10. KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this
to the Minister for Courts
Is he confident that our court system is delivering justice for all; if not, why not?
Hon CHRIS CARTERHow can he stand by his comments that court security is a high priority, when figures show that serious security incidents in the Family Court doubled in 2004-05; and what is he doing to resolve this issue?
The Government takes court security very seriously. In the latter half of 2005 the number of security officers, for example, was increased from 18 to a total of 53.
Has the Minister seen the transcript of his answers given in evidence at the examination of the Department for Courts estimate, which includes the answer: “Every Budget we have put on extra security officers—38 this year. It is a high priority for us.”, then the question: “Thirty-eight this year?”, then the answer: “Eighteen is it? Sorry, I got the wrong figure.”; and the question: So there’s no increased security officers from Budget 2005?”, then the answer: “2006. nothing.”; and how much of a high priority is “nothing”?
To be quite honest, I heard so many figures bandied around that it was hard to know which one the member was sticking to. I can report that, according to the information I have been given today, the number of security officers has increased from 18 to 53.
Jill PettisThe initiative to collect fines at airports has already been very effective. Six people have been intercepted at airports, and more than $37,000 netted, since the campaign began less than a month ago. All six people intercepted owed reparation to victims.
Judy TurnerIs the 2-year trial of the parenting hearing programme intended to aid in breaking down the perception of anti-male bias within the Family Court; if so, what aspects of the programme does he expect to address directly the strained relationships between many fathers and court officials?
The Government recognises that relationships between fathers and their children are important. As for the details that the member has raised, I will be happy to get back to her with that later, when I have more information.
How can he stand by his comments that court security is a high priority, when recent changes at the Family Court mean that security will not automatically be provided, due to prioritisation in other courts, when local lawyers are warning that they “have noticed an increase in the number of abusive and emotional outbursts in court, and that often there are no police or security officers in courtrooms”, and when two justices of the peace have moved to suppress their own names over fears for their safety—or is this another example of this Government getting its priorities wrong?
I have already raised the issue of the increase in the number of security guards. I can add that $156 million in baseline funding has gone into the courts since this Government came to power. And there has been a number of structural changes. For example, now single entrances are designed, with scanning machines and security officers; that was not the case under National.
What more will it take to highlight the need for better courtroom security—another judge being punched and knocked over by an angry butcher, another judge being slashed with a machete, another judge being pelted with wads of wet toilet paper and clothing, or another judge being spat at—before this Government sheds its rhetoric and really demonstrates that court security is a high priority, or are those just incidences of the ebbs and flows that the Minister for Courts was referring to in the House on 29 August?
Madam Speaker, I am sure I do not need to remind you or this House that courtroom security has been an issue in New Zealand for as long as the courts have existed. Attacks on judges are not a new thing. But what this Government has done is pour $156 million into baseline funding to try to fix up the courts.