Flavell Te Ururoa: Family Courts Matters Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Family Courts Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11469] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker; kia ora tatou katoa—as we wind down the clock to 6 o’clock. The history of the Family Court’s relationship with Maori has been extensively documented. I found out recently that Donna Durie Hall and Joan Metge had reported on seven statutes in the area of family law and they came to what they described as the inescapable conclusion that the statutes had been in most cases “formulated and passed on the basis of commitment to Pakeha values and objectives without regard to their compatibility with tikanga Maori”. I find that explanation of an inescapable conclusion interesting on two counts. Firstly I am interested in the reference to Pakeha values and objectives as the area of Pakeha culture has often been neglected or inadequately described. Secondly although we make no judgment as to the value of Pakeha culture the key point is that the saturation of Pakeha culture in family law has led to what Donna Durie Hall and Joan Metge conclude which is that Maori family forms and values are being placed under great stress. 
The Law Commission study that was commissioned by the Government and was reported back in 2002 concluded that greater provision needed to be made for the participation of whanau in Family Court processes. It further identified that the Family Court was plagued by a lack of culturally appropriate specialist services such as Maori Family Court counsellors and specialist report writers. The report also advocated for paid kaitiaki—Maori advocates—to help to smooth the way for children and whanau. 
Faced then with that reality what does the Family Courts Matters Bill do? As I understand it the purpose of the bill is to increase the openness of the proceedings of the Family Court and to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of the Family Court by making changes to the processes. In itself we welcome the commitment to openness and transparency—awesome! We see that as being very much in keeping with Maori conceptions of whanau. The late John Rangihau has described that in ways that demonstrate the collective responsibility and accountability for children through to the tribal group. A child was not to be viewed in isolation or as an exclusive chattel of his or her parents. He stated: “The hapu or tribal group is bound to provide for the physical social and spiritual well-being of the child and its upbringing as a member of a particular hapu. This responsibility would take precedence over the view of the birth parents.” In that way the proposal to allow support persons to attend proceedings with the judge’s permission lends itself well to Maori values and protocols associated with the concept of whanaungatanga. 
We in the Maori Party firmly believe that the responsibility for children must be widely shared across whanau. The responsibilities and rights that are derived from whakapapa are not necessarily upheld by limiting child-raising to being the role of birth parents exclusively. Indeed the very sensitive issues around the value that is placed on children are we consider but a consequence of the fragmentation of whanau. The child has a right—as does the whanau to that child—to know his or her whanau hapu and iwi and we hope that principle will permeate every aspect of the Family Courts Matters Bill. 
I will talk about media reporting for a while because we are concerned at the suggestion in this new bill that Family Court proceedings could be reported on. Although it is helpful to see the provision for a penalty to be applied if the provisions on reporting are breached we believe that the whole issue around the sensationalised reporting of Family Court cases needs thorough debate. We have previously come to this House and reported on studies that show newspaper and television sources have proven to be unfairly balanced in their treatment of Maori people and issues. In general studies have reported that bad news predominates over good news and that in some media denigrating and insulting comments about Maori have been reported. Given that we think it is neither appropriate nor safe for any aspect of the proceedings undertaken in the Family Court to be subjected to the trauma of media exposure. 
In terms of the amendments to process and procedure the bill introduces a whole raft of changes that we might summarise as tinkering around the edges of Family Court law. Uppermost in that tinkering surely has to be the come-back of gowns for Family Court judges. I want briefly to mention three points. 
Firstly we welcome the opportunity for increased attendance at mediation conferences. Again that is consistent with the essence of whanaungatanga relationships. 
The second is the issue of extending the administrative powers to enable Family Court registrars to—amongst other things—appoint a lawyer to act for the child. That again is an issue that we believe needs far more discussion. We believe that the initiative of having a counsel for the child would benefit from wide discussion amongst whanau hapu and iwi. We wonder how the important role of having someone to champion the cause of the child—a concept we endorse—can be supported by whanau as having authority and credibility for all parties. 
The third aspect of change is the proposal that anyone who has entered into a parenting agreement—not just parents and guardians—should be able to request counselling to help resolve matters. The question we ask around that is inevitably coloured by the awful lousy terrible family violence data that this nation is becoming known for. The studies reveal that virtually all of the children who have died from physical abuse—that is 95 percent—were abused by parents step-parents or de facto spouses of their natural parents. Over 80 percent of the physical abuse cases resulting in hospitalisation were caused by either the child’s parent or de facto parent. The issue we have is around the means by which step-parents or de facto spouses are enabled to benefit from the provisions around counselling. If those individuals have not gone through the process of guardianship what is the likelihood that they will sign up to a parenting agreement? Counselling may however be extremely helpful to them in terms of making the difference. 
I want also to touch on the issue of non-judicial mediation. We in the Maori Party have placed great faith in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act of 1989 and the highly significant  
Puao-te-ata-tu – Daybreak  
report both of which gave explicit value to the involvement of whanau hapu and iwi in decision making about the lives of children and young people. We acknowledge the work of Ani Mikaere who prepared a summary of the key principles underlying Maori child raising—namely the significance of whakapapa; that children belong to whanau hapu and iwi; that rights and responsibilities regarding children are shared; and that children have rights and responsibilities to their whanau. Those principles say it all yet—surprise surprise—we cannot see any recognition of those principles in the proposals for non-judicial mediation. 
Finally I say that the Maori Party will support the bill’s referral to the select committee in order to allow whanau hapu and iwi and Maori professionals and kaitiaki who work in the Family Court area to have a say. I note with particular interest that Te Hunga Roia Maori o Aoteaora is holding its conference at Waipapa Marae in Auckland beginning on 6 September which includes a practical workshop presented by Judge Hikaka Nicole Walker and Hana Ellis. The workshop is entitled “The Role of Whanaungatanga in Family Court Processes”. Perhaps the select committee might take time out to take part in that workshop to ensure that the history in the space between this House and me and between this bill and reality is addressed. 
Koina etahi korero hei whakakopani i waku korero i tenei po. Huri noa kia ora tatau.  
[ 
So those statements end my address tonight. Greetings to us throughout the Chamber. 
] 
Debate interrupted.