Care of Children Bill

New Zealand First is opposed to this legislation, and one of the main reasons for our opposition is that it does not do anything new. All it does do is alter some of the provisions that exist in the law today, and then go on ad nauseam in explaining what happens in the Family Court today.

Part 3 is one of the best examples of this volubility on the part of the Government. Part 3 talks about evidence. It talks about reports from the chief executive, reports from other persons, distribution of reports, costs of reports, and publication of reports. That is all stuff that one might expect would be in the regulations. Why waste the time of the Committee with this? If members have read the Guardianship Act of 1968 and if they have any familiarity with the practice of the courts, they will know that these sorts of things get done automatically as part of general rules and regulations of the court today. The Government seems to be of the view that if one presents a report that is hundreds of pages long, it must be good, whereas if the report is short and precise it must be bad.

Currently, the Guardianship Act is a short, precise, clear piece of legislation and we have worked very well with it over the years. Some improvements were needed, and the question of opening up the courts is one of those areas. We in New Zealand First have said that this bill should have taken into account bringing domestic violence legislation within the scope of this bill, and this Government has failed to do the only thing that is really necessary to improve the current Family Court structure.

As I say, this bill is just a waste of the Committee’s time. It was a waste of time for the select committee and the submitters, and New Zealand First does not want to waste any more time on this stupid part of the legislation. I have nothing more to say about it.

As the honourable member Dail Jones has said, Part 3 is just another example of the Government saying it will reword the law a bit, and we will all feel a lot better for that. Well, we will not—not one bit. Some of the provisions in this bill need to have a very good looking-at. One of them relates to the opening up of the Family Court. There is one person in this Parliament who needs to be congratulated on the work he has done to open up the Family Court, and that is the Hon Nick Smith. Nick Smith has put himself, his career, his family, and his money on the line. He did that for his constituents, and it has resulted in a huge groundswell of support for the opening up of the Family Court. But the Government has responded with a whimper and nothing more, and that is why we are not supporting this part. The whimpering-type opening up of the Family Court is just that, and nothing more than that.

I am very concerned about the term “accredited media”. The accredited media will be allowed to report on the Family Court, and will have their reports looked at and approved by the judge. What sort of accredited media are going to report on that basis? Well, I have been told by the news media who might have been interested in looking at the workings and non-workings of the Family Court that they simply will not be interested in reporting like that. The news media are not there to put out the politically correct nonsense that comes from this Government. They are not there to pander to the will of incompetent people who happen to be practising or not practising within the Family Court—and I have certainly seen a lot of that in my time. I have seen people who, as counsel for the child, did not even bother to see the child before they made reports, supposedly on behalf of the child. I have seen social workers who did not get reports back to the court in time, and I have seen people who abused the secrecy in the court and hid behind it, so that their incompetence and greed were hidden.

The losers from all that are, of course, the poor little children who happen to be the subject of the proceedings. That is who loses. Dr Nick Smith went out for those kids, and he went out for parents, and this Government, every day that it gets the opportunity to do so in this Chamber, slams him for it. This part of the bill was the Government’s opportunity to make a few amends for children, and it has not done that. The Government members whimpered—because they are not there for parents and for children. They are there for the so-called professionals who are currently not doing their jobs.

This provision is a big whitewash. It is a cop-out. It is everything we would expect from this Government when it comes to family issues, and nothing more. This bill will not improve the situation very much, at all. It will improve the reporting for lawyers by lawyers, and that is all. It will improve the system for the professionals. What will it do for those families who feel that their views as families are being ignored? Nothing. What will it do for families who feel that their professional advisors, or their social workers—the people who are there for them and their children, supposedly—are not doing their job? What about the people who feel that those social workers are kowtowing to the political correctness that this Government loves so much, and what about the people who are, in fact, lazy, incompetent people who are not doing their jobs? What will this legislation do for the really good professional people, who are struggling in that environment, and who look around and see their colleagues sit around wasting time, wasting taxpayers’ dollars, and wasting the youth of those people? What will it do for those good professionals? Nothing, because they will not have the opportunity to use this law to expose that. Yet again, secrecy is there for the benefit of the professionals.

I would just like to respond briefly to the comments that Ms Collins has made in relation to Nick Smith’s championing of the causes of families. I would like to do that by putting on the record a couple of quotes from the judgment of the court case that was referred to. In quoting from that judgment, can I first inform the Committee of this comment from the presiding judge. “The fact that pressure was applied privately to a litigant did not prevent the action being a contempt of court. All improper pressure, whether applied publicly or privately, had to be considered. The comments to the caregiver were neither fair, nor reasonable, nor moderate. They were contemptuous because their purpose was to persuade the caregiver to give up the case and concede custody to the parents. The comments were not bona fide persuasion”—[Interruption] I say to Ms Collins that she seems to operate, as do many members on that side of the House, on the theory that the fantasy often repeated becomes the truth. I think it is quite important for the people who are listening, and for the parliamentary record of this debate, that people hear just how much that champion of the family and justice, Nick Smith, was in contempt of the Family Court.

The second quote I would like to put in the record is as follows: “Dr Smith had sought to influence the Family Court’s decision. He sought to bring about the return of custody of the child to the parents. He did this by propounding that outcome, by denigrating the other possible outcome, and by calling for an inquiry.”

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Members need to confine their speeches to the content of this part. Passing references to other matters have to be very narrow.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am very happy to have a debate in this Chamber about the issues that brought about the contempt of court charge, and I seek leave of the Committee for the Minister to be able to stray in that area, providing members on this side of the Committee have the opportunity to respond.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, the Committee has no authority to do that.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Well, the member can always seek leave, but whether it is granted is another matter.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave for the debate to be widened so that the aspects of the contempt of court charge that led good parents in my electorate to lose their child are able to be debated in terms of this debate about opening up the Family Court.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Committee actually has no authority to do that. It would require the authority of the House to do so.

I am confining myself, absolutely, to the matter of this section in direct response to the matters raised by the previous speaker, Ms Collins.

The final three sentences of my contribution are as follows, and I quote from the judgment, which I will seek leave to table in a moment. “By making public comments and statements that undermined the public confidence in the Family Court decision, Dr Smith at the same time, undermined public confidence in the court itself. The intemperate, derogatory, and unfair remarks of Dr Smith assaulted the authority and integrity of the Family Court and the fairness and legitimacy of its decision.” I seek leave to table the decision of the Solicitor-General v Smith in the High Court in March this year.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister’s point of order actually breaches the Standing Orders in that one cannot seek leave to table a document that has already been tabled. The decision of the Solicitor-General—the Crown’s top law enforcement officer—versus myself has already been tabled in the House, and it is not within the Standing Orders to seek leave to table something that has already been tabled.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I just say to the member that it is a public document, and it is up to the Committee as to whether it agrees to that.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: But it has already been tabled.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It has been tabled, but the reality is that it is still—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No—there is a very specific Standing Order that says that one cannot put—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Points of order are to be heard in silence.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is a very clear Standing Order, and I have to say, Mr Chairman, that the Speaker has ruled on this. This is the fourth time that Labour has sought to re-table this document. [Interruption] I tell Marian Hobbs that the Speaker ruled—[Interruption] Mr Chairman, you have already told members that they should not interject during points of order. Marian Hobbs has been repeatedly interjecting. What are you going to do about it?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already called for order on this side. If the member made such comments—I am sorry; I did not hear them—I request her to stand, withdraw, and apologise. She has her first yellow card; the next time she is out.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: I withdraw and apologise for the interjection.

Thank you.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: As I said, this issue has previously been raised, and the Speaker ruled on it. His ruling was quite clear: one cannot seek leave to table a document if the House has already granted leave and the document has already been tabled. The Standing Order is quite simple, and it is one that has been repeated often: one cannot put the question to the House after it has already been put to the House.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I just say to the member that it is within his jurisdiction, simply, to deny leave. That has always been the case, and it is a simple matter. Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be objection.

It was interesting that during the Associate Minister’s contribution, in quoting from the contempt of court proceedings in which I was involved, he chose not to say that the judge had concluded that at all times I had acted in good faith. I hold a very basic view, and that is that good mums and dads in this country have an absolute right to be able to raise their children. I find it absolutely remarkable and gutless for members opposite to raise repeatedly—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is a longstanding member of the House, and he knows very well that to imply that a member lacks courage is a personal reflection and is out of order.

I withdraw and apologise. The interesting point is this. At the time I was convicted I said: “Let’s have a by-election in Nelson. Let’s have the people of Nelson decide.” The Labour Party was nowhere to be seen. Its members did not have the courage of their convictions to argue that issue in the public arena of my own community of Nelson. Six months later they sleaze around in this Chamber, trying to relitigate those issues, when they did not have the capacity to put those issues to the public at the time.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not know a lot about sleaze—that member might—but I take exception to any member of the Government being referred to as sleazing around the Chamber. The member might like to explain just what it means, because, clearly, he knows.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Minister has taken exception to the word used—I would assume, rightly or wrongly, that that is under Standing Order 116. As the Minister has taken exception I ask the member to withdraw.

I withdraw. How sensitive members opposite are! I shall put this very simply. Ever since May members opposite have been very keen to quote all the time what happened in the court.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: That’s dead right.

When Marian Hobbs was caught cheating on her provision—[Interruption] She was caught out cheating. She was sacked as a Minister.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: I raise a point order, Mr Chairperson. I take exception to that man lying about the actual circumstance and the court order. I ask him to withdraw.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): All members should just take a deep breath. It is not acceptable in this House to say that a member is not telling the truth. That is absolutely out of order. Here, a member’s word is his or her bond. If there are any circumstances where that is found to be otherwise, members have a course of action that they can take. I would ask the member to withdraw.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: Do you want me to withdraw?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member will withdraw.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: Can I have a point of clarification?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, I am asking the member to withdraw.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: I withdraw first; then can I ask a point of order, for clarification?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, the member may have a point of order.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. If the speaker on his feet alleged something that put me in a criminal position, that was incorrect, and that had been proven before an authority to be incorrect, can he continue to say that? What is the difference between that and lying?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): All I can say is that if the member is concerned about the manner in which a speech has been delivered in this Chamber, and if the member believes that it was incorrect, the only position available to me is that I have to take the word of the honourable member. If the Minister herself is not satisfied with what is being said across the Chamber, then she can take a breach of privilege. There is a course of action available for her to do that.

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As a New Zealand First member I ask you to bring the Labour Party and the National Party back to the bill. They are wasting the country’s time talking about something that is not related to the bill. New Zealand First supports entirely the decision of the Family Court judge and the High Court, which was absolutely right. Clearly, Mr Smith did not support the interest of his—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have heard enough. I am on my feet. I am in the process of dealing with the issue. I am the sole judge of relevancy. I ask members to come to the bill. The Committee’s term of reference is what is in the bill.

The part of the bill we are dealing with is the issue in respect of the opening up of the Family Court. I very strongly hold the view that we need to provide for public accountability of an institution that goes to the core of the most important relationships that we have during the course of our lives.

Yesterday in the Chamber it was interesting to note that the Minister in the chair was very keen to quote editorials. When it came to Judith Collins he did not come up with his own words. He had to quote editorials from newspapers up and down the country. Well, I want the Minister to look at what editorials state about his provisions, in respect of the opening up of the Family Court. Under those provisions, it appears that he is making our judges editors of our newspapers. It is a flaky and inappropriate form of State control when a judge in the Family Court can tell journalists what they can, and cannot, write.

Judges are just people. They are lawyers who have gone on to take up that office. The only accountability of our judiciary is through opening proceedings to the media. The only time I have ever seen a judge resign is when he or she has been exposed by the media. If we have a secret court that is closed, where is the check on those people, who make absolutely critical decisions about people’s families? That is why I have argued consistently that the Family Court needs to be opened. That is why I say that the Minister must reconsider the State control and the editorial control that judges are given in subclause (2AB) of clause 131. I simply say that I could quote editorials up and down the country in which editors have said—and the New Zealand Press Association and the New Zealand Press Council have also said it—that those provisions are wrong.

My challenge to Mr Benson-Pope is very simple. Why did he quote editors yesterday but not today? Why is he so keen to quote editorials in the Otago Daily Times, the New Zealand Herald, and the Dominion Post when it suits him, but he is not prepared to take any notice of them when they do not suit him? His provisions in the bill do not provide the open accountability that the people of New Zealand need from our Family Court. Do Government members opposite really believe in open justice? It is one of the absolute, most important principles of any system, and even more so when it involves families. I ask them to reconsider.

As I said from the outset, the ACT party will be opposing the bill, largely because, although it sounds and feels good, it will do little to change the terrible problems that do exist in family law in New Zealand.

But I would like to bring the Committee’s attention to an amendment in my name that inserts a new clause 131. The amendment would effectively introduce into New Zealand a truly open Family Court. The problem we all have with the bill as it stands is that, although the Associate Minister of Justice has put forward provisions for a so-called opening up of the Family Court, they are Clayton’s provisions. The bill still enables censorship of whatever is reported by the media. As I understand it, anyone can object to the media being present. I suspect that very rapidly a pattern will develop of the court appearing to be open to the media, the media turning up, but then having to leave because somebody objects; and if they do stay the distance, then whatever they write up will be censored. So I say the Committee should look carefully at my amendment to insert new clause 131. It is based on the member’s bill to open up New Zealand’s Family Court that parliamentary counsel drafted for me. If the parties represented here want to see more open democracy in the Family Court, they are urged to support that amendment.

The issue is this: family law in New Zealand, at the present time, is hurting children. It is as simple as that! Family law in New Zealand is denying kids their right to be able to have an ongoing relationship and frequent contact with their non-custodial parent. That is how the system works in this country. If people end up in the Family Court, one parent comes out the winner—gets custody of the children—and the other one is the loser. What we have seen over the years is that the family member who loses out on custody—the non-custodial parent—has to pay large amounts of child support, and often that person’s right to be able to maintain contact with the children is eroded away. We end up with kids who no longer see that parent—usually a dad—or the grandparents, uncles, aunts, and so on, on that side of the family. We end up with kids being cut off from what should be their right: contact with their biological parent and that part of the family.

I say that the fact this practice has gone on and on for years and years is a reflection of the fact that the secret Family Court has not allowed publication of this information. This information is known to those families who are caught up in family breakdown, but not to the wider public. The public have no idea of the pain and suffering that goes on through the Family Court. That is why it is so important that the media are allowed to attend, and to report on what goes on—obviously, with name suppression and all those other protections. In general, the court should be open and should have a presumption of openness, like our select committees of Parliament. It is important that the media, as the fourth estate, as the fourth leg of our democratic system of Government, can take part in what is going on in the Family Court. The reason why family law in New Zealand is such a mess, why so many families are suffering as a result of family law, is that the public have not been allowed to see what has been going on.

I want to set the record straight by saying that the first time this Parliament actually dealt with this issue was in 2001 when a bill in my name was introduced to open up the Family Court. The number of people supporting that move back then—I suppose one could call it a movement; it had been pushed by the media and individuals—became a groundswell, and that groundswell has now caused changes, but they are not enough.

I rise on behalf of United Future to take a brief call on this part. United Future does not have huge problems with this area, other than to say that a huge opportunity for the Government has been missed. A really big opportunity was afforded the Government to have a fresh look at the procedures around the Family Court. When we look at what has just been developed in Australia, with funding of mediation services in this regard, we see that a hugely innovative approach has taken the sting out of what has been going on in the Family Court, and it is making a huge difference. So Part 3 represents a lost moment in time in New Zealand history, and I look forward to the day when we can redress that issue.

I want to raise a couple of issues. Last Wednesday in the House I questioned the Minister for Courts, the Hon Rick Barker, about a programme called Children in the Middle, which is being piloted in the Family Court on the North Shore. That Minister did not even know about the pilot programme that is going on in the courts—which are under his jurisdiction. It is an incredibly innovative programme. The Law Commission has recommended the rolling out of this programme, and that was my question to the Minister. I asked whether he was planning to take up the recommendation. He had been quoting the commission all the way through his answers, yet did not know anything about that recommendation.

Part 3 could have included aspects of that pilot programme. Let us remember that parents who are using the Family Court to settle custody and access issues are parents who are at war with each other. Most parents who separate and divorce manage to sort this out in a reasonably amicable way with the future of their children in mind. But when couples are unable to do that, they find themselves in the Family Court. The pilot programme on the North Shore requires those parents, prior to getting their date in court, to have participated, separately, in two sessions of parent education that very clearly show them the impact of what their ongoing conflict is having on their children. The evidence is very clear: serious ongoing conflict is one of the most damaging factors of divorce on children.

I have offered to help the Government. I have drafted a member’s bill to amend the Family Proceedings Act. It is now in the ballot, waiting to be drawn, but I invite the Government to take the work I have done and make it a Government bill, and get it through the House and into action so that this wonderful pilot that is happening now in the Family Court on the North Shore can be rolled out and become standard Family Court procedure. Then, every couple who are in dispute over the looking after of their children would, first of all, sit down for about 4 hours and have a very serious, heart-searching look at the impact on their children of what they are doing. It would be a chance to be brought to their senses. The strengthening of mediation provisions at this very crucial moment in a family’s life is absolutely vital, and we have the opportunity to look at what is happening in Australia in that regard.

Part 3 has some good points. It offers an improved level of accountability, but, really, it is just a missed opportunity to have done so much more. When we are talking about families that are before the court, we need to understand that the needs of children at this time are absolutely vital. The outcomes for families who have to go through this process are usually pretty appalling. I think it is a huge shame that we did not take up the Law Commission’s recommendations and make Part 3 a much more humane and sensible provision.

Mr Chairperson, may I start by reciprocating the greeting you gave to members when the Committee resumed this morning—mōrena to your whānau. I want to talk about Part 3. This part, which is headed “Jurisdictional, procedural, miscellaneous, and saving and transitional provisions”, is more significant than at first blush might appear. There are two particular issues that I would like to deal with in this call, which I hope is the first of many calls on a complex and tricky part of the bill.

The first clause I would like to deal with is clause 120, which states in summary that “the Court may receive any evidence that it thinks fit, whether or not it is otherwise admissible in a Court of law.” Some would say that those sorts of provisions, which are becoming increasingly common in legislation, are well and good, that they are in some way a reflection of a people’s court approach. But in a court like the Family Court, particular care needs to be taken in respect of the material that the court receives because the judgments that are being made on the welfare of the child are just so critical.

It is right to say that this is a court where there is a lot of unreliable evidence. There is a lot of double-type hearsay evidence, for example. One of the things that I would have liked to see in this bill, if this were a caring Government—and we know it is not—would be a provision that where allegations of sexual abuse, for example, are made by a mother against a father in respect of a child who is the subject of the proceedings, and those allegations on their face do not seem to be well supported, there should be a clear obligation before that sort of evidence is relied upon that there be proof that a complaint has been made to the police in respect of the particular incident or incidents referred to in the affidavit material.

Those who have experience of the Family Court would know that allegations of this type are quite commonly made, are difficult to refute, and are often not true. Sometimes they are true, but often they are not. That is the danger of the wording of a clause like this, that it permits a mass of evidence—so-called evidence, in any event—to flow into the record, without a proper opportunity to assess the probative value of that sort of material. Therefore, I note clause 120, and it is an issue that I plan to come back to in later calls, probably this afternoon.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Or tomorrow morning?

My friend says “Or tomorrow morning”, but regretfully I think we can only sit as late as 10 p.m. without—

💬 Simon Power: Start again Saturday.

Yes, perhaps we can do that. Perhaps we can start again tomorrow.

The second matter that I wish to deal with is clause 129, which is about attendance at hearings generally. Dr Muriel Newman has made some comment about this, but not in the context that I will seek to advance. I would say, though, in respect of the issues that she raises, that she has exemplified a really good comment that Justice Brandeis once made, which is that sunlight is the best disinfectant—the concept that if the Family Court is open, its transparency can be better assessed, and the consequence, of course, is a greater degree of confidence in the administration of justice.

It is not that point that I want to take up. It is the point that is referred to in clause 129(1)(g). Clause 129 lists the people who may attend a hearing of proceedings under this Act, other than criminal proceedings. There are some obviously identified categories of person. But paragraph (g) states: “any other person(s) whom the Judge permits to be present.” I just caution members, in looking at paragraph (g), to reflect on what its consequences might be. It will be possible for a determined litigant in the Family Court to seek an outcome, where a significant number of supporters are sitting in the back of the court—

I move, That the question be now put.

I, too, want to highlight some of the provisions in Part 3 that deal with court procedure. The fundamental concern I have, as a parent, is this: what is the legal process by which the State can take my child from me? That is a very strong power for the courts and the State to have. If we ask people who are convicted of criminal offences and sent to prison what is the worst thing that can happen to them, we hear that it is to be separated from their children.

This Parliament needs to be very clear about the circumstances when the State will take children and prevent them from having contact with their parents. Yet if we look at this part and its procedure, and sit it alongside that of the earlier parts we have dealt with, we see that the court can take a child from a parent simply when the court sees that as being in the child’s best interests. Well, that is so vague and open that I do not think it provides anything of the sort of protection that we need in law. In fact, what I would like to see in this part is a provision that is at least as strong as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says that the State should break the contact between a child and its parent only when the child is at risk or where there is clear evidence of risk to the child. But this part does not say that. All it says is that that contact may be broken if the court deems it to be in the best interest of the child, and I believe that that is quite flawed.

Furthermore, we have in this part another dose of Labour’s political correctness. Clause 128 deals with a child’s cultural background. Of all the things we think are important for children—a loving environment, committed parents—what is the thing that Labour is now going to add in? It is a cultural background report. With regard to determining the interests of children, it is their ethnicity that is at the top end of Labour’s list of importance. I say that those members are mistaken. They are so immersed in their own political correctness about Māori rights, Pacific Island rights, and all that stuff, that they have actually forgotten the most important thing for children. What really gives me the willies is when I read the Law Commission report, endorsed by a Minister of this Parliament, that says that if people are part of Māori families, then their rights to their children are different from others’ rights. It says the children belong to the iwi and the hapū and one’s rights as a parent are somehow lesser. Well, I say to members opposite—[Interruption]—and to Ms Mackey, that whether a person is Asian, European, Māori, Pacific Islander, or whatever, human beings have a natural bond between parent and child that no amount of political correctness should cut across.

What we have in clause 128 from this Government is a provision that gives a level of importance to cultural considerations that actually loses the plot about what is important for children in this country to get a good deal. We will have courts side-tracked into arguments about the treaty and all sorts of cultural issues, rather than being focused on those things that are in the best interests of children. So I say to the Government that this dose of PC nonsense is not what the children of New Zealand need. I say that all this focus on taking away the rights of parents will backfire on children; they deserve far better.

I move, That the question be now put.

Unlike the Opposition parties that can find nothing good about this bill and a Government that, of course, will not admit to any weakness in it, United Future, as a centre party, likes to see good where it can and criticises where it knows there are failings. I refer particularly to the comment of my colleague Judy Turner about the missed opportunities in this bill. Notwithstanding those missed opportunities, in terms of Part 3, I believe, and United Future accepts, that there are some good aspects to this bill. I want to dwell on two or three of those, and perhaps, if I have time, on some we do not agree with.

I look firstly at the question of openness of proceedings. There is a distinction in the Family Court, as opposed to other courts, and that is that the Family Court deals with situations that are quite different from the sorts of situations that come up in criminal or civil courts. The Family Court is dealing with people who are in very emotive situations and need some help to try to get the best result possible with the minimum of damage to the family relationships involved.

I know as a lawyer—and other lawyers in the Committee will have had this experience if they have been involved in family work—that the whole area of family work is very, very different from every other area of law because of the emotional loading there is. It was always difficult, I found, in family work to be able to really get to grips with where the truth lay. I would see clients who were on one side or the other, and the amount of emotion colouring their perspective of situations was so heavy that it was very hard to sit down and analyse the truth. In a civil or criminal situation I could sit down and say: “Well, tell me now exactly what the facts are here. Leave aside your own interpretations. Let me just get the solid detail so I know the factual basis, and we’ll work from there.” It was almost impossible to do that in family situations, because the emotions were so dominant in the parties involved. I believe that that is important, and the Act is right in giving flexibility to the courts in the way they deal with things.

In terms of the openness of proceedings, United Future believes that the bill has pretty well got it right. We disagree with the view of ACT and National that the proceedings should be open to the public generally. We do not want situations where nosy neighbours can go along to see what the people next door are doing, and we do not want them to have the right to sit in court and do so. We have a situation where anyone whom the judge thinks it is appropriate to be there can be there. I think that is the right balance. If there are people who should be involved in the proceedings and who have an interest there, and if it is appropriate to have them sitting in the courtroom, then the flexibility is there to do that.

There is an automatic right for the media to be there. The National Party is raising the fear that judges will habitually exclude the media. I do not think that will happen. I think we will find that the courts take the view that the media can sit in unless there are exceptional circumstances in which that should not be allowed. Effectively, the Principal Family Court Judge told the select committee that he welcomed the fact that the media would be able to be present. That in itself is a signal that that is the way the judges will approach the situation. I think that is appropriate and I therefore think the balance we have is right. There is an automatic right for the media to be there. They need to be accredited, otherwise anyone could turn up and claim to be a member of the media. Anyone could say that they were the publisher of the local neighbourhood newsletter and, as a result, they could turn up to find out what their neighbours were doing. So there does need to be an element enabling the judge to say no—there is a bottom line in terms of accreditation. I am confident that the courts will handle that properly.

I do have a bit of concern about the Supplementary Order Paper that the Government has suddenly put in allowing for the publication of proceedings in legal, psychological and other medical journals. That is wider than the scope that was there before. I thought what we had was quite good. It allowed automatic publication as long as the names or particulars likely to lead to identification of the parties were excluded. I can understand that the legal profession, particularly, might say that they do not want to have to go through every judgment and pull it out, but this leaves the legislation open to abuse.

I move, That the question be now put.