[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] New Zealand Law Commission

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]

Appendix The methodology used in the study

A1 THIS APPENDIX SUPPLEMENTS the information provided in chapter 2

about the steps that were involved in the Law Commission project team’s study. It begins with an explanation of qualitative research and then provides further details about the consultative processes that were employed and those who were consulted.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES[31]

A2 In the last 15 years, there has been a very substantial rise of interest in, and use of, qualitative research methodologies, particularly in measuring the social context for public policy. Qualitative methods are very much respondent-driven and their strength lies in the flexible process by which knowledge is generated. Where quantitative methods (such as surveys) aim to achieve statistically valid generalisations, qualitative methods have as their aim attention to particularities, to difference as much as sameness, and to development of a fuller appreciation of particular social processes and their intersections across personal, policy and practice domains.

A3 The value of qualitative methodologies is that they are able to draw on respondents’ “situated knowledge”. Tapping into respondents’ experience and knowledge is undertaken by a researcher who moves into the field not with a predetermined set of questions, but with a relatively unstructured “consultation guide” which defines the broad areas of research inquiry. The aim of qualitatively driven consultation is to allow the respondent to produce a detailed account of their experiences. In the course of the consultation, the researcher is able to ask for development of issues, including those raised by respondents which the researcher had not previously known about. These issues and responses can then be built into the consultation guide to inform subsequent consultations or discussions. Equally, the process of talking through an issue may well result in respondents revising their positions and their appreciation of the issues.

A4 A qualitative researcher may well not work through the consultation guide in an identical fashion in each discussion or consultation. Rather, each discussion will be structured to expand on the respondents’ knowledge and perspectives, so that the research findings are grounded in the respondents’ experiences. Significantly, these accounts of lives and circumstances are contextualised rather than removed from their context: the different and often complex factors informing the respondents’ experiences are able to be indicated in the analysis and research findings. That context is important, as it indicates how apparently similar experiences may have different outcomes and effects. The researcher, then, is interested in more than “the typical” or statistically valid experience. Further, a process which enables respondents to elaborate on and refine their answers has significant consequences for the development of the analysis and research findings. Respondents’ accounts frequently highlight qualifications to initial assertions and attest to the contradictoriness of experiences. In this way they provide researchers with richly textured data with which to develop the analysis and research conclusions.

A5 Current epistemological discussions highlight the subjectivity of knowledge. They insist that all knowledge, including knowledge generated by what have in the past been seen as “objective” methods, is structured by key factors such as gender, socio-economic status, education, ethnicity and geography. It is now widely recognised that these factors determine, for example, what is understood as important and how findings are presented. As a result, neither qualitative nor quantitative research is “objective”.

A6 Qualitative research opens up well-argued, different and, possibly, not entirely welcome perspectives on our society. In a situation where no knowledge is neutral or truly “objective” (because it is impossible for any researcher or reader to stand outside of or beyond their particular society), research which acknowledges how it has been structured, what its policy location is, and the inevitable partiality of its accounts, has more credibility than that which does not acknowledge where it is based and how it has been structured by researchers’ or institutional interests.

A7 Criticisms are sometimes made of qualitative research methodologies because their purpose and the partiality of all research, are not fully understood. The first criticism is that research results should be “representative” of the views of the entire population who might have been consulted. A related criticism is that qualitative methods are vulnerable to capturing too narrow a range of views. With respect to the project team’s consultation with 3000 New Zealand women, for example, some who work in and near the justice system have asked such questions as “who were these women, and can their accounts be trusted?” Criticisms have been made that the concerns of the women consulted “really” related only to particular parts of the justice system or were voiced only by women from particular parts of the country or of the population.

A8 Questions and criticisms such as those tend to reveal an assumption that there is a single position from which an event can be “truly” experienced or that those with socially endorsed power (as agents of the justice system, for example) have greater insight into events connected with the system than others who occupy less powerful positions. Accordingly, there is a very real risk that such questions and criticisms are raised in order to cast doubt on the validity of respondents’ assertions. In fact, the concerns raised in this project were not peculiar to women in specific localities, or to specific types of cases, or to specific parts of the justice system. And while it could be argued that the 3000 women who participated in the consultation programme constitute a tiny proportion of the total female population, it should be noted that very few quantitative surveys either elicit or attempt to elicit such a high number of respondents. Accordingly, the findings of quantitative studies are generally arrived at on the basis of far fewer responses than those in the project team’s research.

A9 Qualitative methods are also criticised on the related grounds that those participating may be motivated by bias. They may be seen, for example, to form part of a so-called “disgruntled minority” with regard to the issues being researched. However, as the objective of a qualitative research methodology is not generally to affirm a predetermined general proposition (positive or negative), such criticisms are somewhat circular. In relation to this project, it is notable that many of the women making submissions did not wish to discuss whether they had “won” their cases in the strict legal sense. Rather, their criticisms of access to justice were focused on their experiences of the legal processes occurring in the course of their interactions with the justice system. In addition, not all the women were critical of their interactions with the system.

A10 Further, a significant value of qualitative research is that when researchers bring a critical approach to the reading of the data they are able to make more than a summary of the data’s content or a recapitulation of existing knowledge. High-quality qualitative research allows implications for policy and practice to be explored, and new policies to be developed. The perceived value of the project team’s research may to some extent be gauged by the use made by many in the justice system of the findings that were published while the project was in progress.

A11 Finally, qualitative methods may be criticised as being too narrow in focus. It is for this reason that many qualitative researchers use the valuable tool of “triangulation” in order to ensure the area of investigation is viewed from a variety of perspectives. “Triangulation” involves collecting data from a range of different sources. In the course of this project, for example, three different types of triangulation were used:

• “within-method” triangulation – the use of different strategies for collecting data (such as face-to-face interviews with individuals, consultation with community groups, telephone submissions, written submissions, and the other methods set out below);

• “data triangulation” – collection of data from different times and from different places, and the use of international literature; and

• “investigator triangulation” – the use of more than one researcher in the study.

THE SIX STEPS IN THE STUDY

A12 The qualitative research methodology used had six steps:

(a) the gathering and reading of relevant local and international literature (with an emphasis on literature from countries such as Australia and Canada which have a not dissimilar cultural and social context);

(b) the development of a consultation guide setting out the broad areas of inquiry (based on the literature review);

(c) a preliminary consultation to test the broad areas of inquiry and more precisely define appropriate areas for the terms of reference;

(d) the development and approval of the terms of reference;

(e) more extensive consultation and presentation of findings; and

(f) further consultation, summary, analysis and preparation of the two publications.

The focus in the remainder of this Appendix is on the consultative processes involved in steps (c), (e) and (f).

PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION

A13 Between September 1994 and September 1995, the preliminary consultation process involved a series of meetings with women, government agencies and women lawyers and a number of in-depth interviews with lawyers and women clients.

Public meetings with women

A14 The 26 meetings held in and around Wellington, Auckland, Christchurch, Gisborne, Dunedin and Hamilton were attended by 536 women, both individual users of legal services and representatives of community groups.

A15 Among the community groups represented at these meetings were:

Awhina Wahine,

Barnardos,

Birthright,

Bishopdale Community Centre,

Catholic Social Services,

Catholic Women’s League,

Christchurch Citizen’s Advice Bureau,

Christchurch Community Law Centre,

Christchurch Safer Community Council,

The Collective Wellington Women’s Refuges,

Cook Island Family Support,

Destini,

Disabled Persons’ Assembly,

Domestic Purposes Benefit Action Group,

Downtown Ministry,

Dunedin Community Child Care Association,

Dunedin Community Law Centre,

Elmo Centre,

Federation of University Women (Lower Hutt),

Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations,

He Parekereke Te Matawhanui,

Hospice NZ,

Housing for Women Trust,

Hutt Valley Violence Prevention Network,

IHC,

Kokone Nga Kau,

Law Victims Assn Inc.,

Lower Hutt Women’s Centre,

Lower Hutt Women’s Refuge Inc.,

Mäori Women’s Welfare League,

Mental Health Consumers Union,

Mothers Alone,

National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges,

National Council of Women,

Newtown Community Centre,

New Zealand Association of Citizens Advice Bureau Inc.,

New Zealand Multiple Birth Association,

New Zealand Prostitutes Collective,

Nga Kaiwhakamarama i nga Ture/Mäori Legal Service,

Pacifica,

Pacific Island Aids Trust,

Pacific Island Budget Service,

Pacific Island Women’s Project,

People’s Resource Centre,

Plunket,

Porirua Law Centre,

Prisoners’ Aid and Rehabilitation Society,

Rape and Incest Survivors Support Group,

Rape Counselling Network,

Rape Crisis,

Relationship Services,

Solo Parents Support Group,

Tenants’ Protection Association,

Te Puawai Tapu,

Te Reo Whanaunga,

Te Whare Roki Roki Collective,

Tongan Support Services,

Tu Akina Social Services,

Violence Intervention Programme,

Wellington Community Law Reform Network,

Wellington Fijian Community Inc Society,

Wellington Mäori Legal Service,

Wellington Peoples Resource Centre,

Wellington Sexual Abuse Help Foundation,

Wellington South Community Law Centre,

West Christchurch Women’s Refuge,

Women as Family Court Consumers,

Women for Justice for Women,

Women’s Division of the Federated Farmer (National Office),

Women’s Electoral Lobby,

The Women’s Loan Fund,

Working Women’s Resource Centre,

Youth Law Project (Inc.),

YWCA.

Meetings with government agencies

A16 The 16 government agencies whose representatives attended meetings to discuss their understanding of issues relevant to women’s access to justice were:

Ministry of Women’s Affairs,

Te Puni Kokiri,

Pacific Island Affairs,

Department of Labour,

Statistics NZ,

Human Rights Commission,

Crown Law Office,

Legal Services Board,

Commissioner for Children,

New Zealand Police,

Department of Inland Revenue,

Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation,

Ministry of Consumer Affairs,

Crime Prevention Unit of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,

Department of Social Welfare,

Department of Justice.

Meetings with women lawyers

A17 The seven women lawyers’ groups with whom members of the project team met are:

New Zealand Law Society Women’s Consultative Group,

Auckland Women Lawyers’ Association,

Canterbury Women Lawyers’ Association,

Hamilton Women Lawyers,

Otago Women Lawyers’ Association,

Wellington Mäori Women Lawyers,

Wellington Women Lawyers’ Association.

Canterbury lawyers and clients

Ms Beth Cobden-Cox, a Christchurch lawyer, was engaged to conduct further consultation in Canterbury. She interviewed a total of 16 lawyers and clients and held further meetings with representatives of community groups.

In-depth interviews

Ms Judith Fyfe and Ms Trina Dyall undertook a series of 14 in-depth interviews with lawyers and their clients in Wellington. Among that number were four Mäori lawyers and three Mäori women clients.

CONSULTATION AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

A18 After the project’s terms of reference were approved by the Minister of Justice in September 1995, the consultation programme was extended. The three major consultative strategies used were:

• public meetings;

• a public submissions process; and

• a series of targeted consultation processes.

A19 Each of those strategies, discussed in turn below, was used to some extent in each of the six components of this step of the study, namely:

• consultation with individual women and specific groups of women,

• consultation with community groups,

• consultation with members of the legal profession and judiciary and with government agencies,

• the provision of feedback on the consultation process,

• the use of other research to contextualise the concerns voiced about women’s access to justice, and

• the publication of the six papers as the basis for further discussion and comment.

Public meetings

A20 564 women, including representatives from over 85 community groups, attended the further public meetings (ie meetings which were not targeted at specific groups of women) that were held in:

Auckland,

Christchurch,

Hamilton,

Hastings,

Hawkes Bay,

Hokitika,

Invercargill,

Lower Hutt,

Nelson,

Otautau (Southland),

Palmerston North,

Rotorua,

Wellington.

A21 Representatives from the following community groups were among those who attended:

Age Concern (Napier and Central Hawkes Bay),

Altrusa International,

Anglican Social Services,

Awhina Wahine,

Barnados,

Beneficiaries Advocacy and Protection Society,

Birthright,

Budget Advice,

Cam Care Tawhara Community Trust,

Cancer Society,

Catholic Women’s League,

Central Hawkes Bay Business and Professional Women’s Club,

Central Hawkes Bay Federation Country Women’s Institute,

Central Hawkes Bay Support Centre,

Christian Lovelink,

Citizens Advice Bureau (national and regional offices),

Community Corrections,

Community Employment Group,

Cook Island Community Centre,

Cranfield Hospice,

Deaf Association (National and Women’s Section Palmerston North),

Disability Information Trust (Hawkes Bay),

Disability Resource Centre,

Disabled Persons Association (Central Hawkes Bay & Napier),

Divorce Equity,

Enterprise Centre (Hastings),

Family Care Hawkes Bay Inc.,

Family Planning Association,

Flaxmere Law Centre,

Girl Guides Association,

Hamilton Abuse Intervention Pilot Programme,

Hastings Age Concern,

Hastings Pacifica,

Hastings Probus Club,

Hastings Women’s Refuge,

Havelock North Lioness Club,

Hawkes Bay Health Centre,

Hawkes Bay Polytechnic Students Association,

Hawkes Bay Regional Age Concern,

HELP (Wellington),

Heretaunga Mäori Warden’s Association,

Heretaunga Women’s Centre,

Information Provider Network,

IHC (Hastings),

Kura 2000,

Legal Resources Trust,

Maatua Whangai,

Mangere Law Centre,

Mäori Advisory Committee,

Mäori Women’s Resource Centre,

Mäori Women’s Welfare League,

Meatworkers Union of Aotearoa,

Napier Women’s Health Centre,

National Advisory Council on Employment of Women,

National Collective of Women’s Refuge,

National Council of Women of New Zealand (Inc.),

National Distribution Union (Napier),

New Zealand Workers’ Union,

Nga Pou Ote Kupenga Ote Rangimarie,

NIJ and non-governmental workers,

Pacific Island Resource Centre,

Parentline Hawkes’ Bay Inc.,

PEETO,

Plunket,

Prisoners’ Aid,

Public Services Association,

PSS,

Purena Koa Rehua,

Rape Crisis,

REAP,

Refugee and Migrant Centre,

Returned Services Association Women’s Section,

Royal NZ Foundation for the Blind – VIEW,

Service Centre for the Disabled,

Service Workers Union (Napier),

Special Education Services,

Tangata Piringa,

Tomoana Resource Centre,

Tough Love,

United Food Beverage and General Workers Union,

Wellington South Community Law Centre,

Wellington Women’s Centre,

Women’s Division Federated Farmers,

Workbridge,

YWCA,

Zonta.

Public submissions process

A22 The public submissions process was launched in September 1995 and was extensively publicised by means of:

• pamphlets and posters (which included a schedule of meetings) distributed through community groups and government agencies around the country,

• articles in the newsletters of numerous community groups

• advertisements in 65 community newspapers around the country;

• a press release to all national newspapers detailing the submission process;

• project team members speaking to community groups, including at national conferences;

• interviews of project team members on a number of radio stations.

A23 To encourage as many women as possible to participate in the submission process, a free phone and free postal address were set up. Face to face interviews were also conducted by project team members.

A24 518 submissions were received during the seven month submission period, including 75 that were made by telephone. Of the 518 submissions:

• 252 were from individual users of the justice system;

• 217 were from lawyers;

• 42 were from community groups;

• 5 were from judges; and

• 2 were from government agencies.

Targeted consultation processes: women users of the justice system

A25 To ensure a diverse range of women’s views were obtained, specific processes were used to reach particular groups. A particular focus was the nation-wide consultation process held with Mäori women. Pacific women, lesbians, rural women, refugees and migrant women, disabled women and women prisoners were also the subject of specific consultation processes as is explained below.

Mäori women

A26 A planning group, Te Roopu Uho, was established in early 1995 to advise on and help organise the targeted consultation with Mäori women. The late Mrs Hepora Young was kaiarahi/leader of this group. Its members were Ms Ria Earp, Ms Ina Edwardson, Ms Monique Leef, Ms Ripeka Evans, Ms Charmaine Ross, Ms Tereasa Olsen and (from the Commission) Ms Philippa McDonald and, later, Ms Makere Papuni. Administrative assistance to the group was provided by Ms Trina Dyall and Ms Michelle Vaughan (project manager).

A27 As a result of the group’s work, 48 hui attended by over 900 Mäori women were held throughout New Zealand between February and August 1996. Most of the hui were arranged with substantial assistance from Te Puni Kokiri regional offices as well as from the Women’s Refuge Collective and the Mäori Women’s Welfare League. The hui were facilitated by Ms Makere Papuni together with members of Te Roopu Uho and an additional panel of Mäori women including Ms Pania Tyson, Ms Marguerita Harris, Ms Gay Andrews, Ms Sharlene Gardiner, Ms Rahui Katene, and Ms Melanie Baker.

A28 The 48 hui were held in a range of venues (including Te Puni Kokiri regional offices, marae, community halls, urban Mäori authorities’ rooms, church halls and trust board rooms) in the following centres:

Gisborne,

Ruatoria,

Paeroa,

Hamilton,

Te Kuiti,

Whangarei,

Moerewa,

Kaitaia,

New Plymouth,

Waitara,

Opunake,

Patea,

Hawera,

Whanganui,

Taumarunui,

Whakatane,

Waihau Bay,

Opotiki,

Rotorua,

Hokitika,

Christchurch,

Temuka,

Dunedin,

Timaru,

Blenheim,

Nelson,

Hastings,

Mt Maunganui,

Tauranga,

Te Puke,

Turangi,

Auckland,

Porirua,

Wellington,

Otaki.

A29 The hui were audiotaped and transcribed by the researcher who had facilitated them. Throughout the process by which the six consultation papers were prepared, the Mäori women involved in the planning and conduct of the hui were consulted, at regular meetings, about the papers’ content, including their use of the transcript of the hui.

Pacific Islands women

A30 Public meetings were held with Pacific Islands women with the aid of the late Louisa Crawley, from the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs. These were held in Wellington, Auckland and Christchurch and were attended by 118 women.

A31 A Pacific Islands women’s advisory group, with representatives from Samoa, Tonga, Tokelau, Fiji and the Cook Islands, was also brought together to provide additional information and guidance. Members of the group were Ms Aseta Redican, Ms Francis Gifford, Ms Jane Poa, Ms Makerita Auta, Ms Ane Hunkin, Ms Jean Mitaera, Ms Petesa Faraimo, Ms Anna Pasikale, Ms Mele Piukala, and Ms Mai Malaulau. (Ms Brenda Heather, now Attorney-General of Samoa, was also a member of the group for a short time.) The group met three times with the project team to advise on the content of drafts of the six consultation papers.

A32 In addition, two Pacific Islands women lawyers were appointed to obtain further information from Pacific Islands women users of the legal system. Individual interviews and meetings with 60 Pacific Islands women living in Auckland were held. The results of this consultation were written up by the two lawyers, for use by the project team, in a report entitled Report on Consultation with Pacific Islands Women. The advisory group assisted the project team in its use of that information in the six consultation papers.

Lesbians

A33 A planning group was established in 1996 to assist in the development of a consultation programme aimed at obtaining the views of lesbians. Members of the group included Ms Linda Evans, Ms Angela Lee, Ms Barbara Lewis, Ms Belinda Rynhart, Ms Joy Liddicoat and Ms Charmaine Ross. As a result of their work, six meetings were held with lesbians in Lower Hutt, Christchurch, Nelson, Napier and Auckland.

A34 The meetings, facilitated by two members of the planning group (a lawyer and community worker), were held in both rural and urban areas and were advertised in lesbian and gay media and through community groups. The meetings were well attended and a report on the consultation process, produced by the two members of the planning group, was provided to the project team. Entitled Report to the Law Commission on Consultation with Lesbians for the Women’s Access to Justice: He Putanga Mö Ngä Wähine ki te Tika, the report outlined both the issues raised and the solutions suggested in the six meetings.

Rural women

A35 Rural women were involved throughout the consultation process. Links with rural organisations such as the Women’s Division of Federated Farmers and REAP were established early in the project. Meetings were held in Waikato, Southland, Hawkes Bay, Gisborne, Hastings, Hokitika and Nelson.

Disabled women

A36 Women with disabilities were also consulted. With the assistance of consultant Ms Robyn Hunt, meetings were held (in Auckland, Palmerston North and Wellington) with deaf women, women with visual impairments, women with physical disabilities and women with intellectual handicaps and their caregivers. In addition, Ms Hunt undertook further discussions with women with disabilities and made submissions on the six consultation papers.

Refugees and migrants

A37 Two public meetings were held with refugee and migrant women in Auckland and Christchurch. Continuing input to the project, including submissions

on the consultation papers, was also secured from women who work to assist

new immigrants.

Women prisoners

A38 Three meetings were held with women prisoners, two at Arohata Women’s Prison and one at Mount Eden Prison.

Targeted consultation processes: justice system personnel

Lawyers

A39 Meetings were held, to discuss the issues emerging from the programme of consultation with women users of the justice system, with three New Zealand Law Society committees: the Women’s Consultative Group, Legal Services Committee and Family Law Committee.

A40 Further meetings were held with groups of lawyers in Auckland, Christchurch, Wellington, Hamilton, Hawkes Bay, Rotorua, Nelson and Invercargill.

A41 Meetings were also held with regional Women Lawyers’ Associations in Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin and Hamilton.

A42 Lawyers’ participation in the submission process was encouraged by the distribution of a questionnaire asking for comments on a range of issues relating to lawyers’ training and practice that had been raised in the consultations with women. Over 200 lawyers completed the questionnaires.

A43 Drafts of a number of the consultation papers were discussed with senior staff of the New Zealand Law Society.

Judges

A44 Meetings were held with judges from the Family, Employment, District and High Courts. Several judges also responded individually to the submission process.

Law in Schools

A45 In order to gain an understanding of the current law-based programmes being taught in schools, project team members met with Gill Palmer, Curriculum Officer and Owen Sanders, National Manager, Police Youth Education Service from the Police Law in Schools programme and with Ms Jocelyn Brace, the New Zealand Law Society Director of Education.

Presentation of findings

A46 The next component of the consultation process involved the publication of the six consultation papers. Each paper presented women’s concerns about the subjects canvassed, raised questions for discussion and invited submissions in response.

The papers published were Information About Lawyers’ Fees (NZLC MP3), Women’s Access to Legal Information (NZLC MP4), Women’s Access to Civil Legal Aid (NZLC MP8), Women’s Access to Legal Advice and Representation (NZLC MP9), Lawyers’ Costs in Family Law Disputes (NZLC MP10) and The Education and Training of Law Students and Lawyers (NZLC MP11).

A47 A total of 164 submissions were received in response to the six papers. They included:

• 37 submissions from individual women and men;

• 3 from academics;

• 9 from lawyers;

• 7 from judges;

• 4 from women lawyers’ associations;

• 12 from New Zealand Law Society Committees; and

• 3 from District Law Societies.

The other 89 submissions were from the government agencies and community groups listed below.

22 submissions were from government agencies:

Chief Human Rights Commissioner,

Community Funding Agency,

Department for Courts,

Department of Corrections,

Health and Disability Commissioner,

Legal Services Board – Te Poari Ratonga Ture (3),

Ministry of Consumer Affairs,

Ministry of Justice (2),

Ministry of Women’s Affairs (6),

New Zealand Police,

Retirement Commissioner,

Te Puni Kokiri – Ministry of Mäori Development (2),

NZ Community Funding Agency.

67 submissions were from community groups:

Baha’i Faith, Office for the Advancement of Women,

Barnardos,

Christchurch Community Law Centre,

Divorce Equity (4),

Family Advocacy and Information Resource Centre, Barnardos,

Far North United Council of Women,

Federation of University Women (Tauranga),

Grey Lynn Neighbourhood Law Office,

Hamilton District Community Law Centre,

Huakina Development Trust,

IHC NZ Inc (3),

Legal Resource Staff, Christchurch Community Law Centre,

Mana Social Services,

Mokoia Community Association Inc.,

National Collective of Rape Crisis (3),

National Council of Women, Christchurch,

National Council of Women, Manawatu,

National Council of Women of New Zealand (2),

National Council of Women of NZ, Court Consumers,

National Council of Women of NZ, Hutt Valley,

National Council of Women of New Zealand Inc, National Office (4),

Nelson Women’s House,

New Zealand Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (3),

National Council of Women, Wanganui,

New Zealand Council of Social Services,

NZ Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs,

NZ Federation of University Women, Auckland Branch,

Nga Kaiwhakamarama I Nga Ture (Wellington Mäori Legal Service Inc),

Patients Rights Advocacy Waikato Inc (2),

Relationship Services,

Royal New Zealand Plunket Society,

Soroptimist International of Lower Hutt,

Standing Committee on the Child and Family,

Wednesday Night VIP Women’s Group,

Whitireia Community Law Centre (2),

Women as Family Court Consumers (3),

Woman’s Accommodation with Care Trust,

Women’s Branch, Dunedin North Labour Party,

Women’s Electoral Lobby, Hamilton,

Women’s Electoral Lobby, (Waikato Branch) (2),

Women’s Division Federated Farmers of New Zealand (5),

YWCA of Aotearoa – New Zealand,

Zonta International, (Wanganui Branch), Status of Women Committee.

A48 Meetings were held with academic staff from each law school, the Institute of Professional Legal Studies and the New Zealand Law Society Director of Education to discuss aspects of NZLC MP11. Meetings with law students were also held, both in relation to the project more generally and on aspects of NZLC MP11.

A49 Meetings were held with senior family lawyers and with Family Court judges to discuss aspects of NZLC MP10, including whether and how further work on family dispute resolution processes should be conducted.

A50 Earlier drafts of this document were circulated for comment to the 12 member Review Group established for that purpose. The members were the Hon Justice Dame Silvia Cartwright, the Hon Justice Elias (now the Rt Hon Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias), the Hon Sir John Wallace QC, His Hon Judge R L Young (Chief District Court Judge), His Hon Judge P D Mahony (Principal Family Court Judge), Professor Margaret Wilson, Ms Christine Grice, Mr Dave Smith, Ms Margaret Stewart, Ms Joy Liddicoat, Mr Robert Buchanan and Ms Michelle Vaughan. Three meetings with members of the group were held between November 1998 and February 1999 and several members made further comments by letter, fax, email and telephone.