Senator STOTT DESPOJA (1:01 PM) —I will speak briefly to what seems both a non-controversial and technical bill. I am glad that we have a minister in the chamber who is from Western Australia because that is the part of this country that this legislation particularly affects. The purpose of the Family Law (Divorce Fees Validation) Bill 2007 is to amend the Family Law Act 1975 to validate retrospectively fee increases for divorce proceedings in the Family Court of Western Australia. Just for your information, in 1976 Western Australia established the only state family court in Australia, the Family Court of Western Australia.

Since July 2005 we have seen the filing fee for divorce applications under the Family Law Act increase from $288 to $405. However—and this is the crux of the legislation—due to an oversight this increase was not legally enforced in Western Australia. The Family Court of Western Australia thought that the increase had been approved, that the necessary amendment to the Family Law Regulations had been enforced, and so understandably they began to charge the increased amount for the filing fee but without legal authority. The proposed bill therefore aims to validate—and, again, I emphasise retrospectively—the charging fees that were in fact charged for divorce applications in the Family Court of Western Australia for the period 1 July 2005 to 9 October 2006.

I have tried to discuss this bill with people in the chamber because it seems a pretty quirky, albeit little, bill to me. I do not think this is such a small issue. Firstly, when we are talking about the increase, we are not talking incredibly small bickies. Secondly, we are talking about retrospectivity, which at the best of times gets some of us a little hot under the collar. Thirdly, if the banks had stuffed up in this way or an individual taxpayer had made a mistake, of course the government would be very keen to get back the money owing.

I understand the numbers in this place; I know that this bill will go through. And I understand why it has to be corrected—of course it has to be corrected—but does it need to be done retrospectively? I leave that question with the chamber. I put it to the minister: would it be such a bad thing if those Australians who have paid the additional amount were reimbursed? It is the same amount that their counterparts in other states would pay if they were filing for divorce, yes, but they have paid that amount without it being legally enforced. I actually think that those people in Western Australia who have in that time frame applied for or filed for divorce and paid the increased amount are owed some money.

I do not think that is going to happen today; I can see the legislation is going to go through. But, again, I make the point that if Australian taxpayers or the government had been short-changed by a taxpayer we would get that money back. We would not let it ride and, presumably, we would not pass retrospective legislation to let them get away with it. If the banks had done it, people would be demanding either the difference or some form of compensation. I think there are possibly some people who have filed for divorce in WA who might like a little reimbursement.

It is a technical point. It may seem small to some people; it may not seem a lot of money to some people. But when governments, administrators, bureaucrats or courts stuff up then maybe we should pay the price for that error instead of walking into this place and retrospectively changing something so that it suits our purposes, not necessarily those of the taxpayers.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.