Page 3554 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 September 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the nature of the response that would be put in place—and it would be a national response coordinated by the commonwealth but flowing through to each state and territory—I would be very happy to provide them with a briefing from the Chief Health Officer on the status of that work.
Community grants
DR FOSKEY: Chief Minister, in response to a question I asked of you, as environment minister, on 25 August regarding environment grants, you said that the process of assessing applications occurs at arms length of you as minister. You also said that there was a rigorous process involving members of the community and that this philosophy applies to all ACT government grant programs. My question relates to the community infrastructure and renewal grants. One grant from this fund was announced in July but until very recently, a few minute ago, we had heard nothing more. What is the process used to allocate these grants? Can you guarantee that all applications were duly considered in a rigorous and unbiased way and that allocations have been made on the basis of an objective assessment of relative merit at arms length of you as minister?
MR STANHOPE: There were a number of parts to the question. I cannot give you now the specific detail of the assessment process. I cannot off the top of my head recall, for instance, how many members of the assessment panel there were or who they were. But, in the broad, it is very much an open, objective and transparent process. Applications were called. There was a broad distribution of very significant interest, from memory, in the renew infrastructure grants scheme. A significant number of applications were lodged.
From memory once again, a number of those applications were ruled by the department not to be consistent with the terms of the application form. The applications were assessed by a departmentally organised and arranged assessment panel. I am more than happy to provide Dr Foskey with the names of the members of that panel; I simply cannot recall them. In the last round, $1 million was available in grants. I understand that just under $1 million was provided in successful grants. Offers of grant were made to all of the successful applicants.
I just happen to have, coincidentally, the names of the organisations that were successful and the amounts. I will just go through some of them. The Canberra Riding and Pony Club received $23,000 to upgrade their facilities. Others were the Parent Support Service, Woden Valley Gymnastics Club, Home Help Services ACT, Canberra Society of Model and Experimental Engineers, Majura Mountain Scouts, Chisholm Community Centre Association, Hindu Temple and Cultural Centre, LASA Youth Centre, Belconnen Church of Christ, Lowana Young Women’s Service, Marymead Child and Family Centre, Scouts Association of Australia, Mental Health Foundation, Baringa Childcare Centre, Barnados Australia, Northside Community Service, Noah’s Ark Resource Centre, Kippax Uniting Church, Guides New South Wales, Islamic Society of the ACT, Canberra Bridge Club, Riding for the Disabled of the ACT Inc, Anglican Church Property Trust, Canberra Christian Life Centre, Southern Canberra Gymnastics Club, St Phillips Anglican Parish, Respite Care ACT, Aboriginal Corporation for Sporting and Recreational Activity, Pearce Community Centre, Southside Community Service, Canberra Islamic Centre, Belconnen Community Service, Woden Senior Citizens Club, Church of Christ Ainslie, Karma Scout Group, Communities@Work, Yarralumla
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .