Hutchison Paul: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18585. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It is indeed with pleasure that I rise to support the 12 bills divided from the Family Courts Matters Bill. I must say that it is quite astounding how confused the Labour Government has become—perhaps confused and tired—as it gets to the end of its term in Government. It was only about half an hour ago that it suggested we would have these third readings another day but suddenly they are here. Labour members are shaking their heads; maybe they are even more confused! 
As Dr Cullen says this legislation is very very profoundly important. His comment is slightly at odds with the comments of his colleague the Hon Rick Barker who in the debate on the first reading of the original bill said that it was just a technical bill. Clearly it was the direct opposite. This legislation is profoundly important and indeed it deals with matters that are exquisitely sensitive and it is very important to make sure we get those matters right. I know that as the constituent MP for the most excellent electorate of Port Waikato some of my most distressing moments occur when I am visited by constituents who have had bad experiences in the Family Court. I guess that is because so often the matter is to do with children or with relationships that have come apart. For those reasons it is very important that the court is able to work efficiently effectively and of course sensibly. 
One of the most powerful submissions to the Social Services Committee was from Peter Boshier the Principal Family Court Judge. He made great emphasis of the fact that it was important to have expert qualified counsellors psychologists and mediators that they should all be registered and that there should be continuous quality control. They must be people of high professional quality. He made a great point of emphasising that. I made the point in the select committee that it was quite interesting to hear mediators suggest that they should be paid as much for their services as lawyers are paid for theirs. They felt that the part they played was just as important as if not more important than the part lawyers played. My legal friends around me wondered whether that was being a bit adventurous on their part. 
Judge Boshier pointed out that although judges sort out the legal aspects of disputes in many respects it is not appropriate for them to carry out mediation or counselling. They are not the experts in it. He made a comment that the courts had a backlog of something like 6000 to 7000 cases in this area at the time of his submission and he pointed out how important it was that expert mediators and counsellors be available. He also pointed out that several pilot schemes had been carried out and they showed that while judges might have only a limited time to spend on counselling or mediation the professional mediators had up to 6 hours of mediation available to them through the court and he felt that that was the best use of time in that respect. 
I remember that he cited a very poignant case of a child aged 12 who said that he never wanted to see his father again. Judge Boshier asked the young fellow whether if he met his father in the street he would say hello. The boy said: “No. I’d walk across to the other side and I wouldn’t have anything to do with him.” The point Judge Boshier was making was that it was extremely sad that things had got to that situation and how important it was that that young man be given the chance of mediation and counselling by experts to sort out hopefully the very very difficult emotional state that he was in with regard to his father and hopefully that relationship could be mended in the future. 
One of the other really important parts of the legislation is the opening up of the courts and the really important balance that must be struck between open justice and the privacy of the individuals children and families who are involved. We heard that the Australian courts are open but that the repercussions for the families and in particular the children sometimes can be profoundly negative. I think I quoted earlier on what the English Law Commission had said about it. It said: “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.” 
What is very important is striking the balance that is necessary to be able to deal with the tensions that can occur in the Family Court. Judge Boshier pointed out how important it is for the judges to have complete control of the court and to have the absolute authority to ask people to leave when that is necessary and that ability is very clearly pointed out in the legislation. 
One of the other things that came out in the select committee was the missed opportunity to deal with DNA testing. I will not repeat the extraordinary case in the Pukekohe District Court where I was called to be an expert witness but I think it is very important that the court system comes right up to par with modern scientific practice because families and children are missing out if it does not. 
Just to end this is very important legislation. The National Party is very glad to support it and I look forward to the contributions to be made by my expert colleagues Chris Finlayson and Chester Borrows who have spent much of their professional careers in the courts and undoubtedly have a lot to offer.