Hutchison Paul: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15687] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thanks for the opportunity to speak on the Family Courts Matters Bill. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Argh! Argh! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: There are some very strange eructations coming from the Minister sitting in his seat there. Would he like some help? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No no. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Certainly not from a witch doctor. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Ha ha—OK. This is a very important bill and it seeks to make Family Court proceedings more open and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Family Courts. 
Speaking to Part 1 I note that it amends the Adoption Act 1955. A variety of matters relating to attendance at hearings are spelt out. One of the obvious aims of this bill is to ensure there is more openness. New section 22(1) states that officers of the court are permitted to attend hearings along with all parties to the proceedings and “(d) a social worker who furnished a report under section 10: (e) accredited news media reporters: (f) persons whom the Judge permits to be present as support persons for a party on the request of that party: (g) any other persons whom the Judge permits to be present.” So the provision certainly is fairly wide and much wider than it used to be. 
There was considerable debate as to just how far this provision should go but I guess the new section 22(3) makes the judge the absolute decider of who should remain in the court. New section 22(5) states: “If during a hearing the Judge requests a person of any of the following kinds to leave the courtroom the person must do so:”. That includes “(a) an accredited news media reporter: (b) a support person whom the Judge permitted to be present under subsection (1)(f).” New subsection (6) states: “Nothing in this section limits any other power of the Court—(a) to hear proceedings in private; or (ab) to permit a McKenzie friend to be present; or (b) to exclude any person from the Court.” Clearly this relies very much on the judge’s judgment as to who should be removed and when. I think that is absolutely right and appropriate. I asked some of my legal colleagues about this because one might question why a judge should not for example explain why someone has been asked to leave. But I think that a judge is a very astute technician. I remember very well as a surgeon carrying out caesarean sections that in recent years all sorts of people would come into the operating theatre—sometimes as many as six or seven family members—and one of the things I always insisted on was that if there was any indication that I felt it was appropriate for them to leave they would do so. Similarly here we must rely on the judiciary to decide when it is appropriate for someone to go. 
Another point that needs to be made in relation to subsection (6) is that there was considerable discussion during the hearing of submissions regarding the right of a McKenzie friend to be present and there was absolute concurrence with the view that the right to have a McKenzie friend there was incredibly important—as is the right to have a support person which has not always been the case. Just the other day I had in my constituency clinic a lady who said that in the past she had not been permitted to have a support person in the court with her. In a vulnerable situation where there might be on the other side a disgruntled partner who can use emotive and tough words it can be extremely difficult for someone who is very vulnerable. So I think the ability in Part 1 to assure parties that a support person may be present is particularly constructive. 
Part 1 agreed to.