Hutchison Paul: Family Courts Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Family Courts Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15588] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to speak on this very important Family Courts Matters Bill which the National Party is pleased to support. I note that in the first reading debate the Hon Rick Barker described this bill as pertaining just to technical changes. That is very far from the truth; in fact there are some profoundly important changes relating to the openness of the court. 
I believe that the Social Services Committee worked very well. It is always a pleasure to help keep the Labour Government from erring and straying unnecessarily and some very positive results occurred through the select committee members working together on this legislation. 
It is important to reiterate that the bill is a response to criticism from individuals interest groups and the media about the closed nature of the Family Court. I think it is relevant to once again say that much of what the bill incorporates is a result of two Law Commission reports:  
Dispute Resolution in the Family Court 
 released in 2003 and  
Delivering Justice For All 
 released in 2004. I note that an important balance is required and this was made clear in the opening statement of the first reading debate. Any change to the openness of the Family Court must strike a balance between open justice and the privacy of the individuals children and families involved. 
With regard to children’s privacy I understand that the Australian system is entirely open and that individuals—particularly vulnerable children—can from time to time be exposed to very serious intrusions on their privacy. On the other hand the English Law Commission has stated: “What is more serious is that the parties and more especially their innocent children whose identity is frequently revealed as a result of the details which can be published suffer the disturbing experience of having the most intimate details of the family life exposed. While it may be said that the parties have only themselves to blame no such argument can apply to the children whose privacy the law takes pains to protect in other cases.” 
The select committee has reported the bill back with suggested amendments including protecting the disclosure of identifying information where a person under the age of 18 years is involved and broadening the definition of “vulnerable person”. These amendments are very important to what the bill is trying to do. 
I must say that one of the very powerful submissions to my mind came from the Principal Family Court Judge Judge Peter Boshier. He noticed how very important it is to have qualified expert counsellors psychologists and mediators. He noted that all of these people should be registered that they should be subject to continuous quality control and that there should be high standard of professional quality. He noted that judge-led mediation should be removed which was very interesting to hear. 
Judge Boshier pointed out that judges are able to sort out the legal aspects of disputes but that the number of cases in which judges try to sort out who gets the child for Christmas Day swamp the courts—and indeed the courts are very swamped. He said that it is much better to have a well-trained mediator of high quality for those cases. He pointed out that the courts at present are given only 1½ hours for this process whereas the mediation services have about 6 hours available. 
Judge Boshier cited one very poignant case of a child aged 12 who said that he never wanted to see his father again. Judge Boshier took the effort to try to ask why the child had this response but he could not find out through mediation or through any other way. Judge Boshier asked the boy whether if he met his father on the footpath he would say hello and the boy said: “No I would cross the road.” The response from the judge was: “This is particularly sad; in fact profoundly so.” This is the sort of case where it is so important to have high-quality mediation and counselling available to individuals in the Family Court so that at least individuals have the opportunity to be able to express their feelings if they wish to. 
I will not speak much longer on this bill although there are many other points that I would like to make. One is the DNA testing one and I think that Parliament should address this matter in the future. I just want to relate a experience that I had personally as registrar at National Women’s Hospital when I was asked to go out to the Pukekohe Family Court to give expert witness evidence on a case where seven young men were being held responsible for having possibly fathered a child. As it happened only one of them had any assets to his name and the ability to be able to support this woman and child. On my reckoning of the dates at the time he was the least likely to have been the father but unfortunately the judge nailed him as the one who was responsible. In this day and age when we have DNA testing available it is highly important that we use the new technology. 
I will finish on that note. I will just say that National is pleased to be able to support the Family Courts Matters Bill going to the Committee stage.