Mr.
Craig Kelly appears to be a politician whom the Guardian ad litem/ Court
reform movement could use. He recently gave a speech earlier
this month regarding the use of a court appointed expert who by all
appearances took advantage of the situation he was in by gouging the
divorcing family. This issue is quite common in our Family Court system
where judges grant a monopoly to Guardians ad litem and other court
'experts'. We must educate our politicians to the problems within our
court systems -
FAMILY COURT RORTS – Speech in Parliament (November 2015);
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:18): Deputy Speaker, this morning I would like
to talk about a rort — a rort that is going on in the Family Courts of Australia.
It is a rort that involves excessive fees, price gouging and virtual extortion; it is nothing other than a scam.
I
am not going to name names today, but I put those on notice involved in
this rort. If necessary, I will name names in this parliament.
Now
Deputy Speaker, in a truly competitive market, I have no objection to
anyone charging what the market will bear. In our free market,
capitalist society, they are entitled to charge as much as the customer
will FREELY pay.
However, where we have a
situation where the Family Court orders a so-called ‘single expert” to
do what is called a 'report' or an 'analysis', the court is granting
them a monopoly.
And these people should not be
allowed to exploit that monopoly position granted to them by the Family
Court, by price gouge and charge excessive fees.
This
is an area which should have government regulation where we set and
regulate the fees where the Court does grant them a monopoly.
Deputy
Speaker, I would like to give you an example of one of the current
practices. I have a Family Court order in front of me, and it states
that the participants in the Family Court, the father and the mother,
should attend a particular ‘Mr X’ (name withheld) on a certain date for a
further ‘single expert report’.
It goes on that the cost of ‘Mr X's’ report will be borne equally by the parties and that they will pay the sum of $8,000 each.
So
Mr X is entitled to a sum of $16,000. (And parent of the child is
unable to pay, they will be denied the right to even see their child, so
the child is a victim of this rort as well)
When it was asked how this is calculated, it worked out at a fee of $700 per hour. That’s right Deputy Speaker; $700 per hour.
Now
this is for a psychiatrist. If I look at the Australian Psychological
Society's national schedule of recommended fees—the recommended fee
schedule in place from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016—it sets out the
recommended level of fees for an hour of consultation at $238.
So, because the courts are giving this particular individual a monopoly position—
(debate interrupted - Proceedings suspended from 11:21am to 11:34am) (debate resumed 11.34am)
- I will continue where I left off.
I
was giving an example of the current practice of this rort whereby the
scheduled fee recommended by the professional association is around $238
an hour (that’s $9,520 for a 40hr week – nice work if you can get it).
But in this case because the so-called expert involved has a court-ordered monopoly, they are able to charge what they like.
And
they are charging 200% ABOVE the scheduled fee recommended by their
professional association — a charge, including GST, of up to $700 an
hour.
Deputy Speaker, I have no objection if in
a fair, free and open competitive market if they want to charge $7,000
an hour, and someone is willing to pay this of their own free will.
But
where the court compulsory orders a participant in the court
proceedings to see an ‘single expert’ thereby granting such an
individual a monopoly, and they charge such an excessive fee — a 200 %
uplift, a $500 per hour UPLIFT (on the scheduled fee recommended by the
professional association) — it is nothing other than an absolutely rort.
Deputy
Speaker, I am not one for excessive government regulation,however we
should have legislation that sets a maximum schedule of fees for these
'single experts' if they are to be given a court ordered monopoly.
For
the current situation is very similar to what I remember in an old
Chevy Chase movie, 'National Lampoon's Vacation', where Clark W.
Griswall (played by Chevy Chase) crashed his car and had to get his car
repaired. He pulls out this wallet and asks, ‘What do I owe you?'
And
the repairer said, 'How much you got?' And when Clark complains about
such price gouging, the repair pulls out this sheriff’s badge.
Deputy
Speaker, his is akin to the same situation that we have going on in our
Family Court today, and it is totally unacceptable.
Secondly,
I have great concerns over some of the secrecy provisions in the Family
Court. I would like to quote one Mr J Robert Oppenheimer from the
1950s. He said, which well applies to our Family Court today:
“We
do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to
operate without scrutiny or without criticism … We know that the wages
of secrecy are corruption. We know that in secrecy error, undetected,
will flourish and subvert.”
We need to end a few practices in our Family Court. We need to end the practice of secrecy.
We need to shine a bright light on the practices that are currently going on in our Family Court.
If
we are going to continue to have the practice of single experts, a
practice which I am greatly concerned about, we must have a schedule of
professional fees they can charge. which must be reasonable.
And
Deputy Speaker, regarding the current practices—these current rorts
that I have outlined — I am putting these people on notice that they are
being watched. This parliament is going to shine a light on their
activities. (time expired).
If you have been involved in a case which has turned sour or just does not make sense we ask that you contact us at MeGALalaert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
