Just when I thought Abbott and Co couldn't surprise me anymore, the Government has decided to 'give' newly married couples, committed co-habitting heterosexual couples, and even gay couples $200 for couples counselling!

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/federal-government-offers-newlyweds-200-voucher-to-attend-marriage-coounselling/story-fnihsrf2-1226808063646

They apparently want to kick off this generous use of public money with a trial of 100,000 couples to be given $200 to pay for professional counselling.

That adds up to $20 million.

$200 will be lucky to pay for one or maybe two sessions with a marriage counsellor, so I can't see how this will really help anyone, unless they can afford to pay for more sessions themselves.

I doubt this $200 would make one iota of difference for anyone's relationship at all.
Do they pay it back if they break up anyway?

Will we even know if the $200 will be used for relationship counselling, given that counsellors are not allowed to reveal any client session details?

I don't know about anyone else, but I think this scheme (along with the too generous paid parental leave scheme) is a colossal waste of money.

Should this $20 million be used elsewhere, such as areas in spending that have been cut by this government eg The National Disability scheme?

I totally agree and I have already written to Kevin Andrews to tell him it's a waste of my money…..if anyone wants to follow suit his email address is

"Menzies Electorate (K. Andrews, MP)" <menzies@aph.gov.au>

Some of the best Councillors I have come across, especially in my younger years, were barmaids.
I did pass some money over the bar and oft times received good advice in return, as well as a cold beer.
If Tony is willing to spring me a couple of Bradmans for such counseling I am all for it.
Though I do suspect the wise barmaids I encountered in my youth are no longer about the shop, boobs having replaced brains, or so I am told.
SD

Yes weird stuff.
If they need counseling at the start of wedded life they have the wrong partner.
Much more importantly I fear Abbott is unable to think of needed reforms

Perhaps Abbott could get some counselling?

Susie,
I agree, waste of funds. Some stupid advisors idea to buy some votes.

Just like the baby bonus and its unintended consequences.

You would think the LNP would have learned from Labor about the futility of buying votes.

I'm madly reexamining my reasoning here, you see I am totally in agreement with Suse. Can we be growing together after all this time, or is it so obviously silly that we can't help but agree?

This can surely only be as a result of a request from the humanities departments, of some major universities, to help generate some work, other than flipping burgers, for their graduates.

I hope our newlyweds have a good sense of humor. They will need it to sit, straight faced, through a couple of sessions with any of the councilors I have met.

Another stupid idea.

The other interesting fact is what happens if they need counciling in say 15 years time. What's the value of their voucher then. Perhaps they could grab a coke and cheese burger on the way out.

I will be sending an email as well because thisnis a stupid idea.

years ago no counselling, less money, less education and more faithfulness and commitment.

This was my email.

What a stupid idea. Bury it before it buries you.

Dear Suse,

I'm not convinced of the value of giving dollars to the
therapy industry in acountry where the denied provision
of free child-care could actually save so many
relationships so much strain.

That is a typical Abbott statement, straight from the hip. Is that what you come up with during a long airoplane flight.
This bloke has got less intelligence than i thought.
We are in for a torrid time with that as the head of our nation.

Yes 579 and what a cange it is to see voters like myself critical of their own party, rather than pledging their unconditional support, regardless of how rotten their parties action were.

It's stupid policy and hopefully won't get past go, let alone lead to the $200.

It would be interesting to know the success rates for marriage counselling. My own experience with it left me appauled and with an utter lack of faith in the level of professionalism of those touting themselves as counsellors.

I also don't think that $200 is enough to make a difference even if there was evidence that paying for marriage counselling was a valid use of peoples taxes.

My gut feel is that all the money will do is cause an increase in the price of marriage counselling sessions. Eg those who don't get the $200 or who have already used it but who wish to get more counselling will find the cost higher than they otherwise would have. That seems to be the norm when the government decides to subsidize part of the communities use of some service.

R0bert

This proposition is crazy beyond all comprehension - particularly when the whole welfare system has supposedly blown out beyond sustainability. (The same must be said for proposed extension to Paid Parental Leave - incomprehensible, unjustifiable and ludicrous.)
Sure, our marital success rate may not be too good, but the fault lies with our burgeoning culture of 'easy come, easy go' (or, superficial expectations that 'someone else will pick up the tab').
The place to build responsible, accountable citizenship is via the education system - from day 1.

If a couple are unsure of how to maintain a committed relationship the responsible thing to do is to a) gain more life experience; b) review the truthful basis of their 'relationship'; c) forget about a long-term or a marital commitment until 'they' are absolutely certain they can make it work, (and truly want to make it work), and d) avoid childbirth like the plague in the meantime.
If there is undue and unacceptable stress in the relationship, don't have a child, but, wake up and get out.
Counseling may have a place - when a heretofore strong and 'genuine' relationship gets 'frayed' - but will be useless unless both partners are truly committed for the long haul - and part of proving commitment is to pay for the counseling yourself.

Pre-marital (or pre-relationship) Counseling? Sure, have a go if needed - just as one would undertake a healthy eating plan, fitness plan, sports development, serious hobby or developmental education. But, pay for it yourself - as you would for any of these other life-fitness programs.

'Handouts' are like a free dog - those receiving can usually be relied upon to fail to 'treasure' their acquisition, unlike those who willingly pay a fortune for the same 'privilege'.

It's not crazy at all, it's the Modus operandi for all politicians, err parasites. You see, the Minister for Social Services, Kevin Andrews authored the plan and how convenient he and his wife run a Catholic, marriage guidance, counseling company.

These pricks from both sides are all the same, there to fill their pockets whichever way they can, they're all freakn crooks.

Thief!

Snake,
cheers for the Andrews link. I did my bit to stop such idiocy.

Here is a link to YaThink's site. She has done a good job in nailing some relevant material.

http://yathink.com.au/article-display/200-marriage-counselling-voucher-is-offensive-smells-to-me,103

It does indeed stink.

The complete idiocy is beyond compare. The mental stability extremely questionable!
The recent garbage presented to the public.

:Gain healthy surplus, increase medicare levy.
:Review all welfare benefits, to reveal fraudsters and reduce payments.
:Donation of war ships to a Government facing 'war crimes' charges.
:Paid maternity leave. Possibly outrageous amounts.
:$200 gifted to newly wed couples, for counseling.
Seriously what is this man thinking? There is no consistency let alone common sense to his thinking.
This man is a fraud. Who is he using the countries money to help? Why? Is there a large number of up and coming weddings, babies on the way in his circle of affluent buddies families? Bit of back scratching maybe?
Bit of a silly suggestion but in comparison makes more sense.

I thought Raw Mustard was joking when he said that Kevin Andrews was involved in the marriage counselling business, but when I checked Wikipedia's scary biography of this bloke, I realized it was true! ( Sorry Raw Mustard : )

"A member of the Catholic Pontifical Council for the Laity, Andrews is an Adjunct Lecturer in Politics and in Marriage Education in the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family in Melbourne.[3]"

So he and his Catholic "institute" certainly stand to gain financially from such a scheme alright.
Surely him being involved in such a decision is an outrage?
It borders on criminal...

Funny I know some will consider my thoughts just anti Abbott.
But in all truth this is far from the only truly weird policy he has thrown on the table.
As strange as the welfare for the well off baby bonus, I see a deep seated inability to lead in Abbott.

The University program on compatibility does cost about $200 and is led by the Celebrant. Not sure if this is envisaged in the grant. Divorce costs are higher than $200 for the State. I believe it is important to be properly informed rather than blame Tony for programs approved.

Sounds like something thought up by the Conservative Catholics in the LNP.
Time they got their own house sorted before they start imposing their views on the population in general.
SD

Found an interesting writeup at http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2006/sep/09/familyandrelationships.family

I get the impression that its a very subjective area, hard to get a control group for research. Eg the Relate organization is being discussed in the article "a study from the Newcastle Centre for Family Studies found 58% of Relate clients felt that their relationship was better one year after counselling."

however

"US studies put the success rate for counselling at a meagre 11-18%."

An interesting point regarding the focus for marriage counselling programs being targeted "As a result, the government has shifted its funding from general marriage guidance to only supporting couple counselling for parents, with the aim of encouraging them to stay together and so reduce the disadvantages experienced by children brought up by one parent.".

The program does not look to be evidence based, it does appear to have the possibility of becoming a vehicle to channel funding back to the churches (given their existing role as marriage celebrants and sometimes pre-marriage counsellors). It does not appear to be focused on areas of greatest community benefit.

So far I'm seeing little posibility of real help to many and another little bit added to the already significant financial strains felt in many relationships from the governments ever growing drain on family income by way of tax dollars that would be better placed to stay with those who have earned the money in the first place.

R0bert

Robert,
Marriage Celebrants usually spend time with the couple intending marriage. It costs money to lodge a marriage certificate. The $200 I mention does not go to the Church it is a university program lodged online to establish comparability. However the program is led by the Celebrant over several sessions so both understand differences in behaviour and attitudes.

Regardless of religious affiliations, it is not ethical that Andrews is the one who suggested this scheme, and yet has a marriage counselling business.

He potentially stands to gain financially from such a generous scheme, even though it seems the $200 is hardly going to make any difference to anyone's relationship.

Josephus, my post was not a reference to your post, rather broader discussion of the topic.

I've outlined my concerns with yet another government handout of taxpayers money via a program that's not universally available to selected individuals. Overall I suspect that the program if expanded will just serve to make longer term counselling more costly to those who might benefit from it and add that little bit more to the financial pressures those relationships not eligible for the use of other peoples moneys. Overall net harm rather than net harm rather than net good.

Maybe a little biased against Andrews, from what I've seen and read he has no real interest in reducing the harm resulting when relationships breakdowns do happen. It's fantastic if they can find ways of helping people build healthy relationships with a spouse however that's not always going to occur. The evidence is not there to support that proposition. In the mean time there are things the government could do to reduce their role in the harm from the aftermath.

Many of those issues revolve around the financial impacts/benefits to parents of child residency and government incentives to make children something to fight over.

R0bert

As a proactive treatment, counselling could be useful as one of a number of strategies.

I have two areas of concern:

first, I agree with RObert but would go further to suggest that consultation with the public (as opposed to consultation with interest/activist groups) has not kept apace with changes in regulations and policy. There are well-tested ways to engage the public in direct consultation. It is interesting that governments, especially the 'Progressives' in Labor, have been most unwilling to allow public consultation. The 'Progressives' know best apparently;

and,

secondly, counselling will be effective only with those who are likely to seek and take notice of advice anyhow. Preaching to the choir. To be blunt, those who are problems are not usually problems through ignorance, although ignorance and lack of personal insight are part of it. They may not be not socialised for marriage for example.

My wife and I provide Pre-marriage courses, marriage courses and we assist couples who find themselves in tough times. We have done this for over 20 years.

The lack of relationship knowledge in our marriageable community is astounding!
It is critical that couples get
(i) some marriage-related information input and
(ii) that they have some one-to-one discussion time on topics they usually fail to discuss.

Couples spend tens of thousands on their wedding, which lasts for a day. Investment in their marriage, which should last for a lifetime, is a wise move.

Tosca, no one is saying that marriage counseling doesn't assist some people.
That is not the point of this thread.

The point is that the Government want to spend $200 each on 100,000 couples (married or not). How much is one of your sessions then? Will the $200 cover 2 sessions?
For most couples, is that enough to really help them?

Many couples won't be able to afford anymore themselves, so I think this handout is a waste of money, and Kevin Andrews should be sacked for suggesting a scheme that will personally benefit him financially.

In my opinion and from observation if someone needs to be told how to get along with their partner there is every chance they wont.
SD

Oh I don't know Shaggy. I am sure that marriage counseling could work very well, provided they can find some way of convincing HER that she is WRONG.

Suseonline - You may have missed the real point of this issue. Marriage breakdown has escalated to critical proportions in Australia. Principals in some of our schools report that a majority of their students do not live at home with their biological parents. Divorce and remarriage (and remarriage) have become an accepted norm in our culture.

If you want to talk $$$ there are plenty of studies demonstrating the billions of dollars that this costs the taxpayer.

If you want to talk psychology there are plenty of studies demonstrating the damaging outcomes for men, women and children resulting from marriage illiteracy and breakdown.

If you want to talk Australia Day, marital failure is one of the greatest social ills this nation faces.

I am just glad the PM has raised the issue, as marital breakdown is largely tabooed as a political discussion point, seeing that there are so many voters who have experienced its misfortune.

You asked how much we charge for our sessions.

We charge:
$80 for 5 sessions on pre-marriage.
$100 for 7 sessions on marriage and
When we assist couples in a bad way, in their marriage, we have never been paid.

Not a real money spinner, but it does cover the cost of the chocolates we provide during the sessions.

We have had many couples return to us years after having done our courses to say that they have been greatly assisted as a result of what they have learned. Similarly, we have seen couples who were in a bad way, assisted to reconciliation, just as we have also seen some not reconcile and take their journey through the processes of divorce. We try to journey with them too.

Irrespective of the $$ issue. This wound on the well-being of our peers and on the future of their children needs healing, whenever possible.

My hope is that over the next few years, people will take this issue SERIOUSLY, irrespective of their pet assumptions, and that we will develop policies which alleviate the deep heartache we are currently seeing across the nation.

Tosca,
Anything worthwhile takes some effort.
It is just too damn easy to walk away from your responsibilities these days.
It is not a marriage problem so much as a problem with society overall, a few marriage counselors are not going to change what ails society. If you don't like it, discard it, is the way to go it would seem.
I have been happily married twice, children from both, now adults.
I have also seen the damage some counselors have wrought on unsuspecting couples/families. Divisive if anything.
You may be a good one but that is not universal by a long shot.
Take it easy.
SD

While there always were earnest individuals and organisations usually churches to give advice and support, the entrepreneurs will take advantage of the commodification of marriage. That is the inevitable negative consequence of government handouts.

No-one has grasped RObert's nettle: that government itself has contributed to the problem of marriage break-up through constant, ideologically-driven re-jigging of laws and policy affecting marriage and families. The fact is that feminist policy rules in all major political parties. What about that? When will there be some rigorous, independent study of the negative outcomes, such as the sledging of mothers who breast feed?

To be brutally honest, I reckon that the great majority of psychologists and counsellors are as worthless as tits on a bull and no better than kindly grandparents. At least the extended family support group don't charge.

Unfortunately the extended family tradition has been trashed in Oz. 'Progressive' governments and Labor leadership was taken by 'Progressives', do not see any value in families or in extended families('Progressives sledge families as 'traditional families, where 'traditional' is always intended as a slur,. The self-titled 'Progressives' are Statists who believe that children being cared for and raised by the State. That gives the 'Progressives' the opportunity to 'educate' the infants in their ideology.

I believe that all of us would benefit from regular sessions with an independent philosopher to help us identify the repetitive poor judgements we made and our often flawed assumptions. Who should be paying though?

The Abbott government is trying to treat a symptom. Taxpayers' money will be wasted and entrepreneurs will come out of the woodwork everywhere to commodify marriage and 'relationships'.

Tosca, those prices sound good, but I have never seen anything like that advertised?
Are you perhaps part of a religious organization who assists with the payment for the trained counsellors?

Some places even use untrained 'chaplains' to assist people with their problems.
I wonder exactly who will be paid this $200 at the end of the day?
One doesn't need to be religiously orientated to give good advice to others.

I would hope the Government would insist on properly trained counsellors, and that they also deal with unmarried couples as well as gay couples, and not just push the usual 'married in the eyes of god' barrow...

Really?

This is where my tax is being spent? It seems that Abbott is isn't just a smeghead: he's an fiscally incompetent smeghead.

Isn't the main point of difference between smeghead party delta and smeghead party gamma supposed to be that one of the smeghead parties is fiscally responsible?

I think it might be time to start up an Australian Monster Raving Loony Party: I'm seriously starting to believe that a Monster Raving Loony would be a better PM than smeghead delta/gamma.

Happy Invasion Day,

Tony

< I thought Raw Mustard was joking when he said that Kevin Andrews was involved in the marriage counselling business, but when I checked Wikipedia's scary biography of this bloke, I realized it was true! ( Sorry Raw Mustard : ) >

It's OK, Susie. We all get it wrong sometimes :~)

Either many couples (or one half) have some how raised the attention of parliament of their deep concerns of forth coming nuptials, and the government has so quickly responded. Which sounds like rubbish to me. Usually public concerns are highlighted somewhere and generally result in inaction. Abbott and his little cronies sound, and are acting as crooked as a dogs hind leg!

From my reading of what I've seen I don't think the case has been made successfully that Andrews or his family are still in the business. Has anyone seen any credible material that suggests that he or his wife are still getting income from marriage guidance or anything close enough to justify the accusations of conflict of interest.

My impression was that they were in the business but got out of it after the election (or possibly ministerial appointment) was confirmed. If thats not the case I'm quite willing to change that view.

Onthebeach, my point was about the ham fisted harm the government does in its involvement post separation rather than as a cause of separation. I probably suspect that people are far better off without the kind of partners who leave for reasons that can easily be blamed on the government. Perhaps some much lacking modeling of personal accountability, honesty, self sacrifice and loyalty from those who aspire to be leaders.

The point that I'd like to see engaged with is reducing the harm to children from what is often a very adversarial and winner (or the lawyers) take all system. A system that raises the stakes of child residency so high for parents that the children become something to be fought over. A system that uses the idea of chilrens best interest to justify behaviors that often work strongly against those very interests.

Not trying to side track the discussion to much from the original issue, rather to highlight that I think that's an area where Andrews could put some focus but based on what I've seen is disinterested.

R0bert

It is overwhelmingly women who initiate divorce. Why?

No B.S. anyone about traditional roles - many of the pairings would have been entered into since the 'equal' Family Law introduction, rather than before.

It certainly is proven by Australian divorce studies than women are often the initiators of divorce, but that they may not necessarily have been the one to initiate the end of the relationship.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies tells us that ". The higher rate of applications by women has been interpreted to mean that women are more inclined than men to leave marriages. This may be so, but care must be taken with this interpretation. Certainly not all divorce applicants will be the leavers. An unknown percentage will be “the left” who, having been left, “tidy up” and ini- tiate divorce proceedings or initiate proceedings as a retaliation over being left."

The reasons why women are more likely to initiate divorce appear to be numerous, and I am sure we could all come up with several each. Some of these reasons are the same reasons men divorce women.

I am of the opinion though that if a marriage has got to the stage where they need to consider marriage counseling, then it is probably going to fail anyway.
Most of the requests to go to counseling only come from one of the spouses, so the other is there under protest!

Surprising that the Australian Institute of Family Studies cannot do better than that.

To Suseonline,
Counselling and the impartation of relationship knowledge is always valuable. People who come to counselling come for many varied reasons. To write these people off as being too far gone, is just an assumption, with no rational or experiential basis.

Some come to counselling to reconcile. Some come with closed minds but use it to give a further legitimacy to their prior decision to dissolve the marriage i.e. "I tried counselling and it did not work." etc. The truth is, the counselling does not "work", the couple have to do the work to reconcile.
Some come to counselling where one party is willing to reconcile, and the other is not, maybe they were coerced into it by family etc.

Every case is different, however, there are principles which are common to all. It just depends upon the willingness of the parties.

We have seen examples of all of the above, as mentioned before, we have seen those who reconcile successfully and who are now in happy relationships, and some who do not reconcile.

I am committed to the view, that every marriage which may be in a dark time, which is reconciled, brings much happiness to the couples and their children. In fact they do become far more experienced in human relationships and resilience. Further, reconciled marriages save the community massive amounts of negative social capital as well as avoiding the common phenomenon of psychologically and educationally disadvantaged children. Reconciled marriages avert the poverty traps associated with broken marriages and avoid expensive litigation and long-term social welfare bills.

I applaud any move which will develop a setting where couples are given another chance at redirecting their lives, with an experienced third party.

Ultimately, as was intimated in several posts above, marital disharmony is a "people problem". People can learn to soften their hearts toward one another, and behave well toward one another.

I agree Tosca that obviously some couples (I'm assuming you mean married, defacto and gay couples?) do benefit from experienced counselors, as long as those counselors are properly trained and not pushing any religious barrow.

The fact remains though that there are far more needy programs that $20 million dollars should go to, from a Government that said we were in such debt from the previous Government?

Suseonline,
The cost of single parent benefits is a far greater burden on the public purse that needs to be reduced. Too many single mothers is costing Society more than just welfare it also costs in social ways to children and courts.

A friend made the comment in regard to this policy - well they could just spend $21,000 on the wedding rather than $22,000 and they would have $1000 for marriage counselling.

Simply put this expenditure takes money from one group (taxpayers) and gives it to a select group whilst adding to the financial strain some of those it takes it from may already be feeling for very dubious outcomes.

The evidence based research does not appear to be there to support the proposition that marriage counselling works well enough to justify the use of public money to support it.

In some cases it may help greatly but the impression I've gained is that requires a serious commitment from the participants to make it work.

I agree that broken homes carry with them a high cost, many of those costs are a result of ongoing conflict between parents and can be significantly reduced where that conflict is reduced. The best outcomes for children appear to be in healthy homes with both biological parents, that is not always going to be how peoples lives are regardless of how much counselling people get.

R0bert

Perhaps child welfare should only be given to married couples and struggling intact families and others child benefits discontinued e.g. Baby bonus. [I have a daughter divorced working two jobs putting her son through private school. His father has abandoned him.]

What is the comparison of the full cost of bringing in a migrant plus his relatives, as opposed to the cost of a baby bonus?

My fiance and I have planned our wedding for March this year. To suggest we can 'get $200 Govt hand out for counseling' would surely suggest doubt and be taken as an insult.
Instead of some large $20 million? hand out at such an inappropriate time, give ALL the newly weds a rain check for just in case their nuptials turn to crap down the track.
Jeeez....

Nothing like being supremely confident you have made the right choices. Wouldn't do to have that belief shaken by the offer of counselling. That would be an insult for sure!

It is the All-Bran Paradox: those who take it don't need it.

Supremely confident? Gee I must have come across as supremely pompous to prompt that response.
As for 'insult', well yes a bit. For a start if there are doubts from either party about marriage, those doubts or insecurities should be shared, together as adults. For one or the other to suggest 'counselling' would suggest that a bigger problem exists instilling further doubt

jodelie,

It was intended as gentle humour, not as a rebuke.

All the very best for your forthcoming nuptials.

onthebeach no problem at all and thanks for the the kind words.