Wilkinson Kate: Family Courts Matters Bill — First Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Family Courts Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11491] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 The Family Courts Matters Bill is one that National will be supporting going to a select committee where it can and must be duly and properly scrutinised. This bill amends legislation to increase the openness of Family Court proceedings. It is also to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Family Courts by making changes to certain processes and procedures. But most important it opens up the Family Court proceedings to the public. 
I will refer to a couple of comments that the Minister Rick Barker made when he was delivering his first reading speech on this bill which I have to say was somewhat incredible. He said that the bill is largely technical— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Could the members please keep the noise level down. It is very hard for the speaker. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: At the time of the first reading the Minister stated: “The bill is largely technical.” He said that it is not designed to be a major overhaul of the Family Courts and that it is tidying-up of legislation. That I find is somewhat at odds with his statement 3 years earlier when referring to the bill: “The wide-ranging changes are designed to improve transparency in the court without compromising family proceedings.” The changes to this bill are not minor they are not mechanical and they are not technical. The opening up of the Family Court is a matter that must have the proper scrutiny of the select committee. 
I think the explanatory note of the bill issues a suitable caution that any change to the openness of Family Courts must strike a balance between open justice and the privacy of the individuals children and families who are involved. Family law matters dealt with in the Family Courts are largely private often sensitive and involve highly personal information. Parties may be reluctant to give evidence in public. Publicity around the case can heighten stress and have harmful effects on children at the centre of the disputes. That balance between openness and privacy is one that deserves full and proper scrutiny of the select committee. 
We must also bear in mind the increasing tendency to compare our jurisdiction with overseas jurisdictions while sometimes ignoring the important differences. Because the Australian Family Courts may be open to the public does not mean that we necessarily have to follow suit. For example in our Family Court jurisdiction matters relating to the appointment of managers come under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act. It is not in the public interest and in fact it is none of their business what the assets of a dementia-afflicted grandmother are. That is exactly what would be discussed in such an application under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act. I also understand that adoption paternity child protection domestic violence and some property matters are dealt with in other courts in Australia not the Family Court. Accordingly comparisons between the jurisdictions need to be treated with extreme caution. 
The importance of privacy is also balanced with the view that sunlight is the best disinfectant. People can certainly hide behind closed doors for whatever reasons and that may not be in the best interests of justice or the family. Likewise people can exploit publicity which also may not be in the best interests of justice or the family. I note the New Zealand Law Society comment in 2004 following the Law Commission report on delivering justice for all which—incidentally—did not recommend opening up the Family Court. The New Zealand Law Society stated: “The society appreciates the arguments in favour of increasing public scrutiny of the courts. Justice needs to be seen to be done. However it remains of the view that Family Courts in particular should remain private. The personal tragedies and tribulations of families (which affect no-one apart from family members) should not become a matter of public debate. … In general the media should not attend chambers hearings and the current restrictions on obtaining information from the courts should remain. Removing restrictions tilts the balance between the privacy of the parties (which is important in initial stages before a decision to go to a full hearing in public is made) and the public’s right to know (in reality the media’s right to know) too far in favour of the media.” 
I think it is also timely and appropriate to quote the view of the English Law Commission: “What is more serious is that the parties and more especially their innocent children whose identity is frequently revealed as a result of the details which can be published suffer the disturbing experience of having the most intimate details of the family life exposed. While it may be said that the parties have only themselves to blame no such argument can apply to the children whose privacy the law takes pains to protect in other cases.” 
Those changes recommended by this bill in relation to the opening up of the Family Court proceedings are I believe the most important changes that need to be scrutinised. Without a doubt there are some other changes provided in the bill. Some of them I would have to say are reasonably inconsequential and some of them could be technical. Do people really care whether a Family Court judge wears a gown? I would have thought it was far more important to ensure that there are enough family legal aid lawyers available to do the work because there certainly is a problem regarding legal aid availability. It is all very well to have a judge there—gowned or otherwise—but justice is not served if the applicant or the respondent does not have a legal representative to help him or her. 
I have noted some of the criticisms of this bill made by the honourable member Judy Turner that suggest that parenting rights are usually granted to whoever applies to the court first. That matter has not been addressed in the bill. I would have thought whoever made the application that the most important thing is that the welfare of the child is paramount—and the welfare of the child must be paramount. The statistics given were interesting. The figures show that the mother gets the children in 64.5 percent of cases the father in 11.5 percent of cases and shared parenting is granted in only 12 percent of cases. Of course there may be many good reasons behind these statistics and it is foolhardy to take statistics at their face value. But my having said that there is certainly a good argument that this bill should be looked at by the relevant select committee when scrutinising. The honourable member Judy Turner also pointed out that this bill fails to address the inability of the Family Court to order paternity tests. Again maybe this is an issue that is appropriate for the select committee to consider. 
I think the argument that some of this bill is mere tinkering around the edges is a valid one but there is that most important provision relating to opening up the Family Court. I have said before that legal aid in particular family legal aid is an issue especially when the number of family legal aid providers has plummeted from about 2000 to 1000 in just 12 months and especially when victims of domestic abuse seeking protection orders are unable to find a legal aid lawyer to assist. As we know they end up in places like Blenheim filing the applications themselves often with the help of Women’s Refuge. Then the victim ends up having to face the abuser in court because he has objected and that is far too hard a process to expect an already vulnerable and abused victim to go through. It is no wonder that those victims give up on the process give up on the justice system and have no faith or confidence in the Family Court. This bill does nothing for those women. This bill does nothing to address the family legal aid crisis that we have while the Minister just turns a blind eye. 
Court delays is another vexed issue for this Government that it does not seem to be able to get its head around and this bill does nothing to address that issue as well. 
 We need to have a full and complete discussion on opening up the Family Court. It is a major shift; it is not a minor mechanical or technical matter. As I have said we will be supporting the bill going to select committee. We hope that some of the gaps in the bill will be filled and most important that robust consideration will be given to the opening up of Family Court proceedings.