Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Minister Ludwig. Given the government’s decision to cut $48 million from the Family Relationship Services Program for postseparation services that assist separated and divorced couples to reach agreement on planning issues and focus on the needs of their children, can the government explain why it believes that these services are not important and should be culled? Doesn’t the decision completely contradict the government’s approach of trying to encourage parents to resolve disputes through other means without going to court?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Fielding for his question. The government is committed to the Family Relationship Services Program and to funding services to assist Australian families to find alternative and meaningful ways to resolve their disputes. I am sure Senator Fielding would appreciate it if we put these claims into perspective. From 2010 to 2011, total funding for the Family Relationship Services Program is $269 million. This includes an annual investment of $90 million per annum for mediation services which support separating families in resolving issues involving children.

This government remains committed to this important service. It does deliver in this area. The government is proposing $48.4 million in savings over four years for the Family Relationship Services Program, and the majority of these savings have been found by reducing internal government spending to ensure efficiencies in the overall program. Looking at how this will be done, there are reductions of $6.4 million for training and $6.5 million for research and evaluation. But, as I indicated right at the outset, the size of the program—$269 million—shows that the government remains strongly committed to ensuring that the Family Relationship Services Program can get on with the job of resolving disputes and issues involving children and ensuring that mediation and support is there. Overall, the savings measures represent about four per cent of the overall program, with minimal impact on services. The proposed savings of $9 million over three years— (Time expired)

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the department aware that for organisations such as Centacare Catholic Family Services there is already an eight-week wait for access to postseparation services and that the concern is that these cuts will only increase these waiting times even further? Also, can the government explain why there was a lack of consultation with the organisations about the likely impact of these budget cuts?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will deal with the latter part of the question first. I am unaware of whether there has been a lack of consultation, but I will certainly take that part on notice. The concerns raised in the correspondence from Centacare Catholic Family Services about a proposed refocus towards at-risk and disadvantaged clients related to early intervention services that are the responsibility of the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. But, broadly, there will be no narrowing of the target group for postseparation services funded by the department. Specifically in relation to the waiting period, I do not have anything within the brief that identifies that there is an eight-week wait. I take it that the issue you have raised about an eight-week period is a serious issue, and I will seek further information about that specific matter.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I am wondering whether the government could commit to approaching those services that do have concerns and reporting back to the Senate about what it has done, especially in the case of Centacare Catholic Family Services and their concerns.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated in the answer to the previous supplementary question, I will take on notice two matters relating to the consultation and the eight-week period, as the brief does not specifically mention those issues. I will say that service providers are seeking clarity about funding arrangements for postseparation services from July 2011. The consultative process that would have to have been undertaken is about ensuring that they have that clarity. The minister has approved extending funding agreements for the Family Relationship Services Program’s postseparation services for three years from 1 July 2011 and for two years for the 14 postseparation cooperative parenting services that end on 30 June 2012. So, the parts of your questions that I have not answered I will also ask to be— (Time expired)