Ms MACKLIN(1.03 p.m.) —I am opposing the amendments proposed in the Family Law Amendment Bill 1996, which give effect to the budget decision to levy fees for counselling and mediation services provided in the Family Court. I am opposing this bill on four main grounds: firstly, because it represents yet another threat to vulnerable people, as the previous speaker, the member for Grey (Mr Wakelin), said, people who are at a very vulnerable stage in their lives. It imposes fees for voluntary counselling and mediation services previously provided free of charge by the Family Court. This may well mean that people in greatest need of counselling and those who would most benefit will not seek it.

We are told that the fee will be $40 an hour. Many of those opposite are saying this is not such a great sum. I know for many of my constituents it is a very considerable sum, especially as counselling may extend over several sessions and the people involved will already be facing many expenses that come with the end of a marriage. They will also be facing a considerable range of new fees for other services provided through the Family Court, and I will touch on those a bit later.

We are advised that the fees will be waived for those who cannot afford to pay. But, as far as I can see, the bill provides no details of how this group is to be defined. The Australian Council of Social Service claims that the hardship provisions in fact are very restricted. In my own electorate of Jagajaga, for example, these changes are expected to have a significant adverse effect on low income people who are seeking counselling or mediation. I have an excellent service in the West Heidelberg Community Legal Service, which at the moment refers many of its low income clients to services provided by the Family Court. They expect that fewer people will now avail themselves of this service and that as a result many people will be left with much more unsatisfactory maintenance or property settlements than might otherwise have been the case.

The government's sole purpose in levying these fees is to raise revenue, and not very much at that. It is going to have a significant impact on some people who are in pretty desperate circumstances while the government expects to raise about $2 million from these charges over the first full year of operation. This $2 million will have a very long-term impact and have much more significant costs as far as individuals are concerned. In fact, it will be the case that the long-term costs of these policies in terms of pressures on families and individuals will far outweigh these meagre short-term savings. I would have to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this is a typical example of this government's short-term approach to policy development, which does not go beyond this year's budget bottom line.

I also oppose this bill because I think that the premises on which it is based are false. The Attorney-General (Mr Williams) has said in a recent press release that one aim of the charges is to encourage people to use counselling and mediation services that are provided in the community. These services are already oversubscribed, so the end result, of course, will be that fewer people in total will gain access to services, regardless of where they are provided.

This point has been well made by Liz Curran from the Federation of Community Legal Centres, who said:

The mooted changes to the court's counselling and mediation roles will eventually lead to greater expense and greater family breakdown. Why reduce court based services when the community support network isn't there to be able to cope with the increased demand.

The Attorney-General went on to say that the government's approach to family law `will encourage people to resolve their disputes through mediation and counselling rather than embarking on costly court proceedings'. In fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, the reverse will be the case because most voluntary counselling through the Family Court is aimed at property and maintenance settlement rather than reconciliation. That being the case, the amendments cannot fulfil the government's objectives.

The third reason for opposing the bill is that I see this as part of a concerted attempt to continue to weaken and undermine the Family Court. The last budget outlined a number of cost-cutting, revenue raising measures which the government intends to impose upon the Family Court, besides those charges that are referred to in this bill. Let us have a look at all of those charges: a two per cent efficiency dividend, a cut in running costs, a share of portfolio savings and cuts to programs initiated by the Labor government through its Justice Statement. Then come the real costs for people seeking divorce: a $250 fee for applications other than divorce such as maintenance, property or custody; a $400 fee for setting down a matter for full hearing in the Family Court; and an increase of $92 in the fee for filing for divorce, that is, up from $368 to $460. Some counselling registries have already been closed as a result of these cost-cutting measures and others are expected to do so.

My final ground for opposing this bill is that, in my view, it is unworkable. Lawyers may well be able to bypass the charges by postponing counselling until after a divorce is filed and relying on judges or registrars to order counselling, in which case the charge will not apply. Where a child is involved, a court may also order counselling to discuss the care, welfare and development of the child. In these cases, charges will also be waived. If judges believe that free counselling services are essential to fulfilling one of the court's basic aims, that is, solving disputes by conciliation and mediation rather than litigation, they can be expected to order counselling in each of the circumstances outlined above and possibly in others. This would effectively ensure that all counselling is directed rather than voluntary, and therefore not subject to charges.

Recent comments by Justice Alistair Nicholson, the Chief Justice of the Family Court, provide some indication of judges' thinking on all of these changes. In an interview, he commented on these proposed changes in the following way:

For 20 years we have been engaged in a particular type of crisis counselling in this Court in which we have a lot of expertise . . . The reality is that they—

that is, community based legal centres—

have quite different services . . . Ours is a particularly specialised form of counselling.

The court's success in reducing the trauma of separation has been severely undervalued. Proposed changes would see divorce in Australia become a more confrontational and legalistic process.

All of the speakers on this bill have sought to make sure that divorce in this country does not become a more confrontational and legalistic process. I do not think there is anybody in this chamber who would think that such a thing would be a good change for Australia. Nevertheless, these charges will, in fact, lead to more confrontation and more legalism because, of course, the services in the community are not available and people just do not have $40 a pop to pay for counselling services that might assist them before things become more confrontational.

This bill is punitive in intention and, in my view, flawed in concept. It will not achieve its objectives and the Labor Party will oppose it.