Newman Muriel: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Newman Muriel: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16680] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 As I said from the outset the ACT party will be opposing the bill largely because although it sounds and feels good it will do little to change the terrible problems that do exist in family law in New Zealand. 
 But I would like to bring the Committee’s attention to an amendment in my name that inserts a new clause 131. The amendment would effectively introduce into New Zealand a truly open Family Court. The problem we all have with the bill as it stands is that although the Associate Minister of Justice has put forward provisions for a so-called opening up of the Family Court they are Clayton’s provisions. The bill still enables censorship of whatever is reported by the media. As I understand it anyone can object to the media being present. I suspect that very rapidly a pattern will develop of the court appearing to be open to the media the media turning up but then having to leave because somebody objects; and if they do stay the distance then whatever they write up will be censored. So I say the Committee should look carefully at my amendment to insert new clause 131. It is based on the member’s bill to open up New Zealand’s Family Court that parliamentary counsel drafted for me. If the parties represented here want to see more open democracy in the Family Court they are urged to support that amendment. 
The issue is this: family law in New Zealand at the present time is hurting children. It is as simple as that! Family law in New Zealand is denying kids their right to be able to have an ongoing relationship and frequent contact with their non-custodial parent. That is how the system works in this country. If people end up in the Family Court one parent comes out the winner—gets custody of the children—and the other one is the loser. What we have seen over the years is that the family member who loses out on custody—the non-custodial parent—has to pay large amounts of child support and often that person’s right to be able to maintain contact with the children is eroded away. We end up with kids who no longer see that parent—usually a dad—or the grandparents uncles aunts and so on on that side of the family. We end up with kids being cut off from what should be their right: contact with their biological parent and that part of the family. 
I say that the fact this practice has gone on and on for years and years is a reflection of the fact that the secret Family Court has not allowed publication of this information. This information is known to those families who are caught up in family breakdown but not to the wider public. The public have no idea of the pain and suffering that goes on through the Family Court. That is why it is so important that the media are allowed to attend and to report on what goes on—obviously with name suppression and all those other protections. In general the court should be open and should have a presumption of openness like our select committees of Parliament. It is important that the media as the fourth estate as the fourth leg of our democratic system of Government can take part in what is going on in the Family Court. The reason why family law in New Zealand is such a mess why so many families are suffering as a result of family law is that the public have not been allowed to see what has been going on. 
I want to set the record straight by saying that the first time this Parliament actually dealt with this issue was in 2001 when a bill in my name was introduced to open up the Family Court. The number of people supporting that move back then—I suppose one could call it a movement; it had been pushed by the media and individuals—became a groundswell and that groundswell has now caused changes but they are not enough.