Newman Muriel: General Debates 
Newman Muriel: General Debates 
[Volume:615;Page:11310] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 There has been a sea change in politics this year and one has to say it is the centre right striking back against the damaging politically correct agenda that the Labour Government has been trying to thrust down the throats of unwilling New Zealanders. The catalyst was Don Brash’s speech. It was like a lightning rod where people have said enough is enough. They have rejected this Government’s creation of racial privilege at the expense of other New Zealanders. 
So what has been the reaction of the silent majority? There has been a dramatic shift in voter opinion that is unprecedented in New Zealand’s history and it has now caused National to be the leading party in this Parliament. What is the Government’s response? The answer is panic: an avalanche of spin of propaganda and of U-turns. We have seen U-turns over Maori privilege over school closures and now over the foreshore and seabed legislation. 
But I am here today to ask the Government for another U-turn. My Family Court (Openness of Proceedings) Bill was drawn in the ballot last week and I am asking this Government to change the way it has voted on that bill. Three years ago the bill was drawn and the Labour Government voted it down and I am asking this Government to send the bill to open up the Family Court to the Justice and Electoral Committee. That committee is dealing at present with the Care of Children Bill which is looking at the issue of openness in the Family Court. The committee members are well versed in this issue and I am asking this Government to allow the public of New Zealand to have a say about an issue that is extremely important to the way this democracy is run. 
Since 2001 concerns about the Family Court have grown. The Family Court in some areas is known now as a court of injustice. It tears children and families apart taking children away from their parents and grandparents; it perpetrates false allegations; and it fails to enforce court orders. It has even reached the stage where judges are ordering the court to be open so the public of New Zealand can see what terrible things are happening right in front of our eyes—except that we cannot see them because of the secrecy that generally prevails around the Family Court. 
People cannot speak out about what goes on in the Family Court through threat of criminal prosecution. Right now one of our colleagues the Hon Nick Smith is across the road in the High Court. He is facing criminal prosecution along with National Radio and one of our television channels because they spoke out about an issue before the Family Court that a judge had spoken out about. He is not facing criminal prosecution—only those others. 
I am calling for the Family Court to be open like our Youth Court giving judges the power to grant name suppression and to close the court on a case by case basis. It would simply align New Zealand’s Family Court with that of Australia’s and other Western countries. The benefits of an open court would be significant: open justice an increase in mediation instead of litigation a reduction in the number of cases going before the court and therefore a drop in the cost of legal aid to be met by the taxpayers of New Zealand. 
 There would be a fall in the number of child abuse cases because the two cases where judges have opened up their courts in recent years have exposed the disorganisation of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services in dealing with care and protection issues. If that department were open to public scrutiny its performance would improve and the number of cases of child abuse in this country would go down. 
I warn the Government that in 3 years the tide of public opinion has changed in favour of more openness in the Family Court—and that is not just public opinion; it is the opinion of the judiciary and the legal profession as well. Openness in the Family Court is an idea whose time has come. It is such an important issue because it is all about natural justice. I would like to see this Government support the bill going to a select committee.