Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I am delighted that the Attorney-General is here and that we have this brief opportunity to ask some questions about the expenditure in the Attorney’s portfolio. Given that we are on restricted time, I am pleased that the Attorney has a pen and notepaper because I can quickly take him through the list of things that I want to know and he will be able to answer all of them for me.

I am very concerned in particular about the family relationship centre project, which is one that we have been supportive of and that we think could offer families a great change in the community if they are administered properly. On a number of occasions we have expressed concerns about the politicisation of that process and more recently about the implementation of the program. The Attorney would know that we have been asking questions in estimates hearings and elsewhere about a range of things that affect this. We are very concerned that the picture painted so far is that the Attorney has been much more concerned with appearances than with substance in getting these projects up and running. At the estimates hearings we learned that the contracts for the 15 centres that are due to open on 1 July have not even been signed and that some centres will be opening in temporary accommodation. We also learned that the one job that is complete is the advertising campaign that the government is going to run. So I hope that the Attorney will be able to assure me that all the contracts for the 15 centres that are due to start in just a number of weeks time are now signed. I hope the Attorney will also be able to tell me how many of those services will be operating in temporary premises.

I am also very concerned that we have recently seen a trademark protocol that will apply to the family relationship centres. It is a very prescriptive protocol that will micromanage in great detail the rules on how family relationship centres are to use the government logo, including a ban on mentioning the name of the service organisation that will actually run the service. But I must say that I still have not seen any rules of similar detail that will govern safety arrangements, staffing arrangements, quality of service, complaints processes and other matters. This is a situation in which the government is happy to claim credit for the good work that the centres will no doubt do but does not seem to be setting out any rules for the responsibility it will take if the project does not run properly. Who will be complained to? What responsibility will the government have? How will people make complaints about services if they are not running properly?

We were also told in estimates hearings that the operators were told that there was no possibility of an extension of time to give them more time to open if they were are not able to set up properly. Again I suspect that this is for the sake of appearances. There seems to be no other serious reason that the government should not prioritise doing the right thing rather than just getting them open at all costs on 1 July. So I would like the Attorney to deal with those issues. Are the contracts now signed? How many of these centres will be in temporary accommodation? What sorts of arrangements and rules are in place for safety, for staffing, for the quality of services and for complaints? I would also like to know whether the Attorney can tell me if he will be personally visiting and opening all of these centres in the first weeks of July and if that is why the service organisations have been told that there is no possibility of their opening late: because of the Attorney’s travel arrangements.

I am concerned that the Attorney advise us when and where the advertisements that have been funded will run. Attorney, when we have 15 pilot centres being pushed to open on 1 July and you have an advertising program that we were told in estimates hearings is ready to run, it is very important to know where and when those advertisements will run. Will it be clear to people that, although the government is advertising this new service, there will be only 15 centres that will be operational, so that people’s expectations will not be dashed immediately if the services are not available in their area? How does the government intend to run that?

On that issue could the Attorney also advise whether any training has been provided for either the new family relationship centres staff or the family relationships support program staff—obviously in the broader program that is already running—on family law changes that will come into effect on 3 July? Has any budget allocation been made to assist in providing information and training to staff who run these programs on behalf of the government as to how they should deal with changes in the family law area? I know that that is a long list, Attorney. It is not all of them, but I think those questions go discretely together in a group and I hope that you can answer them for the House.

See this speech in context