Newman Muriel: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister; Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Newman Muriel: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister; Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13883] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is a convention of Parliament even more so under MMP that parties support members’ bills to a select committee if the issue being raised in the bill has merit. Parties support such bills to a select committee so that the committee can investigate the issue and the public can have their say. 
The Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill highlights what was a very arrogant approach by the Labour Government when the bill first came into Parliament in 2001. It highlighted the fact that Labour was completely out of touch with the concerns of society back then. I appeal to the Labour Government members when they choose how they will vote on this legislation today to reflect on the wider concerns of society and decide to send this bill to a select committee. 
This bill is all about open justice in the very crucial area of family law. One could say that it is the most important area of law in New Zealand because it goes to the heart of what happens with families and what happens to their children when families are going through very difficult times and in particular when they are going through a family separation. 
This bill was last debated on 21 February 2001 and was defeated by the Government. It said that the issues raised about openness in the Family Court were not important and they had no merit. That is the only reason why parties would not support this bill to a select committee. Yet I have to say that progress in this area since that time demonstrates how vitally important this issue is to New Zealand and how petty the Government was back then when it failed to send the bill to a select committee. The open court legislation was the catalyst for change. The bill itself and all of those people who got behind it and supported the cause of more openness in this area of law created a momentum that reverberated right through the whole judicial system. It made people think debate and reflect on what is best for New Zealand. It made them think about the outcomes and the need for change the need for more openness in the whole family law area the need for greater scrutiny of what was happening in that court and the need for greater accountability and greater responsiveness so that the court could deal in a better manner with the people who were appearing before it. 
During the whole process of change—from 2001 until today—a number of people have made some very significant statements about the need for change in family law. The previous Principal Family Court Judge Judge Mahoney stated that the judiciary would be happy with whatever level of openness Parliament decided on in this crucial area. The new Principal Family Court Judge Judge Boshier is one of only a handful of judges who has the distinction of exercising discretion and exercising his power which already exists for family law judges to open his court to public scrutiny. He did that in Whangarei a few years ago. He was so concerned about the operation of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services he decided that the public should see what was actually going on in that department. I put on record that if there was openness in the area of family law one of the key changes would be better performance from the child welfare agency in New Zealand and an improvement in the fraught area of child abuse and all the negative consequences for children. Every jurisdiction that has opened up its Family Court has found that over time the department dealing with those areas improves its performance and as a result the rates of child abuse have been reduced. I say to the Labour Government that if it votes this bill down again then it will be condoning child abuse in New Zealand because here is an absolutely rock-solid way for this Government to improve its performance in this area. 
I would like to dwell on this issue for a moment in light of the appalling situation that we heard about in question time today. Concern was expressed about a mother who had abused a 6-week-old baby. As I understand it she is now on bail for the assault of this 6-week-old child. The Minister claimed that she did not know that the other two children of this mother who had been taken into care because the mother was deemed not to be fit were in such a disgraceful state that we heard today that one 2-year-old child weighed 9 kilograms. Can members believe that the level of starvation was such that that child’s weight was so light? The other child was covered in excrement. It is just an appalling and disgraceful story. The Minister reported to the House that she did not know; that she was not informed by her department of the state in which those two children were removed from the care of their mother even though her department knew that the Minister had to face up to questioning in Parliament and to public scrutiny. Are those the actions of a well-performing department? I say not and this Government should think long and hard about that. 
If there is another way for the Government to try to help to improve the performance of this department through opening up the Family Court then even if it is unsure about whether the Family Court should be fully open the Government should take the opportunity to allow this bill to go to a select committee so that a reduction in child abuse can be one of the outcomes it can be proud of having helped to achieve. 
The major reason to call for open court in New Zealand is to improve the future direction for children who have been involved in family breakdown. New Zealand has the dubious record of being the leader in fatherlessness in the Western World. Any sensible New Zealander would tell us that two good parents are better than one yet we have family laws that ensure that one of those good parents is alienated during a family breakdown. We have children who not only lose their family home they also lose their nuclear family and they are alienated from one of their parents. The problem is that most people unless they have been affected by this do not understand what has happened because the Family Court has been secret. If people speak out as we in this Parliament know only too well because of what happened to one of our colleagues then they risk severe threat and criminal prosecution. 
If the Family Court was more open we would see more parents choosing mediation we would see a reduction in the number of false allegations that are thrown around in the battle between parents over their children we would see fewer family break-ups to start with as they saw the troubles and tribulations that would be ahead of them and we would see the warfare that surrounds family breakdown reduce and better outcomes for children as a consequence. 
The Government will make some changes in this area through its Care of Children Bill. I say that the Government will end up regulating the Family Court. It will be more open but it will not be an open court. This Government should be very careful about voting this bill down when it has the chance to send it to a select committee and to act in the best interests of New Zealand.