Tanczos Nandor: Family Courts Matters Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Family Courts Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11493] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party also supports the Family Courts Matters Bill in particular for one of the reasons that Kate Wilkinson talked about at some length which is increased openness in the Family Courts. Like her we agree that proper scrutiny in a select committee is absolutely essential. There are a number of difficult and delicate issues that need to be addressed when it comes to making changes in the Family Court and there needs to be a very open and robust consultation process so that people get to have their say and so that the competing interests can be balanced. Nevertheless we support the bill primarily because of increased openness. The bill should not allow the identification of individuals in cases or for the media to air people’s personal problems and grievances in public. It is absolutely essential that we protect the privacy of parties in cases in the Family Court. But justice should be transparent; it should be open. 
The bill should also ensure that proceedings in the Family Court can actually be an opportunity to inform the broader public about some of these important issues rather than simply being restricted to informing the individuals involved. We think that is something that is helpful. In fact I note that the Chief Judge of the Family Court has made comments in the past in favour of limited opening of reporting in the Family Court. We support that view. As I said it is a difficult and delicate balance to address. I look forward to the select committee process. I hope that Kate Wilkinson will have a chance to sit in. I am assuming the bill will go to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think it would be a shame if we missed out on her expertise. 
The other issue I will mention is around non-judge-led mediation. Again that view is something that the Green Party supports. We are very strongly supportive of less formal ways of resolving people’s disputes and issues. We believe that ordinary people have a real ability to work out the best solutions for themselves given a little bit of help in terms of a good proper process that can help to facilitate these kind of solutions. We are very supportive of that. Of course we are well aware that the successful implementation of mediation relies on adequate funding. Again it is the same issue as with restorative justice where we have a process that allows people to have more active involvement in the process of finding just solutions. We know that the process is effective. We know that the satisfaction of participants is increased. We know that the solutions are often more effective. But nevertheless access to those processes is restricted because of a lack of provision which is largely around a lack of funding and also a lack of trained facilitators and the like. We would be unhappy if that situation proved to be the case with non-judge-led mediation. We think it is important that the funding is there to make sure that the procedure actually works and that people who want to make use of the procedure can get access to it. 
That concludes my contribution. I look forward to the select committee working through these delicate issues.