Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12052] 
11.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Does he agree “that the persistent labelling of Family Court proceedings as ‘secret’ was misleading and irresponsible.” and “There is nothing secret about the Family Court at all” as stated by Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier on 26 March 2004; if so why? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Courts 
: The Minister understands that Judge Boshier was responding to criticism that consistently portrays Family Court judges as insisting on “secrecy” rather than merely following longstanding legislation that requires family proceedings that are of a personal nature to be kept private to the parties that are actually involved. To the extent that the criticism creates that misleading impression the Minister agrees with him. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister also agree with the statement: “Its proceedings are open to scrutiny right now in a number of respects.”; if so can he explain to the House what scrutiny Family Court proceedings are under right now? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I do and I do not think I can do better for the questioner than echo the statement of Judge Boshier that judges have operated the court as they have been required to do to afford privacy to separating parents particularly with young vulnerable children. That is what Parliament has required of the Family Court and that is precisely what the Family Court has endeavoured to the best of its ability to do. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister made no attempt to answer my question which was about what scrutiny the Family Court is under in relation to the matters. The Minister gave absolutely no answer at all in respect of that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I disagree. I think the Minister did address that particular question. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What consideration is the Government giving to whether the Family Court could be made more open? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Care of Children Bill currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee gives some consideration to what changes might be made to the legislation governing some proceedings before the Family Court. In addition the recent Law Commission report  
Delivering Justice for All 
 also makes recommendations on this issue. The Government is giving careful consideration to the Law Commission’s recommendations and will respond in due course. 
Stephen Franks 
: I ask the question again: does the Minister agree with Judge Boshier that: “There is nothing secret about the Family Court”; if so why given that no one outside the case that the Hon Nick Smith got involved in has been able to see the Family Court decision despite claims that it vindicates that court’s order; and what is that if it is not a secret judgment from a secretive court? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The current balance in existing legislation between protecting the privacy of sensitive and emotional family disputes and recognising the public interest in those disputes was determined by Parliament when the Family Courts were established in 1980. This is longstanding legislation and the Family Court itself should not be criticised for adhering to legislation enacted by this Parliament. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. May I ask the question again as no attempt was made to answer it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can ask the question again and I will then examine the answer. I remember what the answer was. 
Stephen Franks 
: My question was a repeat of the original question: that is does the Minister agree with the Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier that: “There is nothing secret about the Family Court at all” when in fact the Family Court’s judgment in the case in which the Hon Nick Smith became involved has never been seen by anyone outside that case despite claims that it vindicates the order of the court; and what else can it be but a secret judgment from a secretive court? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I do agree. There is a considerable difference between the word “secret” and the appropriate privacy that should be accorded to the proceedings of that court. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How does the Minister think it helps public information and debate when in the case of the judgment in respect of the Nick Smith Nelson case the court decision does not disclose a very fundamental fact and that is that the boy was subject to extreme violence which is the reason he did not want to be returned to his parents? That is a fact. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not know that that question is the responsibility— 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am certainly not prepared to comment on the particularities of the case but I would like to make one other comment to the questioner and that is simply that the openness or otherwise of the Family Court will be considered subsequent to the release of the select committee’s report on the Care of Children Bill and as part of the Government’s consideration of the report of the Law Commission. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister agree that the Family Court should be required to make available meaningful statistics on the number of cases delayed; if so why has he not required that to be done despite his 4½ years in the position? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Not at this time. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did I hear the member say: “Not at this time.”? That is an answer to the question. Whether members agree with it is another matter.