Barker Rick: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister; Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister; Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13888] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 When the Family Courts were established over 20 years ago the vision was of a specialist court that would encourage parties to resolve their own differences wherever possible. It has been very effective and I want to put on the record that over 90 percent of all cases that come before the Family Court are resolved without the judge making the decision. To achieve this outcome the nature of the court had to be informal. Proceedings had to be heard in private so that families could air their differences frankly and openly and engage in a way that enabled the court to function effectively and so that people could make their own decisions. The courts were discussing private matters not secret matters and there is a distinction. Legislation passed since the establishment of the Family Court has been consistent with that philosophy. As a result the majority of family proceedings are closed to the public. Reporting generally occurs only in a restricted and controlled way. 
It is also worthwhile noting that Family Courts deal with a wide range of matters. Each type of family proceedings raises different considerations when deciding on the best way to achieve transparency in those proceedings. One general clause as is proposed in the bill before the House does not recognise the unique and varied jurisdiction of the Family Courts. For example hearings under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act are usually held in hospital premises. Hearings under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act will also be held in hospitals once that Act comes into force. Some of the proceedings are conducted in secure wards that have strict visiting protocols to ensure the safety and well-being of the individuals with mental illness as well as of the visitors and the staff. Public attendance is unlikely or practically desirable in any of these hearings. 
Another example is the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. Such proceedings often involve highly vulnerable people. In some cases these people are at risk of violence and find taking decisions to make an application for a protection order a huge challenge. A presumption of public attendance at such proceedings is likely to affect this finely balanced decision about whether to apply for a protection order and may actively discourage the potential applicant from seeking such a protection order. 
Family Court proceedings are more intimate and much more emotionally charged than other court proceedings. At the same time disputes heard in the Family Court almost invariably involve children or vulnerable people. The principle of open justice is important but decisions on the openness of the Family Courts must also ensure that vulnerable people and children involved in those proceedings have adequate protections. A balance needs to be struck between those two principles and this balance must be absolutely unique to the Family Court to reflect the nature of the Family Court’s work. 
In reporting its decision  
Delivering Justice for All: A Vision for New Zealand Courts and Tribunals 
 the Law Commission provides a clear direction on the balance that it considers needs to be struck. The commission does not support public attendance at all family proceedings and recommends that family proceedings that are currently closed to the general public should remain closed. That approach is markedly different from the one in this member’s bill. The Law Commission’s recommendations offer more protection to the users of the Family Court system than the bill currently before us. Its recommendations are also based on public consultation and research. 
I do not support this bill proceeding to a select committee. This bill is a blunt and crude instrument. This bill does not take into account the true nature of the Family Court’s work. It does not meet the needs of those people who use the system. The Care of Children Bill and the Law Commission’s report are more appropriate vehicles for that legislation. And I want to tell that member who interjected that there is a distinction between private matters and secret matters. Private matters are matters within a family and that is where they should stay and not be used as some sort of proceedings for those who are more voyeuristic in their approach to life.