Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) : I move, That the Family Courts Matters Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will propose that this bill be referred to the Social Services Committee. The bill is largely technical. It is an omnibus bill that seeks to further increase the openness of Family Courts and to make improvements to processes and procedures. It is not designed to be a major overhaul of the Family Courts.

Overall, the Family Courts do a commendable job in dealing with sometimes very complex and difficult issues. A sign of the success of the Family Court is that approximately only 5 percent of applications are finally decided by a judge. The Family Court treats the welfare of the child as the most important priority. Who could disagree with that? The emphasis is on ensuring that parents put aside their grievances with each other in order to ensure the best long-term outcome for their children, without resorting to a court hearing. A range of free services and information is provided to assist parents to resolve disputes themselves, including counselling programmes and mediation. The Family Courts Matters Bill takes this even further by extending who can attend counselling, and taking the first steps towards introducing family—non - judge-led—mediation as a permanent service.

This bill extends the openness of the Family Courts to all proceedings, in the same way as we have done for guardianship proceedings under the Care of Children Act 2004. It contains a number of other useful improvements and tidying-up of legislation designed to improve the processes and procedures in the Family Court. Many Family Court proceedings are restricted in terms of both who can attend and what can be written about them. This reflects the private and, very often, very personal information that might be raised, and the need to protect children and other vulnerable people. However, protecting people’s privacy has resulted in concerns about the lack of transparency in how the court makes its decisions, and even allegations of secrecy and bias. I refute such allegations. I do not accept that restrictions on attendance and reporting have made it more difficult for the public to understand how the courts operate.

The Law Commission examined the question of openness as part of its review of the structure of the courts, and concluded that most exceptions to the openness principle in New Zealand are justified. However, the Law Commission made some recommendations to improve the current provision that the Government has accepted. Support persons and accredited news media representatives are allowed to attend proceedings. There are no restrictions on reporting family proceedings, other than those involving children or domestic violence, unless the court orders otherwise. In cases involving children, domestic violence, and Youth Court proceedings, media reporting is permitted, but details of those involved in the proceedings cannot be published without the leave of the court. As I mentioned earlier, the recommendations dealing with openness in guardianship cases were implemented in the Care of Children Act 2004. The remainder of the recommendations are implemented in this bill. I hope this leads to better-informed debate on how the Family Court operates. The Ministry of Justice will review the openness provisions after 1 year. It will look at the impact on parties and children, and how the openness provisions impact on the judge’s ability to effectively manage proceedings.

Non - judge-led—or family—mediation involves an independent mediator working with the parties to identify issues between the parties, and to try to get agreed outcomes. The purpose of family mediation is to divert less complex family disputes away from the formal court proceedings, and to resolve them quickly and inexpensively. Overseas studies indicate that mediation should reduce the demand for counselling and conciliation services, and reduce the number of cases returning to the Family Court for further assistance. Agreements arising out of mediation should be more workable, and people will feel a greater sense of ownership, because they are involved in the decision making and know what will work best in their particular circumstances. People being directly involved also means that they are more likely to stick to the agreement. An added bonus of participating in mediation is that people can learn skills that will help them to resolve matters in the future so that they may not need to come back to the court.

The Government agreed to a pilot on non - judge-led mediation, as part of the formal response to the Law Commission’s report Dispute Resolution in the Family Court. It took place in 2005 and 2006, and an evaluation of it was published earlier this year. The pilot was successful, with 257 couples participating on a voluntary basis. Of the completed mediations, 59 percent reached agreement on all matters, and 30 percent reached agreement on some matters.

The Family Courts Matters Bill is enabling legislation that takes the first step towards non - judge-led mediation as a permanent tool to help resolve relationship disputes under the Family Proceedings Act, and guardianship matters under the Care of Children Act 2004. Family Courts will be able to direct people to attend mediation for these proceedings. Children, wider family members, and support people will be able to attend, and the children’s views and best interests will be represented. Following this legislation’s passage through the House, the next step will be to explore options for funding.

As an omnibus bill, the Family Courts Matters Bill provides the opportunity to make a number of minor changes to improve processes and procedures in the Family Court, and to tidy up legislation. Registrars already have a range of functions and responsibilities under different legislation, and the Law Commission and Family Court judges have suggested that registrars could take on some of the administrative functions currently performed by judges, to help reduce the demand on judges’ time.

This bill extends registrars’ powers. It allows registrars to appoint a lawyer to act for the child, under the Care of Children Act 2004 and the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, and to represent a person under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. They will be able to appoint a specialist report writer under the Care of Children Act 2004 or the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988, and will be able to make directions about serving copies of applications in proceedings under the Family Protection Act 1955.

Family Court judges have expressed a concern that Family Courts are sometimes not taken as seriously as other courts. Although the Family Courts try to resolve matters in a less formal way, there are times when defended hearings and binding court orders are necessary. To help ensure that judicial functions of Family Courts are taken seriously, the bill removes the restriction on Family Court judges wearing gowns in court. The Principal Family Court Judge has indicated that he will develop guidelines about when it is appropriate for Family Court judges to wear gowns.

Paternity testing is a complex issue, and a number of issues need to be considered prior to the new law on this area being developed. Common law does not permit a sample of blood or tissue to be taken from a person without his or her consent. Taking a bodily sample against a person’s will raises issues in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and common law rights about personal liberty and trespass, and privacy issues. There are also broader issues surrounding legal parenthood issues, such as the implication of assisted reproductive technologies and who can and should be recognised as a parent.

Although the Government agrees in principle with the concept of paternity testing, it is questionable whether the Family Courts Matters Bill is the appropriate vehicle to implement what would be a significant policy change. The Family Courts Matters Bill is not designed to be a major overhaul of Family Courts policy; it is a largely technical bill that focuses on making improvements to processes and procedures. Proposed changes surrounding paternity testing will have significant policy implications, and, as such, the issues do not fit within the intent of this bill. The Ministry of Justice is currently undertaking policy work in this area, and this will inform our actions in the future.

This bill makes a number of other minor changes to improve court processes and procedures by allowing increased attendance at mediation conferences; allowing counsellors to make recommendations about what should happen next in family proceedings—these will be suggestions, and will not be binding—extending counselling provisions to anyone who enters into, or proposes to enter into, an agreement relating to the day-to-day care, contact, or upbringing of a child to help resolve matters; allowing regulations to consolidate existing court fees, to introduce filing and hearing fees for applications made under the Property (Relationships) Act, and to enable the waiving of fees; and clarifying processes under the reciprocal agreement with Australia on child support, to make sure that New Zealand orders can be enforced in Australia.

Finally, this bill provides an opportunity to tidy up a few incorrect references and inconsistencies in the legislation. I commend the bill to the House and its reference to the Social Services Committee.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : National will support the Family Courts Matters Bill at its first reading. I must say I was very concerned to hear the Minister Rick Barker say at the start of his contribution that this bill was just a technical bill. Actually, it makes substantial changes to the way the Family Court operates. In fact, the openness of the Family Court to proceedings has been a very controversial issue for quite some period of time. Had the Minister read the explanatory note of the bill, he would know that it states that proceedings in a Family Court are closed to the public in order to protect the privacy of the parties. This bill proposes to increase the openness of Family Court proceedings. That is not a technical matter, that is not a minor matter, and that is not a mechanical matter; that is a substantial change from what up until this point has been the status quo for many, many years.

Many members of Parliament will have been approached by constituents concerned about the openness of the Family Court and the ability to have their side of the story told. The submissions process at the Social Services Committee will provide, I imagine, an extensive opportunity for submitters to comment on the effect of opening the Family Court, in certain respects. The explanatory note notes the significance of the bill, and had the Minister bothered to read it, he would know that it states: “Any change to the openness of Family Courts must strike a balance between open justice and the privacy of the individuals, children, and families that are involved.” That is not a technical or minor matter; that is a substantial weighing of competing interests between critical parties to proceedings before a court of law in this country. For the Minister for Courts to say that this bill is merely technical is to mis-state the significance of the legislation. The bill amends the current legislation in order to increase the openness of Family Court proceedings and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Family Courts by making changes to processes and procedures. My colleague Judith Collins will spend some time in her contribution talking about those changes to processes and procedures.

As to the opening of the Family Court, let this House not underestimate the significance of the balancing of those weighted interests in making this decision to support the bill. The Social Services Committee that has to deliberate on this bill, with the submissions that will come before it on the bill, has a significant responsibility when dealing with the bill to weigh and balance the right to open justice and the privacy of individuals, particularly children, whose rights and interests are so often represented at the Family Court.

The main points laid out in this bill allow the media to attend hearings of certain proceedings. That is not a technical matter, that is not a mechanical matter, and that is not a minor matter. It is a significant shift to legislate in that way. The bill also proposes to allow support persons to attend proceedings, and, most significantly, it allows reporting on Family Court proceedings in a way that we have not seen before. But if the case involves vulnerable children, the leave of the court is necessary in order to publish identifying information. This exception is welcomed by the National Party, because these considerations as to the needs of the children, as opposed to allowing sunlight on the proceedings, are the most crucial two parts of the equation to balance.

The Family Proceedings Act and the Care of Children Act are amended in relation to non-judicial mediation, with the registrar having power to determine whether mediation is appropriate in certain situations. Matters relating to dress of judges and counsel will be covered in the legislation, as well. This will be spoken directly about by my colleague Judith Collins. There are significant amendments to a number of other pieces of legislation relating to penalties if the provisions on reporting are breached, and they are aligned with other legislation that will deal with matters of this nature.

As I said at the commencement of my contribution, National will support this bill to a select committee in the first instance, but will listen carefully to submissions and will balance the rights of those who are dealt with by the Family Court against the principle that justice should be open and available for people to see. The question as to whether the reporting provisions on the media attending hearings are balanced properly by the wording of the legislation to hand are important considerations for the select committee.

I just conclude by saying—as I do not intend to take a full 10 minutes—that it is wrong for the Minister to describe this bill as merely technical; it is not. This is a significant change to the premise that has operated for some time as to the way our Family Court system operates. Yes, there are some technical amendments further back in the bill, but the main provisions of this legislation to pry open the workings of the Family Court in certain instances are a significant step, which should not be underestimated by this House. I know that the Family Court bench are supportive of a more open and accountable Family Court system, and that is to be welcomed and listened to carefully.

Although I will not sit on the select committee that considers this matter, I urge members of this House who will sit on it to ask the judiciary to appear before the committee to explain not only what the legislation will mean for them in presiding over the proceedings that appear before those courts but what in practical terms some of the procedural amendments that are being proposed will mean. I urge the select committee to be assured that the judiciary will continue to exercise its discretion in a way that limits the harm or exposure that could occur to those who are vulnerable—in particular, children—whose rights and entitlements are dealt with by the Family Court.

National will support the first reading of the bill. I leave it to my colleagues to go into some of these matters in detail, but let me say that National does not consider this bill to be a technical one. National considers this to be one of the most significant pieces of legislation affecting the way our court system—and, in particular, our Family Court system—operates that we have seen for some time.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Family Courts Matters Bill. Indeed, as the previous speaker Simon Power said, this bill works towards increasing the openness of Family Court proceedings. I think that is a very, very good thing.

The bill builds on the Care of Children Act 2004, which increased openness in relation to guardianship and care proceedings. This bill will introduce similar changes to other Family Court proceedings, where that is appropriate. The bill also allows accredited news media to attend hearings of certain proceedings and will allow anyone to report on the court, provided that that person does not use information that would identify vulnerable people, or children, without the leave of the court. So although there is that openness in reporting, there is also that safeguard in terms of both children and vulnerable people. I think the provisions to enable support people to attend proceedings with the judge’s permission are a good and progressive step.

As with so much legislation we see before this House, this bill is the result of work carried out by the Law Commission. The commission’s 2003 report on dispute resolution in the Family Court was the basis of a lot of the work done on this bill.

In the bill there are a number of changes relating to administration, management, and procedures—in particular, relating to the registrars’ power. There are also changes relating to court fees, non - judge-led mediation—and I want to spend just a little time talking a bit more about that—and counselling services. A mediated process can divert less complex family disputes away from the formal proceedings and resolve them, certainly, more quickly and less expensively. When we are talking about the rights of a child and a family, then there is an obvious benefit to all if these issues are resolved through mediation that results in an agreement. I am certainly of the belief that a mediated agreement is a much better outcome than going through the entire court process.

The bill also enhances access to counselling services. It seeks to extend provisions to anyone who enters into, or in fact proposes to enter into, an agreement relating to the day-to-day care of, or contact with, a child. This will help people to make their own arrangements and reduce their reliance on the Family Court. I do not think any member of the House would disagree with the view that mediation and agreement on issues relating to children is a much better way of doing things than going through the entire court process.

That is why I am very pleased to speak on the bill, and I am very happy the National Party will support the bill going to a select committee. I know that the committee will probably consider a wide number and variety of submissions. It is with great pleasure that I commend the bill to the House.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : I have been listening with care to the previous speakers. I have to agree with my colleague Simon Power who said that this bill is very important and is not just a technical bill. I note that it relates to, and amends, 12 other bills concerning children. It is a very significant bill. I note also the comments made about the openness in the Family Court. I think I am correct in saying I am one of the few people in this House who have ever practised any law in the Family Court. I am not sure whether anyone else here has—

Kate Wilkinson: I have.

JUDITH COLLINS: One more member has, on our side. I have to say that very rarely is it, in my opinion, in a child’s best interests for anything to go into the Family Court. I say that not from the point of condemning the parents who cannot agree and everything else, but from the fact that, at the end of the day, the Family Court can help only when parents cannot help themselves. I feel very strongly that the judges in the Family Court do their utmost best to deal with a very, very difficult set of circumstances that they face—every day, all day. Frankly, I would rather be in this place on a really bad day than in their place on a really good day, because I do not think they get many good days. I would like to make a comment with the leave of the House—I know it is not usual to refer particularly to a judge—to commend the Principal Family Court Judge, Peter Boshier, for the work he has done, across parties, to enable this legislation to be brought forward. He knows this legislation is very important, particularly in relation to openness in the Family Court.

As the National Party’s family spokesperson, amongst my other roles, I have quite a lot of occasion to deal with issues relating to the Family Court. Unfortunately, the closed nature of the court made it always appear to people who were not satisfied—and let us just accept that at least one party is never going to be satisfied in the Family Court—that there was some form of conspiracy going on to prevent them from having what it is that they wanted. Some people may, in fact, have got completely offside with the court, completely offside with the judge, reacted in a somewhat hysterical way, and maybe were right to feel offside and that they were never going to get a fair go. This bill at least gives those people the opportunity for a form of openness, which I hope will be to the benefit of those parties who go there—in particular, to their children—and not a detriment to them.

I note the Minister said that about only 5 percent of matters that are filed in the Family Court are ever finished in the Family Court. Well, I thought it was more like 6 percent. So, hopefully, that is an improvement. I also note that some matters never finish in the Family Court, because, frankly, they never finish! They keep going on, year after year, and the Family Court is used as some sort of arena in which gladiators turn up. I note the concerns of the Principal Family Court Judge that there be more formality in the Family Court; so there should be. For the people who constantly go back and forth into the Family Court asking for changes of this, that, and the other thing, very little of it is about the actual rights and betterment of children; mostly it is about power and control, frankly. Those people do not respect the Family Court, and they generally do not respect the judges of the Family Court. They have become familiar, and that familiarity has brought a contempt. Unfortunately, it has proven absolutely important for the Family Court to say: “Look, this is a court of law. It is not a kumbiya session, although we can do those too. It is a very serious issue, and the fact that you are in front of a court today means that you have not been able to resolve, as adults, matters generally in the best interests of your children.” Whether it is about access issues, custody or care of children, or whether it is about matrimonial property, they are all issues that involve children, when there are children in the families, because it is the children who pay.

There is a tremendous amount of legal aid that is paid out in the Family Court area. I would really like to see the day—and this is not going to win me too many votes in my legal fraternity—when people can actually feel free to attend at the Family Court for mediation and assistance on a matter without having to feel that they have to file proceedings and affidavits, which effectively ruin any chance, in many ways, of their ever having a decent relationship. I have seen affidavits prepared and sent to me for witnessing, by others, that are patently untrue. I have had to say: “I am sorry. I do not believe this. Is this true?”. I remember quite clearly a woman who turned up in my office in Auckland one day bearing an affidavit about how she was frightened of her ex-husband, how she needed these protection orders, and everything else, and how she needed to stay in the house. I just said: “Is this true?”. She said: “No.” So I asked her why she had the affidavit. She said she had been told that if she did not say this, then she would not be able to get him kicked out of the house. Frankly, that is illegal activity. That woman was prepared to perjure herself, and it was not that the lawyer had told her to say that. It was her friend who had told her to say that. Her friend had obviously been party to a particularly bitter matrimonial dispute and was full of brilliant advice. The brilliant advice could have landed that woman on a perjury charge. But we know, those of us who have practised in this area, that there would have been an absolutely zero likelihood of that ever happening, because once the allegation of domestic violence had been made against the husband he would be tarred with that brush for ever. In fact, maybe that is what has to happen, but it seems to me that there can be, in fact, and often is, an abuse of that court process.

I have seen that abuse of the court process used in terms of getting legal aid. I have seen that from my time when I was on the legal aid subcommittee of the Auckland District Law Society approving legal aid applications. I have seen applications made where I felt that they were, in fact, being made on the basis of a way to get legal fees paid rather than for the betterment of the people involved. The dispute was not necessarily about domestic violence—it was, in fact, about property—but this was a way of getting instant legal aid granted.

When we see these abuses coming through, I think we need to be able to say that it is not OK. Hopefully, the opening up of the Family Court to a limited degree will give judges the opportunity to be able to say in a reasonably open court setting what they think of this behaviour. At the moment judges do not really get a chance to say anything much in open court. They do not get the opportunity, for instance, to say that Child, Youth and Family has completely failed to bring forward a social worker report as required by a judge. They do not get a chance to say that, because it happens all of the time, and I note my colleague Mrs Tolley agreeing. It is absolutely true. The judges want to have openness in the court, and part of the reason is that they want to open up the court to the disinfectant of the sunlight. In other words, they want to be able to say why things take so long. They want to be able to show some adults the mirror so they can see how their behaviour is destroying their children. They want to be able to say to people: “Look, we’re just the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff; don’t blame us, give us the chance to do the right thing, but let us do it so you see the work that we do.”

I commend this bill to the House. I am very pleased that I am the deputy chair of the Social Services Committee so that I can be one of the members who looks at this bill. I am sure it will be a very, very well attended hearing, or many series of hearings, and I look forward to be able to help this law become better law.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I have to say that New Zealand First has listened intently to the last two contributions from the National Party, from Mr Simon Power and Judith Collins, and it has been something of a pleasure to listen to those.

New Zealand First does not have anyone on the Social Services Committee where this bill will be going for consideration, but we signal here that we support this bill through its first reading to select committee. We look forward to reading the select committee’s findings, and will no doubt do our best to sit in on some of those hearings, which is somewhat difficult given the size of our caucus.

I do not think there is a member of Parliament who has been in this House for more than two terms who has not had representations before them from disaffected parties to Family Court hearings. Of course, we are all very familiar with many of the pleas of certain men’s organisations and lobby groups against the unfairness of the process, the disadvantage of the privacy or closed nature of the Family Court, and how their proceedings are dealt with.

We accept Mr Power’s view that one should not take lightly the proposals in this bill, for it does strike at the fundamentals of the manner in which the Family Court has operated up till now. But we welcome these proposed changes, because we believe much has been done that has been to the detriment of innocent parties, simply through the confidential and closed manner in which the courts have operated to date.

We look forward to possibly getting copies of the submissions as they are presented before the committee, because no doubt the considerations that have been made by the Law Commission are deep and are well-thought-through, but there is no denying the high level of public concern. I guess one of the things that sits foremost in our minds right now is that for justice to be done, it must always be seen to be done. Therein lies one of the fundamental problems of closed hearings—of hearings that do not have the eye of the media or public scrutiny. There are definitely some issues with respect to the protection of children and vulnerable people, but in the wider picture of guaranteeing to the community at large and our nation as a whole that justice has been done, we must, where possible, ensure that it is seen.

We support this bill through its first reading and we look forward with interest to the report back from the select committee.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker; kia ora tātou katoa—as we wind down the clock to 6 o’clock. The history of the Family Court’s relationship with Māori has been extensively documented. I found out recently that Donna Durie Hall and Joan Metge had reported on seven statutes in the area of family law, and they came to what they described as the inescapable conclusion that the statutes had been, in most cases, “formulated and passed on the basis of commitment to Pakeha values and objectives, without regard to their compatibility with tikanga Maori”. I find that explanation of an inescapable conclusion interesting, on two counts. Firstly, I am interested in the reference to Pākehā values and objectives, as the area of Pākehā culture has often been neglected or inadequately described. Secondly, although we make no judgment as to the value of Pākehā culture, the key point is that the saturation of Pākehā culture in family law has led to what Donna Durie Hall and Joan Metge conclude, which is that Māori family forms and values are being placed under great stress.

The Law Commission study that was commissioned by the Government and was reported back in 2002 concluded that greater provision needed to be made for the participation of whānau in Family Court processes. It further identified that the Family Court was plagued by a lack of culturally appropriate specialist services, such as Māori Family Court counsellors and specialist report writers. The report also advocated for paid kaitiaki—Māori advocates—to help to smooth the way for children and whānau.

Faced, then, with that reality, what does the Family Courts Matters Bill do? As I understand it, the purpose of the bill is to increase the openness of the proceedings of the Family Court and to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of the Family Court by making changes to the processes. In itself, we welcome the commitment to openness and transparency—awesome! We see that as being very much in keeping with Māori conceptions of whānau. The late John Rangihau has described that in ways that demonstrate the collective responsibility and accountability for children through to the tribal group. A child was not to be viewed in isolation, or as an exclusive chattel of his or her parents. He stated: “The hapu or tribal group is bound to provide for the physical, social, and spiritual well-being of the child and its upbringing as a member of a particular hapu. This responsibility would take precedence over the view of the birth parents.” In that way the proposal to allow support persons to attend proceedings with the judge’s permission lends itself well to Māori values and protocols associated with the concept of whanaungatanga.

We in the Māori Party firmly believe that the responsibility for children must be widely shared across whānau. The responsibilities and rights that are derived from whakapapa are not necessarily upheld by limiting child-raising to being the role of birth parents exclusively. Indeed, the very sensitive issues around the value that is placed on children are, we consider, but a consequence of the fragmentation of whānau. The child has a right—as does the whānau to that child—to know his or her whānau, hapū, and iwi, and we hope that principle will permeate every aspect of the Family Courts Matters Bill.

I will talk about media reporting for a while, because we are concerned at the suggestion in this new bill that Family Court proceedings could be reported on. Although it is helpful to see the provision for a penalty to be applied if the provisions on reporting are breached, we believe that the whole issue around the sensationalised reporting of Family Court cases needs thorough debate. We have previously come to this House and reported on studies that show newspaper and television sources have proven to be unfairly balanced in their treatment of Māori people and issues. In general, studies have reported that bad news predominates over good news, and that in some media denigrating and insulting comments about Māori have been reported. Given that, we think it is neither appropriate nor safe for any aspect of the proceedings undertaken in the Family Court to be subjected to the trauma of media exposure.

In terms of the amendments to process and procedure, the bill introduces a whole raft of changes that we might summarise as tinkering around the edges of Family Court law. Uppermost in that tinkering, surely, has to be the come-back of gowns for Family Court judges. I want, briefly, to mention three points.

Firstly, we welcome the opportunity for increased attendance at mediation conferences. Again, that is consistent with the essence of whanaungatanga relationships.

The second is the issue of extending the administrative powers to enable Family Court registrars to—amongst other things—appoint a lawyer to act for the child. That, again, is an issue that we believe needs far more discussion. We believe that the initiative of having a counsel for the child would benefit from wide discussion amongst whānau, hapū, and iwi. We wonder how the important role of having someone to champion the cause of the child—a concept we endorse—can be supported by whānau as having authority and credibility for all parties.

The third aspect of change is the proposal that anyone who has entered into a parenting agreement—not just parents and guardians—should be able to request counselling to help resolve matters. The question we ask around that is inevitably coloured by the awful, lousy, terrible family violence data that this nation is becoming known for. The studies reveal that virtually all of the children who have died from physical abuse—that is, 95 percent—were abused by parents, step-parents, or de facto spouses of their natural parents. Over 80 percent of the physical abuse cases resulting in hospitalisation were caused by either the child’s parent or de facto parent. The issue we have is around the means by which step-parents or de facto spouses are enabled to benefit from the provisions around counselling. If those individuals have not gone through the process of guardianship, what is the likelihood that they will sign up to a parenting agreement? Counselling may, however, be extremely helpful to them in terms of making the difference.

I want also to touch on the issue of non-judicial mediation. We in the Māori Party have placed great faith in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act of 1989 and the highly significant Puao-te-ata-tū – Daybreak report, both of which gave explicit value to the involvement of whānau, hapū, and iwi in decision making about the lives of children and young people. We acknowledge the work of Ani Mikaere, who prepared a summary of the key principles underlying Māori child raising—namely, the significance of whakapapa; that children belong to whānau, hapū, and iwi; that rights and responsibilities regarding children are shared; and that children have rights and responsibilities to their whānau. Those principles say it all, yet—surprise, surprise—we cannot see any recognition of those principles in the proposals for non-judicial mediation.

Finally, I say that the Māori Party will support the bill’s referral to the select committee, in order to allow whānau, hapū, and iwi, and Māori professionals and kaitiaki who work in the Family Court area, to have a say. I note with particular interest that Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aoteaora is holding its conference at Waipapa Marae in Auckland, beginning on 6 September, which includes a practical workshop presented by Judge Hikaka, Nicole Walker, and Hana Ellis. The workshop is entitled “The Role of Whanaungatanga in Family Court Processes”. Perhaps the select committee might take time out to take part in that workshop, to ensure that the history in the space between this House and me, and between this bill and reality, is addressed.

Koinā ētahi kōrero hei whakakōpani i waku kōrero i tēnei pō. Huri noa, kia ora tātau.

[So, those statements end my address tonight. Greetings to us throughout the Chamber.]

• Debate interrupted.