Family Relationship Centres need review

By agreeing to run FRCs under a national government badge and identity, with strict (but not fully developed) government guidelines, these organisations risk compromising their identity and independence by becoming simply an arm of government.

There is also the danger that organisations which do not get contracts to run FRCs could be "crowded out" of the relationships services sector by larger, well-funded, government-run service providers.

These centres are a classic case of the government extending its hand and adding another layer of bureaucracy to a system that is already structurally sound.

The amended Family Law Act makes it compulsory for some separating couples to attend counselling, before approaching the Family Court. This means that to satisfy the compulsory requirement, people will have to seek out these services. There is no need for government to take them over.

The Government, through the Family Relationship Services Program, already gives money to a large number of relationship services providers. Why can't money be spent to promote the existing independent services rather than spending $200 million to set up 65 new centres to duplicate what is already available?

Family Relationship Centres should have been trialled. In Britain, a wave of family law reforms were introduced in 2000, including a system of compulsory information meetings and mediation for separating couples before they accessed the court system. These meetings were rigorously trialled for 18 months and then scrapped, because they were expensive and ineffective in deterring couples from using the courts to resolve any differences.

With a one-year review just around the corner, and given the confusion surrounding the centres, the government should put off its plans to establish another 50 Family Relationship Centres. The first 15 should be comprehensively evaluated before any more are established.