Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | News Flashes | Scoop Features | Scoop Video | Strange & Bizarre | Search

 


Family Court Reform Proceeds

Family Court reforms will either make it easier to resolve disputes or make dispute resolution too expensive to access, depending on which political party you listen to.

Associate Justice Minister Chester Borrows said in the first reading of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill that the bill would modernise the Family Courts and make them more accessible.

Borrows said the bill was the biggest changes to the court since they were set up in 1981 and they addressed wide spread concern the Family Court was not able to focus on the most serious cases, while costs had escalated despite the level of work remaining constant.

The changes would ensure there was more support for people to resolve disputes out of court and before proceedings begin, Borrows said.


Charles Chauvel said he had some real problems with the legislation and these had been well laid out by groups such as the family court section of the Law Society.

While there was much that was laudable about the families dispute resolution service, there was a fee to get through the door which would make it unaffordable for many.

The fact a fee had to be paid before accessing the service, which had to be gone through before any court proceedings could begin, would mean vulnerable people would be deterred from using the Family Court.

Former justice minister Phil Goff said it appeared the bill’s main purpose was to cut costs.

The bill was sent to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration by 68 to 52 with National, NZ First, ACT and United Future supporting.

Earlier the Callaghan Innovation Bill (formerly the Advanced Technology Institute Bill) passed its first reading by 105 to 15 with the Greens and Mana opposed.

The Greens and Mana also opposed the Appropriation (2011/12 Financial Review) Bill.

This somewhat surprised Speaker Lockwood Smith who pointed out it was a procedural motion taken without debate to allow MPs to debate the financial reviews of Crown entities at a later date, despite this the Greens insisted their opposition to the move be recorded.

**
ParliamentToday.co.nz is a breaking news source for New Zealand parliamentary business featuring broadcast daily news reports.

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 

Binoy Kampmark: Dysfunctional Hagiography: Australia & Gough Whitlam's Death

Hagiography is the curse of the Australian Labor movement. It is a movement that searches for, and craves, mythical figures and myths. Such a phenomenon might be termed mummification, and detracts from closer examination. More>>

David Swanson: On Killing Trayvons

This Wednesday is a day of action that some are calling a national day of action against police brutality, with others adding 'and mass incarceration,' and I'd like to add 'and war' and make it global rather than national. More>>

Uri Avnery: Israel Ignoring “Tectonic Change” In Public Opinion

If the British parliament had adopted a resolution in favour of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the reaction of our media would have been like this: More>>

ALSO:

| UK MPs blow a “raspberry” at Netanyahu and his serfs

Byron Clark: Fiji Election: Crooks In Suits

On September 17 Fiji held its first election since Voreqe “Frank” Bainimarama seized power in a 2006 coup. With his Fiji First party receiving 59.2% of the vote, Bainimarama will remain in power. More>>

Ramzy Baroud: ‘Islamic State’ Sectarianism Is Not Coincidental

Consider this comical scene described by Peter Van Buren, a former US diplomat, who was deployed to Iraq on a 12-month assignment in 2009-10: Van Buren led two Department of State teams assigned with the abstract mission of the ‘reconstruction’ of ... More>>

Gordon Campbell: On The Case For Using Air Power Against The Islamic State

There is an Alice Through the Looking Glass quality to the current response to the Islamic State. Everything about it seems inside out. Many people who would normally oppose US air strikes in other countries have reluctantly endorsed the bombing of IS positions in Iraq and Syria – not because they think air power alone will defeat IS (clearly it won’t) but because it will slow it down, and impede its ability to function. More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news