Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to speak on this legislation, the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. I just acknowledge that the National Party supports this legislation, which is designed to improve outcomes for people participating in Family Court proceedings—particularly children—by creating the new role of the Family Court Associate, who will be empowered to take on some of the Family Court judges’ workload in order to try and reduce delays. So this particular role, as a recognised judicial officer, will have the additional powers above that of a registrar but less than a Family Court judge, but will be able to take on some of the duties currently undertaken by judges, including some of the decisions in the early stage of proceedings.

Now, if we were to step back and think about the justice sector generally in the country, what are the real challenges that we face? Where should the Government be prioritising its efforts? I would suggest in three areas: one, the growth in violent crime and how we’re going to deal with that; secondly, real issues around youth crime and the ram raids and the sense of imperviousness in that space; and the third area is definitely in this broad area of access to justice and the slow court processes and the delays in the court processes which are putting people’s lives on hold for a long time. And we’ve been, frankly, a bit critical of the Government’s priorities in justice—generally not being focused on the big issues. This bill does, in a small way, address that third area around the delays in the court processes that are putting people’s lives on hold and dragging things out. And I think all MPs will be aware of many stories from many constituents and local people who have horror stories about the delays and the slowness and the cost and the aggravation and the general dysfunction, frankly, on elements of the Family Court, as well as many other court processes, which, in the hands of a determined party on either side, can be dragged out a very long time.

Now, as we’ve seen in this House, the House has come together on many occasions to try and streamline processes and improve it, and sometimes that hasn’t worked as well as we would have hoped, because it’s a very complex area dealing with human behaviour, which is not always, frankly, rational or seeing straight. It’s times of great emotion, so it’s a very delicate and difficult area. So this is, I suppose, a modest step in the sense of saying, “Well, what’s one bottleneck in the system?” Well, one of the bottlenecks in the system is the time of judges, and there are a whole lot of stages along the way through the process of cases, not all of which need a full Family Court judge. Are there some tasks that we can pass on to another category, I suppose, of judicial officers? That’s where the Family Court Associate comes in. Time will tell whether this is a more successful intervention than some of the others, but we fundamentally think it is worth a go.

The select committee process was interesting. We heard quite a few submissions from a number of groups, generally supportive but not entirely so. There have been some changes that have been made, such as giving these Family Court Associates the ability to direct a registrar, to appoint a lawyer, for example, to allow them to convene a settlement conference, and to direct a registrar to convene one, and to reduce the powers to declare paternity to cases where paternity is undefended only—various tweaks that were made during the process, which may or may not help. And I hope they will.

So, look, the main point I would make is when you’re looking at the big challenges that we face in justice, there’s no doubt that the slowness of the court proceedings and the time delays to getting an outcome is a massive challenge. The Family Court is one example. Everywhere you look, unfortunately—whether it goes through to the tribunals, whether it’s to the employment tribunal, as well as the criminal, as well as civil cases in terms of commercial cases—people’s lives are on hold, waiting for outcomes. And so the Government should be focused on this area. I wish they were more focused on this area in the broader justice space. I mean, there’s a lot of workshops and a lot of committees and a lot of programmes under way to try and do it, but workshops and committees and plans are all well and good, but it’s the outcomes that we want to see, and at the moment the delays are still unsatisfactory. But this legislation will make some difference. In so far as it does, we support it and will be looking forward to the next stage, the committee of the whole House. In the meantime, I think that is all I need to say on the topic. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to make some brief remarks in relation to this significant bill that really does go to addressing access to justice needs. This is an area that this Government is extremely focused on. This is not the first bill in this space. Last week, we saw the Coroners Amendment Bill go through its third reading, which will also give significant capacity to the coronial space as well.

I would just like to thank the Justice Committee for their work in this space. We received 31 submissions and listened to 14 oral submissions, and I think committee members would agree with me that we owe a real thanks to Dr Emily Henderson, who was very much the expert in the room and lent her expertise to us as we grappled with many of the issues in front of us.

I’ll speak to a set of issues that the select committee recommended some changes on, and I would call them alignment amendments, because they were all about ensuring that with these new associate powers they are aligned with either some of the duties or some of the protections that sit for judges who are exercising powers in this space.

One of them is the grounds for removal. So the select committee recommended a narrowing of the criteria here to inability and misbehaviour, which aligns with the ability to remove judges in the Family Court space. The second was the provisions around immunity for decisions made specific to their jurisdiction, and the third was the ability for these associates to appoint specialist lawyers to provide advice as they hear evidence as well.

So there were some of those more technical alignment amendments that we recommended, but we did also grapple with trickier areas, which were areas about whether associates should be granted power to make decisions in relation to and fairly key access-to-justice matters. One of those was determining whether an individual was a vexatious litigant, and the committee ended up recommending that the associates shouldn’t hold that power. So, again, this is another example of a bill that was complex, that required careful balance. I do believe we got that balance correct, and I commend this bill to the House.

I want to prefix my comments to say that we are supporting this bill, as we actually have done pretty much most of the justice bills in the most recent sitting of the House, and I’ll come back to that a little bit, within the scope, of course, of this debate. But to acknowledge the member Vanushi Walters, who has just resumed her seat and who chairs the Justice Committee, it was an important piece of work, and it’s one of those moments when we’re actually working with colleagues across the House—also acknowledging Dr Emily Henderson and her view and expertise—really teasing out some of the difficult issues and, I think, coming to a good conclusion in and of itself.

So, again, I want to say quite clearly that we support this bill, but the caveat is, like it was last week, that we feel on this side of the House that it’s a little bit of window dressing. If you wanted to use a very poor analogy of running a half marathon, this is like a 100-metre dash at the moment. It doesn’t go far enough. We have a fundamental set of problems within the court system, and I’m not referring to judicial activism; I’m just referring to the structure of the courts and the delays that we see. At the moment there are fundamental and systemic problems which need to be addressed. Yes, this bill goes a little way to assist. It’s certainly not going to make things worse, but I would argue it’s not going to make them exceptionally better either.

What this, in effect, does, this Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill, is it creates a new role of Family Court Associate (FCA). They sit with a little bit more powers than the registrar, but not the same powers as a Family Court judge. Now, I’m not going to disambiguate that, but you do have to ask the question: the fact that it’s just sort of blending roles, you go, “Well, why not just appoint more judges?” What is the problem that we have here? Or do we need more registrars? Why are we just sort of going down the middle now? I’m not arguing against these again. I think they will hold a particularly good role. As I said, the previous speakers touched on some of the elements which are a debate about what this associate could or could not do. But there’s just a hint to me of just that little bit of bureaucracy, just that little bit—I’m sort of not so much struggling as trying to find the right words, just to articulate that we aren’t quite nailing this. Because, fundamentally it’s sidestepping some of the key issues within our court and certainly in the Family Court system.

I don’t want to play one court off the other, but as a constituent MP—and it doesn’t actually matter if we’re a constituent or a list MP, as most of us know what it’s like, having to deal with people who are struggling with the Family Court and the huge delays there and that emotional pressure it’s putting on families and children. So, again, it’s positive—it’s positive to a degree that there is this piece of legislation, but as we continue to say, it really isn’t the solution required. And the encouragement from this side of the House is for the Government to do more.

An example of that is utilise technology more often and better. Yep, let’s create this Family Court Associate, which sort of is not quite a judge, but a little bit more powerful than a court registrar. Well, why not actually look at ways that we can speed up the process? We’re not really sure that even with these new associates in play, we’re going to see much change in the timing. So we’ll wait and see and I’ll be very happy to be proven wrong if these FCAs, these associates, see a real increase in speed in the Family Court. Well, you know, figuratively speaking, I’ll eat my hat, and gladly.

But I just want to repeat, particularly for those at home, that we support the bill, but it’s a little bit like the bills we had last week around criminal proceeds and around some targeting gangs. Again, they in themselves were not bad pieces of legislation and I and the National Party were happy to support them. They just really aren’t going far enough when we have a whole series of situations that we do. I don’t wish to take up more time in the House than is necessary and I end, therefore, where I started: National is pleased to support this bill.

As I set down my knitting, I am pleased to take up what one might call my other knitting. I think it is understood that the Family Court is a forum where it is so complex, it is so difficult—the human issues that are involved are so intense—and it is an area that we really ought to pay greater attention to, in my personal opinion. In my role as the deputy chair of the Justice Committee, it was a real passion project for me to watch the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill work through its stages.

So what this bill will do, as previous speakers have said, is put in some associate judges who are, essentially, going to deputise for the senior judges when it comes to administrative tasks, and they are going to take these administrative tasks off the hands of the main judges, who will then be able to get through the workload. The workload is extreme. At the moment, if I were to take a case in Whangārei court where I used to work, if I were to take on a serious case—a child custody matter with some violence thrown in there—I would not anticipate being able to get to a proper full hearing and a decision in under two years.

That is an appalling indictment of our system and it is why we need to bring this role in, so that we can cut some of that administrative backlog—administrative backlog, I might add, which was hugely worsened by the Judith Collins reforms of 2012 which are, I have to say, pretty much universally reviled by Family Court practitioners throughout the land. It was those reforms which were aimed at cost cutting, which thought that the way to do it was to strip back legal representation from people and force them to self-represent, which, instead, have added hugely to the backlog because people cannot self-represent effectively in the Family Court. So all sorts of delays and misunderstandings have eventuated.

On top of that, where lawyers were so anxious that a client would really do themselves a damage self-representing, they then have exploited the loophole which was to make an emergency or an ex parte application, and ex parte applications became 70 percent—they became the norm as opposed to the 30 percent of applications previously—because if you do an emergency order, then you can get a lawyer automatically. That completely skewed the system.

So we are bringing in system busters for a system that was strained and, essentially, broken by a previous National Party policy. I am pleased to see us repealing all of those policies, and I am thrilled to see us bringing in Family Court Associates. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to commend this bill to the House. I come at this from a previous life working in part for Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa (ACYA), which was—it continues to be, without me—the organisation that submits the shadow report, or the non-governmental report, to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. So the Government gets to submit its report, and we also get a non-governmental report, which means that that umbrella organisation—with member organisations as far-reaching as nurses unions and the Post Primary Teachers’ Association as well as Unicef—gets to present a detailed research report that we used to put together over three years with consultation and with a human rights - based lens, to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. And I can say this: throughout the last two terms of the National Party Government when I was the policy consultant for ACYA, youth justice and the Family Court system were the main breach areas that we would raise again and again, based on sector consultation with the United Nations body, so that they could put that to successive Ministers. And our focus was the rights and wellbeing of children.

So I commend this bill with a mind to the kind of work that the Family Court does, which very intimately—and, in some cases, in very desperate situations—impacts the rights and wellbeing of New Zealand children and young people. So we’re dealing with custody and access, we’re dealing with abuse, we’re dealing with serious, serious issues. I can say that the bill does go some way to solving those problems and that I am shocked and surprised by the last National Party speaker, Simon O’Connor, who said that this doesn’t go far enough—because all it does is really kind of fix the damage that was done back then: the things that slowed down the Family Court system, the things that took away the child rights expertise, the youth advocacy, and, essentially, the access to justice that we want to see in all of our courts and justice system institutions. So, yes, it goes some way to upgrade the efficacy and the efficiency and the timeliness of decisions and processes in the Family Court. That’s good; we need to do that. We need to better resource all institutions, all processes that touch upon New Zealanders’ rights and ability to access decisions that impact on their wellbeing and their rights.

We have a saying in the rights-based system that “Justice delayed is justice denied”, and certainly for very young people who are in large part accessing the Family Court system, that’s redoubled, because we know that time means a lot more when you are a wee young person. If you have a decision delayed in terms of access to a primary caregiver—or any caregiver—if you have a decision that’s wrongfully made without your input, perspective, or wellbeing taken into account and you’re waiting for an appeal or hearing, and you are a small person of four years old and you have to wait two years, then you’re six; that’s actually quite a long time in developmental time, and it’s quite a long time for those whānau to wait. So efficiency is a big, big deal. And it’s a big, big deal in terms of our ability as a nation to say that we actually serve the rights of the child, but also that we serve families.

I do want to say that far, far more needs to be done. And I do want to say that, actually, the Opposition needs to come to the table with not just a little bit supporting this but acknowledging the absolute wrong that was done. So this is a good bill, but we need this House of Representatives to come to the table and talk about resourcing the Family Court, resourcing youth advocates, and to acknowledge that we need an expert body with the training and the focus on the rights and wellbeing of children and young people but also on processes that serve our families, society, and communities.

We need it to acknowledge that, much as we don’t want to acknowledge it, we live in a society in Aotearoa New Zealand that deals with a disproportionate rate of family and domestic and gender-based violence, for example. And so delay is not OK. A lack of partnership with community-based organisations that speak to those issues is not OK, and that takes resource; that takes a willingness to listen to the sector, and it takes a willingness to prioritise the work of our very first Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, the Hon Marama Davidson. So when those really difficult truths come to light, we need to have courage, as a society, to shine the light into the little dark corners of our culture and our society that we don’t want to look at but do exist and say we’re going to solve this problem. We’re going to do that with resource, we’re going to do that with legislation, and we’re going to do that by acknowledging the truth that it’s been delayed for too long and that we need to partner with organisations that have been telling us what we need to do for a long time.

And we need to acknowledge, whether we are in the National Party or in the Government party—which is Labour right now—that sometimes mistakes have been made. That’s what this bill does, which I commend, but I do want us to do far more, and that takes a moment of listening, acknowledging, and in fact prioritising the work of the Family Court, which, in some cases, is some of the most essential work that will be done in a child’s or a young person’s life. So I commend the bill, but I implore us, as a lawmaking body, to do far more and to have the courage it takes to make systems change.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. There were 31 submissions received on this bill, and 14 of those submitters had an oral hearing. I’d like to acknowledge and thank the Ministry of Justice for their support and help in understanding this piece of legislation as it worked its way through the Justice Committee. We know that the delays in the entire justice system are so bad now that we have families caught within the system who are at breaking point. None of this is good for any child or children that are caught within it.

The purpose of this bill is to reduce those delays by creating a new role within the Family Court—that of a Family Court Associate. Their job is to take on some of the minor and administrative tasks of a Family Court judge so that proceedings can start to move at a faster yet reliable pace. The Family Court Associates will be judicial officers, and they will have some but not all of the powers of a Family Court judge, and extra powers additional to that of a registrar of the Family Court. More importantly, they will have the ability to use some of the functions that a Family Court judge uses that allow some minor determinations to occur, hence getting the Family Court process moving and actually considering some cases. It means that the Family Court Associates can assist with decision-making needs as each case works its way through the Family Court system. This will benefit those that are caught in a waiting game within this system, and those that are about to enter it. It is unfortunate to note that it isn’t unusual for Family Court proceedings to increase after the summer holidays, so the timing of this bill, unfortunately, is good.

Having the Commissioner of Police telling us that domestic violence is on the rise by as much as 60 percent in areas like the East Coast and Hawke’s Bay is not actually surprising after the sort of natural disaster that these communities have experienced. Sadly, we will see an increase in Family Court proceedings just because of that. The timing of this bill will, therefore, be beneficial for families wishing to sort out their issues, and those that are seeking help in a timely manner for those issues.

Once implemented, the role of the Family Court Associate will be mainly administrative, and this should free up a Family Court judge’s time to work on the more substantive matters that he faces within the cases that come before him. A Family Court Associate will be appointed for seven years, and can be reappointed only once more after that term. On the flip side, though, they can resign at any time as well.

The bill inserts new section 7B(2), in clause 4, which provides that the Governor-General can remove a Family Court Associate, on advice from the Attorney-General, if the Family Court Associate becomes bankrupt, is found guilty of misconduct, is neglectful, or simply just can’t do the job. We had to think about this role and how to effect removal. This is new—the creation of this role. There is no other role that directly compares to it. The Family Court Associate is not a judge, so doesn’t have their full responsibility, but does have more responsibility than that of a court registrar. So we considered that, really, the removal of a Family Court Associate should align with the same reasoning behind the removal of a Family Court judge. This means that they need to come under the same removal regime, which is actually prescribed and for which there is a commissioner, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. So we’ve inserted a clause that means the Judicial Conduct Commissioner would need to get involved, and the Family Court Associate could come under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. The commissioner’s report would then go to the Attorney-General to remove the Family Court Associate.

We also carefully considered what immunity we should give a Family Court Associate. Originally, we said that no proceeding could be commenced against a Family Court Associate unless that associate had exceeded their jurisdiction or acted outside of it. In light of the changes we made to how a Family Court Associate can be removed, we decided to ensure that the Family Court Associate actually has the same immunities as the Family Court judge. To keep that balance and that fairness, that had to be there for this new role.

The committee also recommended a review clause be added to this bill. So we have instructed the Parliamentary Counsel Office to include replacement section 7K, set out in clause 4, stating that a review must be held within five years of the commencement of the Act and reported to the Ministry of Justice. The review is to determine whether or not the establishment of the Family Court Associate has reduced the delays that we are seeing in the Family Court and also whether or not any changes need to be made to the Act as to the Family Court Associate appointment process. We need to question whether the functions, the duties, and the powers of the associate are adequate enough, and what else the associate can do.

Clause 6 of this bill introduces a new Schedule 2 into the Act, which sets out the powers that they have. The Family Court Associate can appoint a lawyer to assist them under eight different Acts. These are listed on page 4 of the commentary on the bill, in the footnote. The committee could see that under seven of those eight Acts, a Family Court judge can direct a registrar to appoint a lawyer to assist the court. The Family Violence Act is an exception to that. So we’ve asked for the same conditions to be available to the Family Court Associate, and, as a result, clause 1(ga) has been added to Schedule 2 of the bill.

We are making changes to other Acts as well, including making amendments to the Care of Children Act 2004, where, currently, a judge can direct a registrar to convene a settlement conference before a proceeding is heard. The committee concluded that a Family Court Associate should be able to do the same, and they have asked for that to be added to the bill in clause 18, which inserts section 46Q(1).

Section 141 of the Care of Children Act is about vexatious proceedings. If the court is satisfied that a person is persistently bringing vexatious proceedings before them, then they can order that any proceedings can commence only with the leave of a Family Court judge. The bill as drafted would have given a Family Court Associate the same power, but the committee were worried about this because denying someone the ability to bring a case before the Family Court has the potential for the court to be accused of denying access to justice, and this is quite serious. We were not confident that we should be putting a Family Court Associate into that position where they deny a case to be heard. So we asked for that to be removed from the bill. The flip side of that is that we do want the Family Court Associate to be able to commence proceedings for a person who’s deemed to be vexatious if they feel this is a relevant case to be heard without taking up a Family Court judge’s time. So we’ve asked for section 141(2) to be amended to reflect that.

There are changes to the Status of Children Act 1969, where there is a question over paternity. The bill as drafted initially gave a Family Court Associate the same power as the judge to make declarations of paternity or non-paternity. As drafted, it would allow the associate to make these declarations on both defended and non-defended applications. The committee agreed that a defended application would be more complex, and because of that we did not want an associate to preside over such complexities. So we’ve asked for an amendment so that the associate can make needed declarations as to paternity only in undefended cases.

There’s also a piece, near the end of the commentary on the bill, about the Family Court panels that three submitters discussed and said were urgently needed. However, it was outside of the scope of the bill.

I’d like to thank those particular submitters for bringing fresh ideas. The bill has a review scheduled, and we believe it’s good that the select committee report has mentioned the proposals from submitters, as there may be a case to include this at that time. This initiative, along with similar initiatives for the coroner’s courts, will help to immediately address the backlog that these courts are facing, backlogs that are essentially denying—by delaying—justice to the people. We on this side of the House support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker; a pleasure to take a call on the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill in its second reading.

As we’ve heard from the previous speakers, the bill is about improving outcomes for people who participate in Family Court proceedings, and especially the children, by reducing the delays involved. We’ve heard many examples of how the delays have wide-ranging effects, especially on children. Someone mentioned that justice delayed is justice denied, and I think that is a very clear maxim to go on.

So I would also like to put my acknowledgment to everybody who submitted on this bill. We heard there were 31 submitters, and the Justice Committee heard 14 of those in oral submissions. They included the judiciary, professional organisations, iwi and their representatives, and interested groups and individuals.

So what the bill does is respond to specific issues that were identified by the independent panel which was established in 2018 by our Government. Among the findings was that there was a high administrative burden that was placed on judges, which then in turn contributed to some of those delays. The panel subsequently recommended that a new position be established in the Family Court. So we’ve heard people talk about this new position being the Family Court Associate, which would be a judicial officer enabled to take some of that work away from the judges—for example, making decisions in the early stages of proceedings. That means that judges can make more effective use of their time, and in return it will reduce delays and assist in improving the process and experience of people who participate in Family Court proceedings.

Now, it was really a pleasure to hear our expert in this field on our select committee, Emily Henderson, speak on particular experiences that she’s had when she was working in this field. She’s always very generous in sharing those experiences, and I find that very helpful. So, again, she spoke about the reforms in 2014 that resulted in significant delays. In fact, without notice applications saw a rise from 30 percent in 2014 to what became—what she referred to as—a new norm: 70 percent. That is why, as I mentioned before, an independent panel was put in place to examine those changes, and make recommendations on how we could further improve the system.

The select committee has recommended some refinements to the bill to assist in reducing delays in the Family Court. I won’t go over those again. I think the previous speaker, in particular, Nicole McKee, gave a really good, detailed overview of what those particular recommendations are.

She also spoke about the review that is going to be put in place—in five years after the commencement of the bill—to make sure that the Family Court Associate role would actually have assisted in reducing delays in the Family Court. So as the Minister said previously, introducing this new Family Court Associate role is just one part of the long-term programme of change in the family justice system, and one more step towards a system that is ensuring timely access to justice, as well as being responsive to the needs of whānau. I would recommend and commend it to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tama Potaka—a five-minute call.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai e te Whare taukumekume nei. He rangi whakamiharo tēnei. Maringa nui au ki te kōrero mō tēnei pire, arā te Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. Te tuahine, Minita Kiritapu, tuki roa o te māipi ture me te māngai mō te tangata, kia ora.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is an amazing day. I am fortunate to speak on this bill, the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. To my sister, Minister Kiritapu, mouthpiece of the legislative taiaha and spokesperson for humanity, hello there.]

Improving outcomes for people participating in the Family Court proceedings—children, whānau, and, of course, the judges—is critical. The judges, in particular, are often overwhelmed by many challenges, sheer workload, multiple expectations—particularly to keep criminals out of prison—and demands to attend various invitations to well-provisioned hui and speaking engagements throughout the country and offshore. Establishing a new type of judicial officer to take on some of this mahi, carried out by the judges, should make it easier to efficiently progress diverse lower-level matters. We hope to see this legislation better enable core values of our party: strong whānau, strong families, strong communities, and personal security. As a result, e tautoko ana te Pāti Nāhinara haki kahurangi nei i tō te pire anga whakamua i tēnei wā [the blue flag National Party supports the progress of the bill at this stage.] We will support the bill at this stage.

Now, amending various pieces of family law legislation reminds me of spending quality time, about 500 metres from here, sitting quietly under the careful and often monotone instruction of our family law lecturer Bill Atkin. The Minister of Justice herself and also the Hon Duncan Webb would both recall the dulcet vibes of Bill Atkin and the entire teaching cohort of our alma mater and the significant munificence given for freedom of expression therein.

Sure, this bill is a mechanism to combat unacceptable court delays and wait-lists, which have increased significantly over the past few years. But establishing more roles, like establishing more bureaucracy, will not necessarily address the root causes of the issues: an inefficient court system that’s sometimes focused on unusual priorities, as my colleague Mark Mitchell understands. The bill seeks to reduce waiting times. We would implore, for various reasons—or take, as I’d like to describe them—that there are systemic issues within the courts—e.g., technology utilisation, and I won’t go into how inefficient Māori Land Online has been over the many years that it’s been in force—the lack of evidence regarding the expected or intended effect on courts’ processing times, and the time it will take to recruit, train, induct, and take on board Family Court Associates.

Recruiting these associate candidates with suitable experience will also be difficult due to the limited pool of qualified candidates. Everyone seems to be getting into judicial positions these days. I actually acknowledge the new judges Tahana and Williams at this time, and also there is limited space at the courts for Family Court Associates and judges to do work at the same time. So there will be some capital expenditure costs associated with these great, bright ideas.

However, my late-night murmurings and rumblings are exhausted, and I’d boldly recommend to cautiously proceed so we can see some light through the select committee process, and members therein can paddle this waka forward so it doesn’t come foul in choppy oral seas or the whirlpool of verbal posturing that sometimes takes place in this Whare and also in select committees. So I hark back to the kōrero of one of our most well-known leaders and Business Hall of Fame admittees, Te Puea Hērangi, “Mahia te mahi hei painga mō te iwi.”—if it’s good for the people, get on with it. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mahia te mahi, said Tama Potaka, the previous speaker, and I’m into that as well. I’m here to support this bill and to also acknowledge the submitters that came before the Justice Committee and put their thoughts forward to try and make this the most robust piece of legislation that we can as we look to reform small parts of the Family Court.

Can I acknowledge the contribution from Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa: Stormie Waapu, Luke Fitzmaurice, who put together their submission on behalf of the association, really looking for that aspirational, transformational change. They, in their submission, told the committee that they didn’t think that this was transformational enough. They were looking for more joined-up systems and processes across the Family Court system, and I want to acknowledge them for that. This is a small piece of legislative change that will help the overall picture, help to deal with those delays, but I want to acknowledge the effort that they put into their submission. These are people that practise inside the system and represent people that are working inside the system day in, day out.

Whilst they didn’t think that this bill went far enough, there is a general consensus around the House today that, actually, we are moving in the right direction. There’s still a lot more work that needs to be done to ensure that our Family Court system adheres to the principle in article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to ensure that our Māori people get to have the tino rangatiratanga over our taonga, of which our tamariki and our whānau are absolutely central to that. So I commend this to the House.

Kia ora, e te Mana Whakawā. It’s an honour to speak on the second reading of the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. This bill is based on the recommendation from the 2019 report Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau, which found that judges had a high admin workload as a contributor to the delays in the Family Court. I myself have navigated through the Family Court system, going through custodial disputes, and I know what it’s like to have a delay in the Family Court as someone who has actually been a client through the Family Court.

I’m not going to spend more time to talk about my experiences as a social worker or as a supervisor writing reports to the courts on my professional recommendations for Family Court cases, but what I like about this report is that it does have a review date. Without further delay, I commend this bill, the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill, to the House. Mālō.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I take a call at the second reading of the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. I addressed the House at the first reading of this bill. During that first reading debate, I reiterate again this evening, I said that this bill, despite its good intentions and the purpose to reduce delays in Family Court proceedings so the court process works better for participants, particularly children—this is just somewhat a bit of a patch it, hatchet, band-aid job, with respect. I say that because the appointment of a Family Court Associate will help alleviate those delays only in part. The alleviation will be to do with the administrative workload of Family Court judges.

At the first reading speech I gave in this House, I talked about the solution as one that would need to be multi-layered and multi-tiered. The appointment of Family Court Associates is just band-aiding, or assisting the burden of the paperwork in the administration of the court process and system. That is not going to remedy the overall efficiency that’s required for the Family Court, and with the review that has been recommended by the select committee for this to come back in a couple of years’ time to see the efficacy and the impact of this legislation—time will tell. But the whole essence of the Family Court proceedings with our children who are, in the main, the subject of those proceedings—the time frames of proceedings have impacts on children. Those of us who have children and those of us who have worked in the area with children know that the concept of a child’s time sense is very different to that of the adult world. So time is so critical and important, particularly with children who are the subject of Family Court proceedings.

At this second reading, it’s a case where the Justice Committee has, with a keen ear, hopefully, applied what they have listened to from these submitters. There were submissions from 31 interest groups and individuals, with oral evidence heard from 14 submitters. The committee, with a keen ear from listening to those submissions from people who know better than most of the politicians in this House because they work in the sector, and then applying through the eye in detail of the written proposed legislation—hopefully, this bill before the House may be improved as a result of those submissions. It’s noted in the Justice Committee report returned back to this House that there have been a number of recommendations to amend the bill, and that will be addressed at the third reading with those amendments factored in and taken into account. There have been a number of amendments as a result of listening with a keen ear and applying that with a keen eye to the amendments at the committee of the whole House—it would be considered to be done with prudence.

So the amendments have been detailed in the Justice Committee. I wasn’t a member of that committee. My colleagues the Hon Paul Goldsmith, the Hon Mark Mitchell, and Simon O’Connor, with my colleague Chris Penk taking part in consideration because he is our spokesperson for courts—the bill will be improved as a result of submissions that have been made. But, as I say, and I again reiterate from my first reading contribution, this bill does nothing to address the root cause of the issues, which is an inefficient court system. The appointment of Family Court Associates is only going to in part address some of the workload of judges.

I have also iterated in this House before that there are more proceedings coming before the court because we are living in a society that is becoming, regrettably, more dysfunctional with the complexity of issues that are weighted and burdened, and to be borne and carried by families. In this time of crises—a cost of living crisis—the flow-on effect will be to the family units. The flow-on effect will be bearing out with the impact, as it is, on our children and childcare and protection issues. Again, that will all wait and come back to the Family Court—domestic violence, family violence. That’s been proven with what the fallout of COVID has been, and now we’re going to just await the hit and the fallout of the cost of living crisis, which comes back to our families, and then it will come back to be borne evidence with proceedings in the Family Court.

The other concern is that, essentially, this role of a Family Court Associate is one of a junior role. I’ve talked before and reiterated the importance of the appointment of more Family Court judges. Mention has been made in the House, and I do acknowledge Judges Tahana and Williams, both appointed to the Family Court. I served with Tanya Blyth Williams—she is now a judge; Judge Williams—who was a Family Court lawyer, and we’ve both practised and specialised in child advocacy as counsel for children.

So it’s critical that we have people who are experienced and have practised in the field, but, importantly, that we listen to what they do convey to us as parliamentarians, politicians, in our role and service as public servants and listen to what they share with us as to how things could be better addressed, solutions, and remedies. Despite the good intent and purpose of this legislation, it really is just band-aiding a very complex, multi-tiered, multi-layered system. It’s not just in the Family Court, but we see it in the District Court, the criminal court, the Youth Court, our Māori Land Court.

Reference and mention has been made to attempts to improve and make better, but the fallout and the offshoot of that is if we’re just going to slap on a band-aid and address just a part of that system, we’re going to soon see that band-aid being torn off and the festering of that wound underneath because it hasn’t been properly excised.

So it sounds all rather grim. The whole point and purpose and intent is to make this better, but the message that’s being conveyed, loud and clear, is if we’re going to do a job—if the Government is going to do a job—do the job properly, and make sure that it’s not just piecemeal. This is an overall complex system that requires that overall complexity of experience, and taking into account that we are not just dealing with judges; we are dealing with judges who are working within an infrastructure that is inappropriate. The configuration of the courts, the use of technology is not being efficient-sized—it’s not being used as well as it ought to be.

So the appointment of Family Court Associates may seem all well and good. As I say, time will tell. With that, at the second reading, the National Party is supporting this bill, and at the committee of the whole House, the amendments proposed under the select committee report after submissions have been factored in—to be duly done so at that stage. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, it is a pleasure to take a call on the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill, and I want to say to the previous speaker, Harete Hipango, that while I acknowledge her significant experience in this area, I think this is a very good bill and I think it will do a lot to unclog some of the delays that we do have in the Family Court. In fact, one of the predictions is that it will save about 25 percent of judicial time, which I think is extremely significant when you think about the really important matters that Family Court judges are doing.

In essence, this is a very pragmatic piece of legislation but will aid in a very important and noble aim, which I think we share across the House, which is access to justice. We do have a significant amount of work undertaken by our Family Court judges and we do know that it is better for all participants if it’s done more quickly.

Therefore, after a significant review undertaken by three independent experts, Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau, one of their recommendations was to introduce these Family Court Associates in order to speed things up. Now, they do the administrative side of things. The Family Court judges are left, then, with the very important work like guardianship. Decisions that materially affect children still stay with the Family Court judges. The work that these Family Court Associates do is simply to allow the important work of the Family Court to continue, which I think, on the whole, will make a better experience for the people involved in the Family Court, and will alleviate some of the stress that judges have. It is a very pragmatic solution, as I said, recommended by an independent panel, and I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.