Smith Nick: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister; Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister; Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13887] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The opening of the Family Court to public scrutiny is an absolutely essential reform if we are to live up to our open democratic traditions and if families in New Zealand are to get a fairer deal. I congratulate Muriel Newman on starting this debate in 2001. We are making progress but that was a disappointing contribution from the Minister. The Minister said to the House that the Family Court is not a secret court. Well why did the Government put me in the dock for 5 days? 
Government Members 
: Aw! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It did. If it is not secret then it is a pretty extraordinary thing that it asked for. 
The second claim by the Minister is not to subject the Family Court to scrutiny because it might be brought into disrepute. I say that the Family Court must be as open to scrutiny as any other taxpayer-funded institution and we must ensure that that court is accountable for the services it delivers to the New Zealand public. A secret court is a dangerous court. The Family Court wields enormous power—the power to separate children from their parents the power to take assets from one person and give them to another and the power to remove some of the most basic freedoms in society. Those powers must be subject to some check. The most important check of all is the one in respect of public scrutiny. It is not just important that justice is done but that it is seen to be done. 
The current secrecy in the Family Court creates an awful dilemma for this Parliament. The way in which our democracy functions is that our Parliament passes laws the public then observes the way those laws are administered in our courts they make judgments about whether that reflects the values of New Zealand society and then Parliament refines those laws. But if the Family Court is completely closed to public scrutiny how is the public to judge whether indeed it is reflecting the values of New Zealand society? We have cut off the essential loop by which our democratic structures in New Zealand operate. How can we make the assessment if only the judges and the lawyers who work within that environment know what the decisions are—even more so when we have such vague laws that simply ask that the court acts in the best interests of the child? The truth is we all have a different view about what might be in the best interests of the child. I happen to believe in and put strong values on parental rights in that respect. But how can we make the judgment as to whether those best interests are being served consistent with the public if the court is to be closed? 
There are three particular reasons why I think the court needs to be opened to public scrutiny. It is interesting to note the statements made by the Minister and by the chief social worker Shannon Pakura who said that opening up the Family Court will be bad because society will see what adults do to each other and what they do to their children. I take the opposite view. It is my view that by seeing what society does we have some potential to address those issues. I also believe that having a more open court will help the court function. People will be able to see what takes place and make judgments about whether they want to take their own case to the court. I would also argue that those who say that the Family Court being opened up will return us to hearing the salacious details of marriage break-ups are ignoring the fact that we now have a no-fault divorce law and we need look no further than Australia to see it working effectively. 
I challenge the next Government member who says he or she will vote against this bill to tell us where the evidence is that it is working so badly in Australia. Yes I accept there needs to be protection of identity and name but an opening of the Family Court is absolutely essential if families are to get a better deal in New Zealand.