Mr RUDDOCK (Attorney-General) (3:43 PM) —Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for the call. I am sorry that members who may be interested in these matters are leaving so quickly.

Ms Roxon —There’s nought on your side.

Mr RUDDOCK —Let me just deal with the issue first. It is surprising to me that the member comes in and wants to play the man or the woman rather than the ball, because the case that the member for Gellibrand has put is based upon a falsehood. It may have been innocently perceived or it may be that it was deliberately drawn. Let me just say that I wrote to the honourable member. She has a copy of my letter. I set out in that letter that I was making the decisions in relation to where family relationship centres would go and I will outline the basis on which I am making those decisions. But that letter was clear. It said:

I went on to indicate that there would be a competitive selection process, which would commence in October, as to who would run them. Then I indicated that I had established a committee of government members to oversee the selection criteria and performance criteria for these centres—not for the choosing of these centres. The letter was predicated upon that. I also said that I was yet to make a final decision on the precise location of the further 50 centres.

What we heard today was an argument predicated upon a falsehood—that the members who were chosen to assist in looking at the criteria and the performance and selection issues in relation to staff and what skills people should have and to give us some helpful advice in relation to those matters would in some way go to the selection process. Let me just say why I think these points were made. I think they were made because, when the Labor Party was in office, the way in which the member suggests these decisions would be made was the way they made those decisions. Let me make that very clear. When I became the minister for immigration, we had migrant resource centres and I cannot recall one that was located in a Liberal electorate. I know—for the honourable member for Bradfield, who is here at the table—that across the whole of the north side of Sydney, with seven or eight federal divisions, there was not one migrant resource centre. I went to the eastern suburbs of Melbourne and, sure, it had located one in a Labor seat close to the port—

Ms Roxon —So you’ve got nothing else to say on this.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Gellibrand has had her opportunity.

Mr RUDDOCK —Let me just say that it is a very pointed comparison to the way in which the Labor Party put in place funding arrangements. As the member acknowledged in her own address, in announcing where the centres would be located it was made very clear that a number of them would be in government electorates, a number of them would be in regional electorates and a number of them would be in Labor electorates. I intend to outline the way in which I went about that selection process, because it is an important part of the way in which we intend to implement the family relationship centre arrangements. In relation to these matters, I think it is very important that the centres be located in those areas in which there is a need for us to provide centres based upon a range of demographic and needs analysis issues.

My department made recommendations to me after analysing information obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics along with results of the needs analysis undertaken by the Department of Family and Community Services. That showed, by ABS statistical subdivision, population, the proportion of divorced or separated people with children, the proportion of oldest child under five years of age, the number of blended families, separation in the last six months or the last three years, Child Support Agency clients, people receiving parenting payment, domestic violence and hotline referrals. Other factors taken into account in the department’s analysis were the accessibility to the proposed centres by people elsewhere in the region, the location of courts and government funded services—such as those under the family relationship services program—Indigenous services, community legal services and distribution of other governments agencies, such as Centrelink and the Job Network. For the first 15 centres, I selected on advice of my department locations in outer metropolitan and regional areas rather than city centres so that they would not be overrun while the next 50 centres were being rolled out. I, in fact, looked at whether I should go to areas that are usually held by the Labor Party—like Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide. The department gave me advice that, if I were to put those centres in the established capitals, they would be overrun and that it was better to go to the regional and outer metropolitan areas that I have chosen.

That was the basis upon which those decisions were taken. It is premature to make any judgments about the locations of the next 50 centres; they have not been announced. But those decisions will be taken by me on advice, taking into account the factors that I have outlined. I do not apologise whatsoever for establishing a committee to oversee the selection and performance criteria as well as standards. As I have said this publicly, I think some people think there is an industry in relation to these matters—a closed shop—as to where you go for advice in relation to these matters. One of the things that I was desirous of looking at was how you might write selection criteria that would still effectively address the sorts of issues that we believe ought to be addressed in having the right people with the right skills involved in that task. I have to say that these were not issues that had been raised with me by the opposition. One of the points I would make in relation to consideration of this issue and who you talk to and on what basis you proceed is that, before the last election, this was an issue upon which the Labor Party had no policy, had made no statements and had no ideas. Now that we are implementing measures that we announced before the election, the Labor Party is saying, ‘Foul, foul, we’re not involved in the process.’

Part of this process, I have to say, involves the consideration of the law that would apply. It was here that I invited the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, of which the member for Gellibrand is a member, to deliberate. I have to say that, in relation to legislation involving committees of this parliament, it is a fairly rare event for that to happen. It certainly rarely happened when I was in opposition and Labor governments were introducing legislation. I have been involved in a process of ensuring in relation to this that members were involved in looking at the framework of law that we were going to implement.

In relation to the particular matters that the member for Gellibrand has raised with me today, the people who were taking an interest in the rolling out of the family relationships centres were many of those that, because of their interest, I have asked to give me some advice—

Ms Roxon interjecting—

Mr RUDDOCK —No, they had not come to me—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! We do not need a debate across the table.

Ms Roxon interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Gellibrand is warned!

Mr RUDDOCK —and had not put any formal representations to me. All I am saying is that, in a situation in which there has been an absence of interest and policy by the Labor Party, a number of members on this side of the House expressed a view. Of course I invited the member for Deakin, the member for Moncrieff, the member for Wakefield, the member for Stirling, the member for Riverina, the member for Bass, the member for Lindsay and the member for Greenway to serve on this informal committee to look at the criteria that we are going to use.

The honourable shadow minister has been commenting for some time on a range of issues that she thought ought to be taken into account in dealing with this particular policy implementation. In a press release on 1 August she said:

The fact is that I have asked for these members to be involved in looking at criteria that are being developed by my department in relation to implementation. We see it as being very important that those factors are taken into account. The documentation is being developed. I have outlined that the time from which people will be asked to express interest in running the centres will be October. It would be premature of me to release in advance of the settlement of that documentation information about how these matters are going to be worked through. There are probity issues to be addressed in relation to those questions.

There has been substantial consultation to date. There is a discussion paper on centres, from which we have received numbers of submissions. There are ongoing consultations by me with stakeholders. I had a number of visits recently to Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and Brisbane where I met with a large number of people. My department is involved in ongoing discussions with stakeholders, including strategic planning days. For these reasons there is a good deal of work and input being undertaken. I thought—and I do not apologise for it—that it was particularly important that members of the parliament who have had very wide experience and background be able to play a part in looking at these details and offering advice about where we can improve the way in which we will undertake the process.

I should inform the House as well that the government is currently developing an accreditation system for dispute resolution practitioners. That is a task that is being undertaken through the Commonwealth and state vocational education and training system, known as VET. Under that system, the Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council has been authorised by the Australian National Training Authority Ministerial Council to develop national competencies in the health and community area. We have asked that this industry skills council help develop the competency based accreditation standards for family dispute resolution practitioners, family counsellors and workers in children’s contact services. Once developed, these competencies will be the basis for training courses and also for the assessment of competencies. This accreditation system will be the minimum standard applying to staff in the relationships centres and other practitioners providing dispute resolution.

It is important to recognise that we see the issue of standards for family relationships centres as being particularly important. Under the funding agreements, the centres themselves will be required to meet national performance standards and be subject to national guidelines and requirements. As a minimum they will need to meet current performance standards under the Family Relationships Services Program. These cover a wide range of topics, including leadership and innovation; strategy and planning processes; data, information and knowledge; people, including supervision, training, appraisal and staff safety; client focus processes; product services; organisational performance; and client safety. In addition, national standards beyond minimum standards will apply if the backbench committee believe, through their input, that we can implement these measures more effectively.

Let me just say that I have a great deal of confidence in my colleagues. I do not like the inferences that have been drawn. I do not like the way in which the Labor Party seem to think that their modus operandi is something that is pursued by others. I have a great deal of confidence in my colleagues and I will be asking them to continue their engagement. I will be asking them to help oversee the way in which the program itself is implemented over time, and I look forward to the very helpful advice that I will receive from them.