The handful of examples provided refer to Family Court cases involving parents arguing over whether or not children should have their hair cut, petrol costs relating to transporting children and overseas holidays for children.
This is simply an inaccurate portrayal of the Family Court's work.
In reality, the court deals on a daily basis with life-threatening and traumatic situations involving the most stressful times in people's lives.
The Family Court is New Zealand's second- busiest court. In 2010, it dealt with 68,666 new applications.
The consultation paper states that costs in the Family Court have increased rapidly, rising from $83.9 million in 2004/05 to $137.1 million in 2009/10.
However, the document does not explain that the Care of Children Act came into force in 2005.
Section 6 of that act specifically requires the views of children to be taken into account in
Family Court proceedings relating to them. For that reason, there have been far more appointments of lawyers for children since 2005.
Is the Government suggesting that children's views are not important and should not be taken into account when their futures are determined ?
Similarly, the paper states that conciliation should be promoted over litigation and that the adversarial system is not responsive to Maori and other cultures.
I completely agree with those statements. However, the document fails explain that litigation is the very last resort in the Family Court. In fact, 94.6 per cent of cases are resolved by counselling or mediation, which are the automatic first steps unless an urgent situation is involved.
The Family Court has been working hard in recent years to deal more speedily and effectively with the difficult five per cent of cases which typically involve sexual abuse, neglect of children and domestic violence.
The Early Intervention Programme was piloted inChristchurch in 2009. Its results were so
impressive - a successrate of 84 per cent - that it was implemented across New Zealand in 2010. The programme aims to resolve disputes involving children as quickly as possible, with judges taking control of cases at the outset and following a strict timetable.
Parents attend parental education courses to assist them in decision-making and
expert lawyers conduct mediations.
However, the rollout of new initiatives in the Family Court has been halted by the review, as the Government is not providing funding for them to be implemented while the review is underway.
Further, comprehensive reviews of the Family Court were already carried out in 1993 and 2003.
They produced specific recommendations, many of which are still waiting to be implemented. The Family Court Matters Bill, which aims to improve efficiency by providing for non-judge led mediation and Senior Registrars to remove administrative burden from judges, was passed into law two years ago but has still not been implemented.
Justice Minister Simon Power has repeatedly suggested that Community Law Centres could be a first port of call for advice on family law issues.
This is simply impracticable. How could 29 law centres around the country possibly cope with even a fraction of the 68,666 Family Court applications a year ?
I have had two stints working in a Community Law Centre and know well how grossly overworked and underfunded they already are.
The review appears to be driven almost entirely by costs. This is an extremely short-term approach. No consideration is given in the document to the benefits of spending a small amount of additional money at an early stage in order to save a large amount of money at a later point.
It is vital for both children and adults that family issues be resolved as speedily as possible to prevent hostility from building up and becoming entrenched.
I agree that cases take too long to resolve. However, this problem could be speedily overcome by the appointment of more judges.
Mr Power suggests that people could be encouraged to resolve their family disputes privately.
This is an extremely dangerous suggestion.
Leaving people who are in vulnerable situations and lack support to try and deal with difficult and stressful matters on their own is a recipe for disaster.
I am far from suggesting that the Family Court is perfect.
For example, I consider that it does not do nearly enough to respond to domestic violence.
However, taking an axe to the court on the basis of a superficial paper lacking adequate empirical data is not the way to improve matters.
*Catriona MacLennan is a barrister and legal commentator.
