Hutchison Paul: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18573. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the title and the various other clauses you suggested regarding this Family Court Matters Bill. Once again I note that the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker initially regarded this bill as purely a technical bill but National members have on many occasions pointed out that this is much more than a technical bill. However contrary to the fact that it is appropriate for it to be called the Family Courts Matters Bill in actual fact it will be divided into 12 bills. I will not go through them all but they range through a vast spectrum from the Adoption Amendment Bill and the Care of Children Amendment Bill (No 2) right through to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill and the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill (No 2). All of these are highly relevant to the smooth and effective running of the Family Courts Matters Bill.  
I am only too conscious of just how important it is to have technical expertise within the court to make sure that these matters are run effectively. I was quite interested at one stage to read that although the court is being opened out the judges prefer—well they insist on—having the right to ask people to leave if they feel that it is appropriate. I think that is absolutely correct because I remember very much when I used to be carrying out caesarean sections that husbands would come in to hold the hands of their wives and from time to time I would have to say to them that if there was any possibility of there being a technical reason for them to go then I would ask them to respond appropriately. Occasionally as members can imagine when a spouse fainted and cracked his head there was all hell to pay. That did happen on the odd occasion. I can see a similar analogy in a court of law where a judge might indeed find that he or she will be required to ask one of the many people now allowed into a court in this new open situation to leave.  
But I emphasise that Judge Boshier in his submission to this committee stressed just how important it was to have those expert qualified counsellors psychologists and mediators and how important it was to ensure the professional integrity of those people in the running of the court—much more particularly to the end result of the sort of anguish we see when a small proportion of cases comes to court. As I noted before the delicate balance between the openness of the court and the restrictions that can apply was very carefully and poignantly expressed by 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 their children whose privacy the law takes pain to protect in other cases.” I understand that in Australia where there is openness this indeed can have quite severe negative repercussions.  
I also take this opportunity to comment on one of the opportunities this bill does not encompass a missed opportunity and that concerns DNA testing on which Judy Turner from United Future has a bill awaiting the ballot. I personally can relate just how important it is to get up to speed and use DNA testing within the court system. I vividly remember some long years ago being asked as a junior registrar to go to the court in Pukekohe of all places to be an expert witness on a paternity case. It happened that there were eight young men and one young woman and of those eight young men only one had any assets. But according to my calculations using the dates I was given the one with assets was indeed the least likely to be the father. However the judge surprised everyone and unfortunately for that young man the judge awarded him the responsibility for that young woman. It seems to me that probably for a decade or so it would have cost him sorely and probably unfairly. I make the point then that yes maybe this is a missed opportunity but hopefully in the next Parliament the matter can indeed be rectified. Thank you.