Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

We are not closing migrant resource centres, as I understand it. The location of these centres was determined by me on the basis of advice provided by my department. That included information about the numbers of families and separating families, information identifying transport routes and other objective data which would help in the making of those decisions. The government members family relationship centres task force was not consulted. It played no role in those matters. I made the decisions. People who know me know that when I am given the opportunity to make decisions I will do so on a proper basis, I will take the decisions myself and I will be accountable for those decisions. This was not a matter in which members were in a position of conflict in influencing decisions when their electorates may have been among the areas considered.

The criticism of the opposition of the tender process for family relationship centres is equally unfounded. The tender process for the selection of organisations to run the family relationship centres is open and transparent and has been conducted in accordance with best practice. While the government task force did comment on the draft selection documents before the process began, it is not involved in any way in the actual selection process—and that has been made very clear—or in deciding which organisations should be selected to run those centres. Those decisions will be taken by officers of my department in developing the recommendations which I will ultimately approve.

I should also deal with the issue that was raised by the honourable member for Gellibrand concerning the Hillsong Church. Hillsong were made an offer under the Community Crime Prevention Program, run by my colleague the Minister for Justice and Customs, but that offer was later withdrawn. There was no contract with them and no moneys were ever paid.

Let me turn to the assertions by some members opposite that the government is in danger of creating ‘false expectations’ with its family law reforms. Far from trying to create false expectations about family law reforms, the government has provided $5.7 million over two years to develop and implement a community education campaign to raise awareness of the changes and the reforms to the family law system. The campaign will be based upon market research to ensure that people receive information about the changes in a format that is most appropriate for them.

This bill reflects the government’s desire to change the culture around family breakdown and to ensure that as many children as possible grow up in a safe environment with the love and support of both their parents. We hope that in future many of the stories that we see coming from the family law system will be very different. This bill will implement the most significant reforms to family law in some 30 years, reforms which I hope will deliver a better, fairer, faster system for the benefit of families.

I thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate. I appreciate very much the work of those who on a bipartisan basis committed themselves to examining these reforms and have supported them. I have genuinely taken into account their views and the comment they made that some of the original propositions that I put ought to be more acceptable. I make the point that I do have regard for the bipartisan work of colleagues. I think it is worthy of consideration and I will always give it that. I might also say to the honourable member for Gellibrand that I believe the parliamentary committee system does not just exist in the Senate and that members of the House of Representatives can make very valuable contributions. It may be fine for the Senate to want to second-guess members of the House of Representatives, but I will not necessarily be falling over backwards, unless I am persuaded, to adopt further changes. I thank all those members who have contributed so positively to this debate.

See this speech in context