Senator BOURNE(4.06 p.m.) —The Australian Democrats are also extremely concerned with the impact higher court fees are already having on Family Court services, particularly on those users of the system who represent some of the most disadvantaged and disempowered citizens of this country—women. We heard a lot about family values during the election, but once a family starts breaking up those values seem to start breaking up too, especially with this government.

The rate of reported violence against women and children is also on the increase. As far back as 1992, Dr Hilary Astor, in her report Violence against women for the Office of the Status of Women, cited the time immediately after separation as the most physically dangerous time in a woman's life. In 1988, a survey by the Office of the Status of Women illustrated that nearly one-fifth of respondents—one person in five—believed that violence against a wife is sometimes justified. Violence against a wife is never justified. The respondents were both men and women. Lesser forms of ill-treatment, such as denying money and yelling abuse, were even more widely accepted. This is a really shocking finding.

This is the environment that some of the most crucial services of the Family Court are frequently called upon to deal with. In 1992 the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act reported that following divorce living standards of non-custodial parents, generally males, increased markedly while living standards of custodial parents, usually the mother, and their children dropped.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies undertook two studies on the aftermath of divorce. Settling up was published in 1986 and studied the economic consequences of divorce. In 1993 the Australian Institute of Family Studies published Settling down, in which the lives of divorced parents with dependent children are followed in the period five years to eight years following the breakdown of their marriage. In Settling down, they concluded:

The duration of dislocation and disadvantage was quite variable in this population of parents. Men usually recovered, and in many cases attained a higher standard of living within three years of separation; women suffered a severe drop in their standard of living which remained over the early years. Five to eight years after separation, the gap had lessened, an amelioration largely accounted for by the formation of new family units. The difference in magnitude and direction of the immediate effects of marriage breakdown on mothers with children and on fathers, and its long-term continuation unless the mother repartners, is one of the most confronting findings of this study.

So we find that the people who are most worried about higher fees are the people who have the least money, and that is generally the person who has the children in a relationship. They are the ones who are suffering most.

The Office of the Status of Women found in 1995 that 80 per cent of women and 73 per cent of men were worried about violence impacting on their lives. There is no mistake about this. When the primary care giver of children—and that is of course most often women in this country—is subject to emotional, physical, psychological or economic violence, and that happens very often after divorce and during divorce, then the children are also victims of that violence.

The coalition parties did make a pre-election promise to maintain funding to legal aid, and we have seen what has happened to that. It is doubtful that legal aid as we know it will now survive in this country. In the law and justice policy statement, the coalition parties stated, `All people should be equal before the law.' How true. They also said, `All people, regardless of status or financial means, should have the ability to access the law.' I would have to agree with that one, too.

The Access to justice report refers to not only the importance of legal aid for disadvantaged groups but also the level of fees in accessing the judicial system. It states:

The most obvious barrier to justice is the financial one. This, of course, affects many people in the community, especially in time of high unemployment. But as the Australian Law Reform Commission has pointed out insufficient money is a barrier which affects women to a greater extent than men because women generally have fewer financial resources than men. There are other barriers besides lack of financial resources. People who do not speak English face difficulties both in obtaining adequate information about the legal system and in communicating with many of the people and organisations that form part of it. Presenting even more difficulties are cultural barriers. For example, recently arrived immigrants may be reluctant to resort to the legal system when they come from countries where the legal system is a tool of oppression and judges, lawyers and police officers are among the oppressors. In less extreme cases, many people will face a barrier as the result of a fear of what they perceive to be (and not without reason) an intimidating, unpredictable and complex system. Less dramatic but equally important, difficulties arising from geographical location present considerable barriers for many Australians living outside population centres.

By way of illustration, we should look at the closure of the Launceston Family Court.

Senator Abetz —What do you know about that?

Senator BOURNE —The Launceston Family Court is closing; that is what we know about that, Senator Abetz. Let me give you a few more facts. In November, Senator Murray said:

It has been estimated that 60,000 people will miss out on legal aid next year. Probably less than 15 per cent of Australians currently have access to legal aid. Last year in Western Australia, 70 per cent of the people who applied for legal aid were denied it, and that is under the old system. The section of the Attorney-General's Department that administers legal aid received a 6.6 per cent pay increase. There have been cases reported of adolescent children having to interpret for their mothers in protection applications where there has been domestic violence.

These are all demonstrations that what we need is more sensitivity. What we need is more money, obviously, into the Family Court system. We do not need cuts in funding to legal aid. The last thing we need is higher fees in access to the Family Court, and that is what we are getting under this government.