Breaking-up is hard to do

It seems nothing more than an example of symbolic politics so that the government is seen to be doing something. In fact, the centres will have little positive effect. They will strip the community sector of its independent identity and will be costly as well.

Unlike the British, the Australian Government will not organise trials. A four-year budget has been allocated and all centres are to be established by 2008. But given that similar models incorporating compulsory dispute resolution did not work elsewhere, FRCs should at least be tested before being introduced here.

There is also the looming question of what are the government's real aims? Are they hoping to salvage marriages or are they trying to make it easier for people to separate?

When a couple steps into a dispute resolution session, should they expect to be working on repairing their relationship or ending it amicably? Are these objectives even compatible?

Already the Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, has likened Family Relationship Centres "to aircraft control centres" - the first point of contact for couples.

In reality these centres represent the increasing control of the state over the lives of individuals. By incorporating the community sector and making dispute resolution compulsory, the government effectively has complete control over the decision-making process of divorcing couples with children. These changes give new meaning to the "nanny state".

The government now babysits you as well as your children.

The fictional couple in the movie clearly needed guidance to develop the best blueprint for their children. But if the government continues down this path, the bureaucratic driftnet will only get wider.