Family Court Matters

Kia ora koutou katoa

The history of the Family Court relationship with Maori 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 the ‘inescapable conclusion’ that the statutes had been, in most cases, and I quote:

“formulated and passed on the basis of commitment to Pakeha values and objectives, without regard to their compatibility with tikanga Maori”

Now I find this ‘inescapable conclusion’ interesting on two counts.

Firstly, I am interested in the reference to Pakeha values and objectives as the area of Pakeha culture has often been neglected or inadequately described.

The second is that whilst we make no judgement as to the value of Pakeha culture, the key point is that the saturation of Pakeha culture in family law has led to what Donna Durie-Hall and Joan Metge conclude is Maori family forms and values being placed under great stress.

Mr Speaker, the Law Commission study commissioned by the Government and reported back in 2002, concluded that there needed to be greater provision for the participation of whanau in the Family Court processes.

It further identified that the Family Court was plagued by a lack of culturally appropriate specialist services, such as Maori Family Court counsellors and specialist report writers.

The report also advocated for paid kaitiaki, Maori advocates, to help smoothe the way for children and whanau.

Faced then with this reality, what does this Family Court Bill do?

Openness in the Family Court

As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is to increase openness of the proceedings of the Family Court, and to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of the Courts, by changes to the processes.

Mr Speaker, in itself, we welcome the commitment to openness and transparency. Awesome.

We see this very much as inkeeping with Maori conceptions of whanau. The late John Rangihau has described this in ways which 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 said, and I quote:

“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 this way, the proposal to allow support persons to attend proceedings with the Judge’s permission lends itself well to Maori values and protocols associated with the concept of whanaungatanga.

Mr Speaker, we in the Maori Party firmly believe that the responsibility for children must be widely shared across whanau. The responsibilities and rights that are derived from whakapapa are not necessarily upheld by limiting child-raising to that 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 the whanau.

The child has a right – as does the whanau to that child – to know their whanau, hapu and iwi; and we would hope that this principle permeates every aspect of the Family Court Bill.

If I could just talk about Media Reporting for a while.

We are, however, concerned at the suggestion in this new Bill that Family Court proceedings can be reported on. Whilst it is helpful to see the provision for penalty to be applied if the provisions on reporting are breached, we believe that the whole issue around sensationalised, tabloid reporting of Family Court cases needs thorough debate.

Mr Speaker, we have previously come to this House, and reported on studies which show that newspaper and television sources have proven to be unfairly unbalanced in their treatment of Maori people and issues. In general, the study reported that ‘bad’ news pre-dominated over ‘good’ news. In some media, denigrating and insulting comments about Maori were reported.

So given this, we do not think it neither appropriate nor safe for any aspects 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 which we might summarise as tinkering around the edges of family court law. Uppermost in the tinkering surely has to be the comeback of Gowns for family court judges.

But there are three points I want to just briefly mention.

Firstly, we welcome the opportunity for increased attendance at mediation conferences – again being 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.

This again is an issue that we believe needs far more discussion. We believe that the initiative of Counsel for the Child would benefit from wide discussion amongst whanau, hapu and iwi.

We wonder how the important role of someone championing the cause of the child – a concept we endorse – can be supported by whanau as having authority and credibility for all parties.

And 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 counseling to help resolve the matter.

And the question we ask around that is inevitably coloured by the awful, lousy, terrible family violence data that this nation is becoming known by. The studies reveal that virtually all of the children who died from physical abuse (95 percent) were abused by parent, step-parent or defacto spouse of their natural parent; and over eighty percent of physical abuse cases resulting in hospitalization were either the child’s parent or de facto parent.

The issue we have is around the means by which step-parents or defacto spouses are enabled to benefit from the provisions around counselling. Mr Speaker, if these individuals have not gone through the process of guardianship, what is the likelihood that they will also sign up to a parenting agreement?

It may, however, be extremely helpful in making the difference.

Finally, I want to touch on the issue of non-judicial mediation.

We in the Maori Party have placed great faith in the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act of 1989 and the highly significant Puao-te-ata-tu report both which gave explicit value to the involvement of whanau, hapu 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 key principles under-lying Maori child-raising, namely:

the significance of whakapapa;
children belong to whanau, hapu and iwi;
rights and responsibilities for children being shared;
children have rights and responsibilities to their whanau.


Mr Speaker, these principles say it all – and yet, surprise surprise, we can not see any recognition of these principles in the proposals for non-judicial mediation.

Finally, Mr Speaker, we will support the Bill to select committee, in order to allow whanau, hapu and iwi, and the Maori professionals and kaitiaki who work in the family court area to have a say.

And I note with particular interest that Te Hunga Roia Maori o Aotearoa is holding a conference at Waipapa marae in Auckland beginning 6th 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, Mr Speaker, the Select committee may take time out to take part in that workshop – to ensure the history in the space between you and me, this Bill and reality – is addressed.