

The members of this House—some of them have spent considerable amount of their professional lives dedicated to working in the Family Courts, researching them too in at least one case. I myself am not particularly familiar with the operation of the Family Court—certainly from the perspective of not having practised in that area much at all—but it’s obvious enough to anyone who pays even scant attention to the matter that change is needed.

The National Party has supported, from the outset, this legislation because it does promote some change, and a positive change at that. It will, we hope and expect, provide at least some benefit in terms of timeliness of outcomes for those who are proceeding through the Family Courts.

I do have a series of questions, and a few comments too, of the Minister in relation to how and what is expected to be achieved, and these will be offered in the spirit of constructive engagement to try to understand how much help the Government thinks can be provided in this space, because it seems to me—and it seems to National—that while this is a positive change, it does not nearly go far enough to help the Family Court system get over the difficulties that it’s facing. So to quantify at least the help that will be given by the creation of this new role, the Family Court Associate, will be helpful, I think.

So my first question, then, is: whether the Family Court Associate is a—well, it’s a creature of this legislation; is that person designed to be more of an administrative-type role or a judicial role? And the reason I ask is because the concept came out of a report into what was needed to improve Family Court processes, and it was noted that a significant proportion of Family Court judges’ time was being occupied with effectively administrative functions. So it seems reasonable to create a new role to relieve the judges proper of some of that burden, but it seems to me, looking at the provisions of the bill, that most of the work is of a judicial nature. Now, that’s not a problem in itself, because, of course, if we have, effectively, more judges or more judicial officers conducting the work that is currently done by this certain number of Family Court judges we have, then there’s a benefit.

So I don’t offer this as a criticism but just to try and understand what the Government thinks is going to be achieved in relation to whether it’s administrative or more in the judicial realm that the work will be done by associates. I’ll just pause to see if the Minister is minded to answer that question at this stage, and I think that she is.

Thank you to the member. Look, I think that’s a really important discussion to have in terms of when we were establishing a new role, particularly in the court room, that we’re clear about what that role is and how it will operate. The way the new role—the Family Court Associate role—will sit is in between a judge and a registrar. So it will sit there to take away some of the more administrative work that judges are doing in order to free up judges to focus on the more meaty issues.

The aim of this bill, really, is to reduce some of those delays that we have seen build up in the Family Court so that the process works better for participants—and particularly children—to make sure that if there are some of those lower-level decisions, they are able to be moved through the court at a quicker pace without requiring the time of a judge. The bill does this by amending the primary Act—the Family Court Act 1980—to establish a whole new role. And it spells out quite clearly what those powers are of the new role. I see this as a good change. I think it enables our courts to be freed up to be using our judges in the right spaces at the high level, while the more day-to-day administrative work that doesn’t require that level of expertise should be—these roles will take up that part of the work. I hope that addresses the member’s question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, it’s a privilege to actually support this bill, because when we look at what’s happening within our Family Court system and the delays that have been occurring, to be able to instigate Family Court Associates in the same way that we have with the coroner’s courts—we’re dealing with a lot of the delays and when it affects so many families in so many different ways, we’re glad to be able to support this.

But what I do have a concern about, Minister, is the Supplementary Order Paper that came through, because while most of it is tidying up, there is a whole section in there that is removing the Family Court Associates’ ability to deal with matters that would come under the Oranga Tamariki Act. And there is no explanation for why there is the removal of those clauses specifically for the Oranga Tamariki Act. When I went to look at the legislation.govt.nz website, it took me to a page that is non-existent, as well as taking me to another document which does not address the reasoning why.

So everything within this entire bill we would like to support, but the removal of the powers to deal with children that are caught up within the Oranga Tamariki Act is concerning, especially when the associate will no longer be able to direct persons to attend counselling. They won’t be able to grant people leave to make representations. They won’t be able to direct the registrar to convene a mediation conference. They won’t even be able to adjourn proceedings. And we have heard that we’ve got some children that have been caught up in the system for eight months or more. With the ability to have a Family Court Associate to speed up the processes, why then, Minister, is it that we’re removing Oranga Tamariki from this bill?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’m indebted to our friend and colleague Nicole McKee for asking that question, which had also crossed the minds of members on this side of the Chamber. I won’t add to it further, except to say that I think that with this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 350 having been introduced at the committee of the whole House stage and—to the best of my knowledge as someone who sat in on, I think, most of the consideration at the Justice Committee—without knowing the background, it would be very helpful indeed to know what’s intended but also where that’s coming from, so to speak.

Also within the SOP, we see that there is to be a report made, following the introduction of the Act, on the subject of how much delay is going to be reduced by the Act coming into force. I think I’m right in saying that the effect of the SOP will be to say that the report doesn’t need to be produced within five years of the Act coming into force; it’s just that it needs to have started within the five years, and so it could be produced at some point after that. It does strike me as a bit ironic that if we’re going to have a report into whether delays have been reduced, the report itself can be delayed. But if the Minister of Justice has got any comment on that and can put our minds at rest, I suppose that, from the Government’s point of view, it would be a matter of some urgency to assess the effectiveness of the Act. That would be helpful.

The other one, I suppose, just within the SOP as well—and I’ll sit down after this point, because these points are sort of bundled up together by reason of being, in the SOP if not otherwise, thematically linked—would be that in Part 2 of the bill we’re going to have a new Subpart 6A, it seems, and this is going to require the judicial oath and the oath of allegiance to be taken by Family Court Associates. The oaths of allegiance—they’re very much topical at the moment, but I presume that the idea of this is very much consistent with the idea that these Family Court Associates are, effectively, judicial officers. And, again, I would suggest to you and to the committee, Madam Chair and Minister, that, actually, we’re really creating a new judicial officer - type role.

For that reason, I would also just add in—while I’m on my feet—that it seems to me that if the administrative burden is high, then in addition to providing additional personnel to administer the processes, actually the processes themselves can likely be simplified and improved.

So, with that somewhat mixed bag, I’ll resume my seat and invite the Minister to respond, particularly on the point—I think, actually, the most substantive one of those was the one that Ms McKee raised regarding the Oranga Tamariki regime and the Family Court Associate processes now being disconnected.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m hoping this question, which is more a small curio, is more articulate than the last bill. I’m looking at Part 1—well, clause 4 which is inserting your new section 7A. In particular—actually, I don’t know how you use nomenclature—it’s the one that says that “A Family Court Associate” needs to have been “for at least 7 years” someone who has held a “practising certificate as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor”. Then, further down, that their term is “of not more than 7 years”.

Very quickly—I’ve got no quibble with that—I’m just curious, because we passed a piece of law recently for associate coroners, which, I would argue is a similar role, but, why I’m asking, because it’s a curious thing, an associate coroner only needed five years’ experience and is to be reviewed every five years. So, again, it’s not a quibbling or an argumentative point; I’m just curious with what, to me, is two similar bills—why is it seven years for Family Court Associates but only five years for associate coroners?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would have happily deferred to the Minister but you’ve provided me the opportunity to ask a couple more questions, still. So a couple of questions that are in the arena of wondering how the bill’s provisions will play out, practically speaking, in the court system. And particularly, I’m wondering about workforce issues. I note that the bill says quite explicitly that a person who is a Family Court Associate cannot also be doing employment that the Governor-General considers would be inconsistent or detrimental to that. Fair enough; that makes sense.

But also, that the person cannot be practising as a lawyer during that time. And, obviously, if someone is to be inducted to the role of Family Court Associate, as my college and friend Simon O’Connor has pointed out, that would be after a certain amount of experience and qualification as a barrister, or barrister and solicitor, I think he said. So if we are going to have someone go from a pool of lawyers to a practising—an expert in the space, into a Family Court Associate role, then that is what colloquially is often referred to as “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. I do wonder if we are going to make the error from a system-wide perspective, if we’re not careful, of having more hands making light work on the judicial side, but fewer practitioners who are available to do that work.

Unless, of course, the Minster can put our collective minds at rest by suggesting that there might be some way in which this is not the case. For example, by encouraging young, or not necessarily young, law students—I say that as one who was a mature student myself at one point, which sounds ridiculous now at the ripe old age of 28, I think it was, but I certainly felt my age at that point. Anyway. So workforce issues associated with the fact that the Family Court Associate would no longer be practising as a lawyer by definition, or indeed as required.

The other one would be just in terms of courtroom resources, for example the physical courtrooms themselves, and the space needed to practise law and to make these decisions, or facilitate these outcomes. I wonder, if we’re not providing any more resources or any more opportunity for the matters to be heard, then, while we might have more warm bodies engaged in the task—that is, effectively, deciding the matters as a judge or Family Court Associate—we might not be very much better off for it. We might have a logjam in terms of the physical space and administrative support—dare I mention it—from registrars and others who help out as well, as opposed to having the pressure point merely being the personnel requirements at the judicial level.

So, with those practical questions—courtroom and resources on the one hand, and the workforce issues on the other—I’d be grateful for the Minister to explain how the bill might affect the system that we have at the moment.

Thank you very much. There’s a number of questions, so I’ll try and work my way through all of those. So, in response to Ms McKee, in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper making specific reference to the Oranga Tamariki Act and why that has been taken out, I recall we had several submissions that were really concerned that some of those really significant care and protection issues should stay with a judge. That when you are talking about the potential uplift of a child from their biological family or from their home or their whānau, that that was a significant issue. In several of those submissions, the Justice Committee discussed that, and the Minister of Justice has considered it best to remove those clauses from the bill that give a Family Court Associate the powers of a judge under the Oranga Tamariki Act. And I think that’s just due to the weightiness of making that decision around care and protection of a child.

The other question that members provided was the other two minor amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper, specifically clause 70B, which amends Schedule 2 of the Oaths and Declarations Act and also clause 7K, which is the report relating to Family Court Associates. The Supplementary Order Paper makes two minor amendments to the Family Court Associate. So the Family Court Associate can take the oath of allegiance and judicial oath in line with judicial officers. So it adjusts the timing of when the Family Court Associate role is reviewed, in order to ensure the role is fully embedded before the review commences. And that’s that five-year period that’s been already discussed tonight.

The discussion around—sorry, there’s another question before that. There was the seven-year question that Mr O’Connor provided that there was a difference between the Coroners Amendment Bill, which provided that four years’ experience, I think, in comparison to this piece of legislation, which, under new section 7A, will provide that lawyers with at least seven years’ experience with suitable training experience and personality for the role can be appointed. That’s the same as a Family Court judge. So the reason for the seven years is the same level of experience required for a Family Court judge. And that takes into account that some of those decisions: while they are intended to be administrative and a lower level from a judge, it’s still important that the requisite skills are in place and the requisite experience to respond to those issues are there.

I think that leads in quite nicely to Mr Penk’s question in and around what difference is this going to make—by having this additional resource in the courtroom, what real difference will this make in terms of the current waiting times. And the estimation I’ve been provided advice for by the Ministry of Justice is approximately a 25 percent change in the existing wait. So the additional resource will have roughly one-quarter of a difference in terms of that space.

I think that’s all of the questions but I’m happy to take some more if I’ve missed anything.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister Andersen, for answering those questions. I am a little bit confused, however, around the Oranga Tamariki Act, because the reference that has just been made by the Minister referred to the uplift of children needing to be commissioned by a judge, but we’re actually retaining that within this bill.

Sections 39 and 40 are specifically being retained, which relate to—section 39 is the placement of safety warrants and section 40 is about the warrant to remove a child. So they’re actually there and being retained, and what’s being removed is the ability for the associate to appoint a lawyer to assist the courts, as well as the associate being able to direct the registrar to appoint a lawyer, the associate, being able to review the declaration of lawyers’ payments—all of that’s being removed, along with the direction to persons to attend counselling, leave to be given to make representations, the ability for the registrar to convene a mediation conference, and also the ability to adjourn proceedings. These are what I would’ve thought were aspects of the bill that would speed up the process without causing harm to the child or individuals caught up within the Oranga Tamariki Act.

So I am confused, because the Minister said that this was actually about removing the warrants and warrants to remove a child, but, actually, those are the only two aspects that are being kept within the bill. While there was some consideration had at the Justice Committee, we had decided at select committee to not impose these changes.

So, at this stage, Minister, I’m loathe to actually support the Supplementary Order Paper, because I think the removal will be detrimental to our children under the Oranga Tamariki Act. I just wonder, Minister, if you’re able to clarify that a bit more.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My point in relation to the Oranga Tamariki aspect was slightly different from that of Nicole McKee, which is just to press the Minister a little bit on her answer, which was—and I think I genuinely characterise this fairly—that these changes are being proposed by the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) because these are very “weighty” matters that are involved. And it seems to me that all the matters that the Family Court undertakes are weighty matters; they are important, they are serious, whether or not under the Oranga Tamariki regime—and even accounting for the fact that there seems to be a difference of opinion about what exactly is in and out. But if all of these matters are weighty, then I don’t think, with all due respect, it’s enough to justify the SOP change that’s proposed, simply to say, “Well, these matters that it is proposing to deal with are weighty”, as though to imply some others are not.

I do also want to ask the Minister for an answer on those questions that I put forward before. Unless I’m remiss and actually missed those—and I apologise if so—I don’t think that we heard an answer on the subject of the workforce issues, potentially of lawyers becoming Family Court Associates and therefore, you know, being removed from column A, albeit to be put in column B. And also those supporting resources that are going to be needed: if those are absorbed, or more to the point, not available to the Family Court Associate because there’s only a certain number that are associated with the work of Family Court judges, then I’m not certain that we’ll be very much better off. Albeit that, as I say—and I’ll try and strike a brighter note to finish this contribution—that I think there will be a positive change, but I’m just trying to get my head around exactly what that will be.

And on that note, before I resume my seat again, I think I’m right in saying—albeit that I now doubt myself, having heard the Minister say differently—that the figure of 25 percent is the estimate of the amount of time that Family Court judges spend doing administrative tasks which, you know, might be able to be relieved by the Family Court Associates. But I think that’s a different question from the extent to which we can expect the backlogs to reduce.

I really hope and expect that the backlogs will reduce by more than 25 percent. But I do wonder—and I appreciate that the Minister has not been the sponsoring Minister and has sort of come in, and I want to say this as kindly as I can: she’s doing that role in place of the Minister who has been the sponsor, albeit that as the chairperson of this committee, she is already familiar with it. So I welcome any addition or further information she can provide on all those points.

With all due respect, Minister, I have huge concerns around the changes with this Oranga Tamariki and, really, I’m looking for an explanation, as Nicole McKee has pointed out, because I feel these changes should have had a bit more discussion. What are we going to tell parents and what are we going to tell the young people that are coming before the Family Courts—that they can’t have their delays reduced, they can’t have a quicker pace of having their cases seen, because it’s to do with the Oranga Tamariki Act? And many of these families wait months to even get before a judge.

I just don’t feel this is good enough. Many actually have their cases moved again and again and again every time a judge cannot see their case or they are moved to a different court. And what’s the difference? You know, are we going to create a two-tier system: one for kids that aren’t under the Oranga Tamariki Act, and one for kids that are? It just seems a bit weird that this was not discussed more and we couldn’t have a bit more public consultation around these changes, because they don’t seem like minor changes to me.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t want to appear greedy or over-eager, but I’m also conscious that if no one stands up to take a call, then the process comes to an end, and I think it would be fair to the House and, again—more importantly—the users of the system and those who find themselves unexpectedly, or unwillingly, even, involved in the process to make sure that we understand clearly what it is that we are proposing.

I for one came to the Chamber genuinely unsure whether I should recommend to my party that we support Supplementary Order Paper 350. I was inclined to say that we should, but I did want to have a bit of comfort about the rationale behind the Oranga Tamariki aspect that, again, the ACT colleagues have outlined more fully and more clearly and in more detail as to the substance. So my point there, I suppose, is one more of process, but I’m genuinely seeking some guidance there about the meaning and the intention of that.

So, in addition to those questions that I’ve previously put and do seek an answer to, I have a couple more before I would expect that the committee of the whole House stage could reasonably finish, and it’s really to do with the way that the system will come into effect. So, in thinking about recruitment and thinking about training of these Family Court Associates, it’s inherent in the concept of the bill that we are going to have people who come in to do these roles, and I think we can agree that there is merit—indeed, we’ve said that we do agree that there’s merit—in the roles being created and performing the duties of the Family Court judge. But surely that can’t be immediate, and I just wonder: has there been any guidance from officials about the amount of time that it would take to get people on board, what kind of training regime would be required, and whether there are internal processes that would be needed to make sure that they are operating in a safe manner—I mean, in a way that would reflect people feeling comfortable that justice is served within the Family Court.

Presumably, there might be court rules, or other regulations—just to use that term in a general kind of way—that sit within the courts, rather than in Government. So if the Minister would say that there’d be court rules that aren’t appropriate for Parliament to impose or for the Government to impose, then that would be fine; that would be acceptable. But nevertheless, I think it does go to that point again that it won’t be merely at the stroke of a pen by way of Royal assent for this bill that would see it enacted in a way that will make a difference immediately.

So will there be a lag time, and, assuming that there will—I think the Minister would agree, and I think everyone would agree, that there’ll be at least some period of time that it will take for the system to get up and running—do we have any feel for what that is? If it’s six months rather than a year, that’s good, I suppose; if it’s three months rather than six months, that’s better still; and so forth. So some guidance there in terms of the advice that officials may have been able to provide about how quickly we’ll get these benefits that we’re all hoping and praying will be available to users of the Family Court system—again, I would welcome that.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. They are good questions, Mr Penk. I understand that the Ministry of Justice has undertaken consultation specifically with the New Zealand Law Society on the development of the new role that this legislation is proposing. The Law Society broadly supports the new role.

I am aware that the Family Court Associates will come from what is potentially a relatively limited pool of family lawyers. We are not aware of any concerns through that consultation that that would put additional pressures on current workforce.

During consultation, I think it’s worthwhile noting that the Law Society advised that there were approximately 173 presently practising lawyers who would meet the requirements of the role; that seemed to indicate that there would be a level of interest and, potentially too, a groundbreaking and new interesting role to play. I would anticipate that within the legal profession, there would be some interest in taking up this new opportunity, particularly if it’s part of a pathway to deliver more efficient and better justice outcomes for our community.

In terms of the total number of Family Court Associates, it’s still to be confirmed. It will be influenced by the Remuneration Authority’s salary determination that is yet to occur. The Ministry of Justice does anticipate that up to six Family Court Associates will be established as part of the initial tranche of recruitment, and the remaining positions would then be filled over the following two years. So that is the aim. The training, as you requested to know, by judiciary will be similar to that of a judge.

I just wanted to pick up on one other point made by Nicole McKee, and I probably should have been clearer in my response to your question. In relation to the Oranga Tamariki Act, if a judge is not available, a Family Court Associate may issue a warrant—I should have been clearer on that—authorising the search for and, if necessary, the uplifting of a child or young person suspected ill-treatment, neglect, deprivation, abuse, or harm.

If authorised by the Attorney-General, registrars, deputy registrars, justices of the peace, and community magistrates may also exercise this power only if a judge is not available. I understand that that is a rare occurrence that that’s not there. An independent judicial officer with legal training and experience is appropriate for the Family Court Associate to exercise a power when a judge is not available.

I’d like to make clear that this clause is not removed through the Supplementary Order Paper because the power is equivalent to that of a registrar. Under the bill, a Family Court Associate will exercise all the powers of the registrar.

Thank you, Minister, for that further clarification. Would the Minister be able to speak to the reason why the other Oranga Tamariki clauses have been removed? You’ve clarified what is staying, and the reasons why—and I thank you for that—but why are we removing some of those other clauses which are available to associates, Family Court Associates, in other jurisdictions? What I mean by that is, in being able to implement the ability to make some of those decisions in other aspects of law, why are we removing it from the Oranga Tamariki Act specifically?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister of Police and other colleagues who’ve been engaging in the debate—I think it’s been a helpful one. Important as this area is, I’m sure we would all agree.

In terms of the urgency that’s going to be needed for these changes—and I do acknowledge the response that the Minister has given regarding the number of potential new Family Court Associates, by which I mean people who would be available for that role and the initial roll-out of some six initially, I think she said, and more thereafter. That’s helpful information and I’m grateful for it.

But a related question would be in terms of the bill being able to be implemented as quickly as possible. I note that the commencement date has a number of provisions coming in more or less immediately—which is, I think, really positive—but the remainder of the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill, other than those that are specified to come into effect immediately, would be four months after the date of the Royal assent.

It just seems to me, given the severe difficulties in the current Family Court system and the delays that are being experienced, that’s the problem. The solution, we understand, is at least partly in this bill. Why would it be that we would wait for such a long time before it is given full effect? I can’t think of a reason that we shouldn’t have much more immediate effect given to the bill, albeit that it will then take some time to on board the new Family Court Associates and so on.

One related point, if I may, is just in terms of that review that we hear will commence within five years. The Minister said that the reason it wouldn’t commence sooner than probably towards the end of the five years is for changes to be bedded in and for a proper assessment to be made of the difference that it’s making. But I just can’t help but feel as though five years, in the context of enormous delays that are currently being suffered within the system, is far too long to start learning the lesson.

So can the Minister give us some assurance that while the formal review—with a capital “R”—as required by the legislation, may not be in place and reported back for at least five years, that, nevertheless, some feedback will be taken into account as soon as available, in terms of the system getting under way, and even the performance of those first six Family Court Associates will be monitored in a way that will suggest how they could operate in the most efficient manner possible.

Of course, not so much from an evaluation of their effectiveness point of view—I’m sure that the first half-dozen will be, probably, excellent candidates for the role. No doubt they will be wanting to make a contribution that’s very positive in this groundbreaking way, to use the Minister’s phrase. But, nevertheless, we do need to understand the value that they’re adding. It might be that they’re adding huge value and we can double down, so to speak, and have many more such positions filled as quickly as possible. But it might also be that the benefits are marginal for the reasons that I’ve highlighted before, at least as possibilities—the courtroom resources and so forth.

So if the Minister can give assurance to the committee that the Government will carefully monitor—in a way that’s appropriate, acknowledging separation of power between branches of Government—the effectiveness of the scheme so that that can be used for the benefit of those in the system, that would be very helpful indeed.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for that point, Mr Penk. I would like to respond to that by outlining that the four months that’s under the commencement is simply to allow for recruitment of those roles. So that’s important for that to be able to take place.

Responding to your concerns around wanting to have a commitment from the Government to make sure that this is implemented quickly, I think it’s really important to remember the genesis of this piece of legislation. It responds to a specific issue that was identified by the review that took place in 2019. That review specifically examined the changes made to the Family Court, the family justice sector, back in 2014. While those changes in 2014 were intended to save costs in one way or another, they had some really significant negative impacts upon our families and they caused significant delays in that space.

We know that the Family Court deals with really diverse issues, including family violence, relationship property, and care and protection of children. These are some complex issues that can’t be dealt with quickly in some instances. So the changes back in 2014 brought specific recommendations, and this legislation is in fact responding specifically to those detrimental changes to our Family Court system.

This bill establishes the associate in order to take some of that workload off Family Court judges, to free them up for those bigger, more significant issues. And let’s remember that the delay for our children not to have contact with whānau for significant periods of time is damaging for our community, for our young people. It can be detrimental to the wellbeing of tamariki. So the point I really want to get home today is that this will assist young people to have these issues dealt with in the courts in a far more timely way, to reduce the harm that has already been occurring in some of these families’ lives.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, that was a great speech that you just gave. It talked about our children and the care and the protection and the importance of making sure that their cases are heard quickly as well as properly, so that the detrimental effects that you referred to are not an issue for them. So, again, Minister, I come back to the question of why we are removing Oranga Tamariki clauses from this bill, specifically Oranga Tamariki Act clauses from this bill, which, in turn, must have a detrimental effect on the children that are coming through the system if, for example, a judge is not able to have a registrar appoint another lawyer to assist the courts or even help with adjournments—the actual paperwork that a Family Court assistant was set up to administer to help the judges to process the work, to enable our tamariki, our children, to get through the system in a timely way.

Minister, I put it to you that if we do actually have the removal of these clauses of the Oranga Tamariki Act away from the Family Court Associates, we are delaying some justice to some of the victims of crime that absolutely do need it. So in order to support the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) of the Minister, we would like to have clarification on why this has being removed, because if it’s a good enough reason why, we would really like to support it.

The Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill is a good bill. It’s going to help get families through the system very quickly—or more quickly than they are currently experiencing—and yet we have a revised position by the Government in their SOP that we feel will be detrimental to our children going forward. Minister, you’ve just spoken about how important it is that we make sure that our kids are front and centre of this system, so this does not make sense; it almost is contradictory. I just seek that further clarification, Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The final point that I would make in relation to the report that will be undertaken not later than five years after the commencement of new section 7K inserted by clause 4—“K” for kilo—is in relation to the point, really, of the report, which is reviewing whether the appointment of the Family Court’s Associates “has reduced delays in the Family Court”. That’s reasonable; indeed, it’s desirable for there to be a mechanism that says we’re going to decide whether this piece of legislation or the new role is actually having an effect.

But we don’t have language such as “significantly reduced the delays” or “reduced the delays by a more than a trifling amount”—and I’m not saying that I’m necessarily drafting this on the fly better than others would or should, but it just seems to me that to review merely whether there’s been a reduction at all isn’t the right measure. If nothing else, it would be, I think, a mistake for us to regard the new regime as being successful if it only reduces the delays by a small amount for an exchange of a lot of additional resources. So I think perhaps a better measure would be whether (a) the delays have been reduced significantly, and (b) reduced by an amount that justifies the investment.

Of course, it’s not to say that we could save some money by not appointing Family Court Associates. The point is, really, if we’ve got a certain amount of resource available to the Family Court to improve the outcomes, to reduce delays, then, actually, we might be better off spending it elsewhere—maybe just additional judges, or maybe, you know, new courts, or some, for example, audiovisual technology that would enable more cases to be heard more remotely.

So I don’t think there’s any change particularly that’s needed to the legislation, but I think, in relation to the way that that’s framed, it would be helpful for the record. Because at some point in, you know, let’s say 4½ years’ time, the Minister of Justice, whoever that may be, will receive a report from the Ministry of Justice on the effectiveness of the regime—the report relating to the Family Court’s Associates and new section 7K—and I think it would be helpful for them to know that their remit is to quantify the reduction in delays. First of all, to decide that it’s, you know, significant—if indeed it is; if they can make that kind of determination—and, secondly, to therefore be able to allow a calculation that this is the best possible bang for buck, if I can use that vernacular, to assess the effectiveness of the system.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 350 be agreed to.