Jones Dail: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister; Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister; Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13889] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I am sure that anyone who goes to court—any private citizen—would like to have his or her case heard in private because going to court is very stressful for any individual on either side of a case. Whether it is a Family Court matter suing over a civil debt or a criminal matter the stress on the parties involved is almost the same. I have been involved in acting for both sides in civil cases. People can be very very stressed about going to court and about what will happen to them in the courtroom when the other practitioner gets hold of them and starts cross-examining. Appearing in court is stressful regardless of what type of environment it is in. 
The Family Court of course has had considerable protection in so far as the parties are concerned over many years. The previous speaker referred to the reforms after the royal commission in the late 1970s and the new Family Court legislation in 1979-1980. Of course I was in Parliament at that time and I was involved in that legislation. In fact I resigned as junior Government whip over one aspect of the legislation at that particular stage so I am quite familiar with it. At that time the use of the Family Court was not as substantial as it is today. In those days one could get legal aid but there seemed to be some restraints on legal aid at that time and there were not that many Family Court cases. When we passed the legislation in 1980 we did so on the assumption that court matters would reduce. We assumed that there would be an improvement and a reduction in cases coming to the court because of mediation conciliation and such like. That was the premise on which all that was done. Yet today in the Justice and Electoral Committee we learnt that the number of judges has grown enormously since 1980 and this makes something of a mockery of our best intentions at that time. 
Since that time we have seen the growth of the Family Court jurisdiction helped almost solely by the ready availability of the domestic purposes benefit and legal aid. People are virtually encouraged now that if anything goes wrong the first thing to do is not to seek mediation or conciliation but to walk out the door get a lawyer get some legal aid and see what one can get from the other party. It is a tragic state of affairs. I read Dr Michael Basset’s comments on this issue from time to time. As he has said if the Labour Government of 1973-74 when introducing the domestic purposes benefit had known where it would take us today it would never have done it. But that of course is another story. It is relevant though to the vast increase in the use of the Family Court. 
There is no point in blaming the courts because the Family Court or any other court is only as good as the power given to it by Parliament. Any member of Parliament—and I refer to Dr Nick Smith the National Party member—has no reason to blame the courts for what they do because the courts only do what we in this Parliament tell them to do. When Dr Smith was a member of the National Government and he disliked the law so much he had the opportunity then as a member of that Government to change the law. He had many years in which to do it but he never did. 
It should be made clear of course that it is this Labour Government that is doing something to have some effect on the privacy provisions and the secrecy provisions of the court under the Care of Children Bill. However unlike the Labour Minister I cannot comment too much on that bill because it is privileged. 
New Zealand First will support this bill. We like to support bills especially members’ bills in principle to a select committee. We believe that that is the place where those matters can be debated more fully. Unfortunately the Justice and Electoral Committee which should be considering this bill in conjunction with the Care of Children Bill is coming to the end of hearing submissions on that bill so some of the real focus of this bill will have been lost. 
I congratulate the ACT member for putting this issue before Parliament. I think that as members of Parliament we should always remember: do not blame the courts for anything at all whether it is sentencing Family Court secrecy or whatever. Remember that the power is in our hands as members of Parliament to do something about it.