It's quite clear that this is more poorly thought-through penny pinching back room bureaucracy generating rubbish that further disadvantages women.
Poorly thought through because National have not looked at the impacts. In the primary question Mr Chauvel asked:
10. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister for Courts: What decrease, if any, in the use of the Family Court after 1 July is expected to result from his decision to introduce fees of $700 plus a daily hearing fee of $1,812 for applications for divisions of assets, and fees of $220 for childcare disputes, both of which applications are at present fee-free?
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts) : In answer to the question, based on last year’s modelling there were 18,000 applications before the court that would be liable for the payment of fees. About 8,500 childcare disputes and about 1,700 property disputes would be expected to pay the fees. The balance would be expected to avoid the fees, either by applying to the registrar of the court for a waiver, of which there is expected to be a significant number granted, or by finding some other way to sort out the dispute and not come to the court.
First, last years data are not modelling, they are recorded data. Modelling is looking at what might happen. While a description of what happened previously is interesting, it's not an indicator of what is likely to happen once changes are implemented. The lack of an answer to the question indicates National haven't looked into the issue, or have and didn't like the answer.
Penny pinching because the costs recovered are less than 10% of the cost of running the Family Court.
Back room bureaucracy generating because now a system to collect the fees needs to be set up and run.
And finally, disadvantageous to women because women bear, amongst other things, the financial brunt of relationship breakdowns.
Consolidated - Play More Music, 1992