Dalziel Lianne: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister; Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister; Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13892] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 The purpose of this bill is stated to be transparency and openness but unfortunately it goes a lot further than that. Despite what has been said in the House this evening it actually goes against the advice of the Principal Family Court Judge in two very material respects. First it assumes that the present environment is one of secrecy when in fact it is about protecting people’s privacy. And these are private and personal matters where the issue of privacy should be something that is subject to being supported by this Parliament rather than vilified. This is a civil jurisdiction as MetiriaTurei has just correctly pointed out. It is a matter between parties. It is not between the State and another party; it is between two parties. The State certainly does provide in respect of the Family Court and the law that surrounds it but essentially the law is about encouraging parties to settle matters between themselves but at all times directed to the best interests and welfare of children. That must be a question we have to ask ourselves—whether the best interests and welfare of children are in fact reflected in the kind of opening up of jurisdiction that this bill would entail. 
The second area where I think this bill goes against the advice of the Principal Family Court Judge is that he has said himself publicly that he did not want to see the Family Court become a modern-day version of  
Open Home 
 where neighbours could just pop in to see what was going on in their neighbourhood in respect of a family relationship that was breaking up. I agree entirely with his position which is why I do not support opening the court up publicly. I think it is a shame that this bill has come up in the House only a week before the Justice and Electoral Committee is due to report back on the Care of Children Bill and of course it would be out of order for me to mention what we will be reporting back in respect of that bill but I suggest that members should watch this space. There are changes that are going to be made to the law that will address some of the concerns that have been raised. 
Nick Smith in his contribution to this debate said that Shannon Pakura the Department of Child Youth and Family Services’ chief social worker had expressed concern about opening up the court saying that the public would be horrified at what adults inflict on one another and their children. Nick Smith has made this comment in more than one newspaper around the country. He is reported as saying this in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 as he was the other day in the Christchurch  
Press 
. The trouble with his position is that he has completely misunderstood and misrepresented the position of the chief social worker. She in fact was saying it would be a good thing to open up some decisions from the Family Court so that the people could see and could be horrified at what adults inflict on one another. I want to put on the record that her position is one that I support. There does need to be some opening up but I do not agree with how far this bill goes. I think it is wrong of Nick Smith to comment on officials opinions without looking at what was said. She actually thought it would be a good idea because most New Zealanders would be appalled to find out what does still go on in some family homes today. 
If there was one message that I could give to separating parents—it does not matter whether the parents are married to each other what gender they are or what sexual orientation they have—it is to please set aside their personal and private interests the feelings of regret despair and grief that they might feel about the end of their own relationship and remember that as two adults they have an ongoing responsibility to an ongoing relationship with their child or children. They must set aside every issue they have with the other parent and reach an agreement that is in the best interests and welfare of the children. We would not need a bill like this if that is what every parent did.