Page 5336 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
All of the information gleaned was contradictory, confusing and inconclusive. We concluded, informally, in the committee, that there had been a range of matters which had affected the outcome for the second domestic violence refuge, one of which was, in fact, the time that had elapsed since the decision was taken, and another matter was, of course, the change of government and a subsequent change of administrative arrangements in the ACT Government Service.
Nevertheless, it must be said that the whole issue of the second domestic violence refuge was, I believe, the subject of an administrative misunderstanding. The committee made some unanimous conclusions. We came to those conclusions from the point of view that there was very little to be gained for the ACT community by the committee undertaking a witch-hunt to find out exactly where the administrative difficulties had occurred. We came to some conclusions which I think will be helpful to the Assembly.
Firstly, we did find that the second domestic violence refuge for women was quite clearly an intention of my Government; that it had been publicly stated, and that it was stated in the budget papers. We also concluded that there was an apparent intention that the funding for that refuge should come from SAAP. Of course, at that time, negotiations for SAAP projects had not been concluded. We found, in the course of our inquiries, that, in fact, the refuge was never put forward for SAAP funding. That is where the apparent administrative error occurred.
The committee felt that, in future, where there is a project like this that is subject to a formal agreement, as is required under SAAP funding, it is probably worthwhile that the budget papers should state that. I trust that the current Government will take on that burden as well.
Mr Jensen: Good one, Rosemary.
MS FOLLETT: That was Mr Jensen's inclusion. However, to briefly answer the concerns that Mrs Nolan raised in her reference, we did find that the funding level for the refuge was $142,000 for a part year and $238,000 for a full year. We found that there was no requirement under the ACT Audit Act and Finance Regulations for a separate appropriation of funds for such a refuge. The committee also formed the view that the question of funding for youth homelessness was not relevant and did not affect the funding for a domestic violence refuge.
MR JENSEN (12.42 am): There are a couple of issues that I want to make some comment on in these closing stages of this long sitting. One of the issues that I was concerned about when, in fact, I got involved with this particular inquiry was that the chairman of the committee, in fact, had been one of the major players in the events that we were in fact inquiring into. I would have thought that, in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .