Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6062. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Does she intend to review the secrecy provisions of the Family Court system; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. Today I introduced the Care of Children Bill which will permit wider reporting of guardianship proceedings in the Family Court so long as identifying information about the parties and children involved is not disclosed. The Law Commission is also reviewing that matter and released the second discussion document late last year called  
Seeking Solutions: Options for Change to the New Zealand Court System 
 which has raised this very issue. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can the Minister confirm whether she intends to open up New Zealand’s Family Court properly considering that when Australia opened up its Family Court it had a massive decrease in litigation; mediation was seen to be a better and more cost-effective option and there was a dramatic fall-off in false allegations—all extremely positive outcomes to families and children— and where is the drawback in properly opening up the Family Court? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The provision within the Guardianship Act relates to all courts. It does not relate just to Family Court proceedings. An important balance has to be sought to be met in respect of the interests of privacy and taking into account that often children are involved. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Why are the proceedings of the Family Court held in private? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Many Family Court proceedings involve highly personal issues. The Law Commission discussion document makes the point that many family matters involve highly personal or embarrassing facts. Therefore the parties have a high privacy interest that is presumed to outweigh any public interest in openness. Children and young persons are particularly vulnerable and the effect of publicity can be especially harmful. Balanced against that are issues and concerns around public confidence in the courts which is why the Law Commission is reviewing this matter. 
Richard Worth 
: Can the Associate Minister of Justice explain why the Solicitor-General wrote to Nelson MP Nick Smith threatening a contempt of court prosecution for breaching the secrecy of the Family Court when no such letter was sent to National Radio TV3 or the Principal Family Court Judge all of whom have also commented specifically on the case raised by Dr Smith and why is a member of the Opposition being singled out? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have received no advice from the Solicitor-General on the matter. Therefore I cannot answer the question raised by the member. I would like to make the point though that section 27A of the Guardianship Act is very clear about the nature of comments that can be made and that they must be made with the leave of the court. It is very clear in the legislation that leave has to be sought. It has also been made very clear in court cases on the subject that neither party to family litigation to which the privacy policy applies has the right to waive privacy although the consent of all parties to the waiving of privacy may be a factor to be taken into account by the court. All members should be very careful about how they express their so-called concern about constituents whom they are not giving good advice to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That answer was too long. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In the light of the Minister’s admission that her Government’s changes in her new bill are simply Clayton’s changes how can she justify the Family Court’s obsession with wielding its power in absolute secrecy and destroying public confidence in the court in order to hide its preferential treatment of mothers its bias against fathers and the incompetence of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and does she realise that that obsessive secrecy serves only to protect judges court workers and lawyers and not the unfortunate children and their families who come into the clutches of the court? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The whole thrust of the Care of Children Bill is to ensure that the rights welfare and interests of children are placed at the head of all decision-making. It is the children’s rights and interests that matter under that bill.