Ms Panagiotidis did not object to the Hansard record of proceedings in the Legislative Council being tendered so long as the only purpose was to prove what had been said on a particular occasion. That is consistent with authority: Mundey v Askin [1982] 2 NSWLR 369, 373. I have quoted some of those Hansard records in these reasons. I have done so only to state the history of the matter and for no other purpose. I have made no other use of them.

I have had no regard at all to the answers given by Mr Sumner to questions to which objection was taken. They were very few in number. The answers had no probative value. In any event the plaintiff withdrew one of her claims against Mr Sumner and I have dismissed her only other claim against him.

Ms Panagiotidis did not expressly object to any use being made of the Hansard for the purpose of drawing inferences from what was said or done in the House. I have taken the view that the Hansard record of the parliamentary proceedings cannot be relied on for the purpose of drawing any inferences.

I set out my reasons for the above conclusions.

In the Court of Appeal in New Zealand in Television New Zealand Ltd v Prebble [1993] 3 NZLR 513 at 518 Cooke P listed occasions when consistently with the privilege, evidence can be led. Such evidence is admissible provided it is used consistently with the parliamentary privilege in the following circumstances.

1. To prove material facts, such as the fact that a statement was made in Parliament at a particular time, or that it refers to a particular person: Hyams v Petersen [1991] 3 NZLR 648, 656; New South Wales Branch of the Australian Medical Association v Minister for Health & Community Services (1992) 26 NSWLR 114.

2. For the purpose of proving that a Government decision was announced in Parliament on a particular day: Roman Corporation Ltd v Hudsons Bay Oil & Gas Co Ltd (1973) 36 DLR (3d) 413.

3. In order to establish that a member of Parliament was present in the House and voted on a particular day: Forbes v Samuel [1913] 3 KB 706.

4. To establish that a report of parliamentary debates accords with the debate itself and is fair and accurate and therefore attracts qualified privilege in the law of defamation.

5. For the purpose of interpreting statutes. Pepper v Hart [1992] UKHL 3; [1993] 1 All ER 42 is an example.

However, as Sir Robin Cooke then noted, "beyond that point the question becomes more difficult".

Blackstone noted in his Commentaries (17th Ed (1830) Vol 1 at 163):

"......... whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament, it relates ought to be examined, discussed, and adjudged in that House to which it and not elsewhere."

In Stockdale v Hansard [1839] EngR 139; (1839) 9 Ad & E 1; 112 ER 1112 Lord Denman CJ said (at 114) "whatever is done within the walls of either assembly must pass without question in any other place. For speeches made in Parliament by a member to the prejudice of any other person, or hazardous to the public peace, that member enjoys complete impunity" and Patteson J noted (at 209) "that whatever is said or done in either House should not be liable to examination elsewhere". The inability to examine anything said in the Parliament was reaffirmed by Anderson J in Holding v Jennings [1979] VicRp 29; [1979] VR 289 at 291 in these terms:

"It is clear law that no proceedings, either civil or criminal, may be taken Parliament, and a member is not examinable outside Parliament concerning against a member of Parliament for anything said or done by him in anything said by him in Parliament; see ex parte Wason (1869) LR 4 QB at 573; Bradlaugh v Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271 at 275; Stockdale v Hansard [1839] EngR 139; (1837) 9 Ad & E 1; Dillon v Balfour (1987) 20 LR Ir 600; Blackstone, 1 Com 163; R v Creevey [1813] EngR 254; (1813) 1 M & S 273; Chubb v Salomons (1852) 3 Car & Kar 75."

In R v Murphy (1986) 5 NSWLR 18 at 33 - 38, Hunt J permitted cross-examination of witnesses on their prior statements made to a Parliamentary Committee. That decision was disapproved in Prebble and I do not follow it. Other decisions suggest that statements in the House cannot be questioned in any form at all.

In Church of Scientology of California v Johnson-Smith [1972] 1 QB 523 it was held that the privilege denied reference to parliamentary statements by a member to support the plaintiff's claim that the member's defamatory statements outside Parliament had been motivated by malice thereby negating the defence of qualified privilege. Again reliance was placed on the inability to examine in any place statements made in the Parliament (at 529):

"What is said or done in the House in the course of proceedings there cannot be examined outside Parliament for the purpose of supporting a cause of action even though the cause of action itself arises out of something done outside the House. In my view this conclusion is supported both by principle and authority."

Similarly in R v Turnbull [1958] TASStRp 18; [1958] Tas. SR 80 at 83 the Crown was not permitted to rely on statements made in the Parliament as evidence in the criminal prosecution of a former State Treasurer for corruption. In R v Jackson (1987) 8 NSWLR 116 it was held that evidence of what the accused had said in Parliament was inadmissible for the purpose of establishing that he had lied to Parliament as corroborative evidence of official corruption.

In Amann Aviation Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1988] FCA 24; (1988) 19 FCR 223 at 230 Beaumont J took a wide view of the privilege and was not prepared to allow use of what had been said in the Parliament for the purpose of proving that the Commonwealth was not ready and willing to proceed with a contract:

"On behalf of the applicant it is submitted that the tender of the extract from Hansard does not offend s 16(3) because it is for the limited purpose of proving that the Senator made a statement in Parliament in which he admitted having the conversation alleged. It is true that, before the enactment of s 16, it was permissible to use Hansard for the limited, but non-contentious, purpose of proving that a member of Parliament was present in the House on a particular day. According to the memorandum explaining the operation of s 16(3)(c), this is still a legitimate approach. This would accord with the language of s 16 and with its apparent purpose, that is to say, that a member of Parliament should be able to speak in Parliament 'with impunity and without any fear of the consequences': per Gibbs ACJ in Sankey v Whitlam [1978] HCA 43; (1978) 142 CLR 1 at 35. Where, as here, the subject-matter of the passage from Hansard is contentious in that it is sought to be used to impugn the conduct of the Senator, in the context of a denial by the respondent of any impropriety, it is almost inevitable that the tender of Hansard would lead to an examination of the circumstances in which the Senator came to make the statement and that this would further lead to an attempt to assess the credibility of this evidence and to compare it with other evidence already given. Such an examination, in a contentious area, cannot be reconciled with the complete freedom of speech envisaged by the Bill of Rights and the Act."

In Rost v Edwards [1990] 2 QB 460 at 475 it was held that the privilege prevented evidence being led on the question whether a member had been appointed and then de-selected from a parliamentary committee. In that case the member himself a plaintiff was not wishing to question what had occurred in the House but simply to ask the jury to draw an inference from what had occurred.

Courts have always been sensitive to the rights and privileges of Parliament and the constitutional importance of Parliament retaining control over its own proceedings: Rost v Edwards at 467; Prebble at 336. However, some of the decisions mentioned above seemed to take the principle a long way. For example, it is difficult to see how the intended use of the proceedings in Parliament in Rost v Edwards would in any respect have impaired the privileges of its members. I adopt with respect the remarks of Doyle CJ in Rann v Olsen [2000] SASC 83; (2000) 76 SASR 450 at 473 that the principle of non-intervention cannot be pressed too far and that it must be applied with a mind to its purpose and in a discriminating fashion. An unilateral application of the principle has the capacity to cause hardship. The decision in Church of Scientology v Johnson-Smith is an example. The member was not being sued in respect of something said in the Parliament. Is a plaintiff to be denied a remedy for a defamatory statement made outside the Parliament on an occasion of qualified privilege because it is not possible to rely on something said in the Parliament which might be conclusive evidence of malice? As the Privy Council noted in Prebble at 336 three issues must be balanced, the need to ensure that the legislature can exercise its powers freely, the need generally to respect freedom of speech, and the interests of justice. In Comalco Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1983) 78 FLR 449 at 453, Blackburn CJ expressed how the courts could comply with the privileges of Parliament in these terms:

"I think the way in which the Court complies with Article IX of the Bill of Rights, and with the law of the privileges of Parliament, is not by refusing to admit evidence of what was said in Parliament, but by refusing to allow the substance of what was said in Parliament to be the subject of any submission or inference. The Court upholds the privileges of Parliament not by a rule as to the admissibility of evidence, but by its control over the pleadings and the proceedings in Court."

The purpose of the principle is to enable members to speak with impunity and without fear of the consequences: Sankey v Whitlam (supra) and to ensure the courts do not become embroiled in the political controversies which question as to the exercise of parliamentary privilege typically involve: Prebble (supra); Egan v Willis [1998] HCA 71; (1998) 195 CLR 424 per Kirby J at par 131. There may, therefore, be room at least for allowing questions which seek to do no more than clarify what a member meant when using a certain expression and for allowing inferences to be drawn when an action is brought in respect of something done or said outside the Parliament. These are matters which as Blackburn CJ said in Comalco Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation can be controlled by the court.

However, I do not think it necessary to determine these issues in this action. I will take a cautious approach and disregard answers to questions which inquired as to what had been said or done in the Parliament.

It is, however, necessary to bear in mind that Dr Cornwall's statements in the Legislative Council were the political expression of his executive acts. Two obvious examples are the decision to establish the Review Committee and the decision to accept the recommendation of the Review Committee to withdraw funding from the Christies Beach Shelter. The fact that he announced those decisions in the Legislative Council does not mean that the decisions cannot be examined. The executive act can be examined but the statements in the Legislative Council cannot nor can any inference be drawn from those statements.

In order to gain a full appreciation of the issues, it is necessary to note some events as far back as 1981. However, it is unnecessary to go into the detail of the period 1981 to 1984. The main events occurred in 1985, 1986, 1987 and, in particular, in May to August 1987. There are two main themes. The first concerns the funding of women's shelters and the political agitation by the shelters for increased funding. Those events explain why the review of women's shelters was undertaken. The second relates to the decision to withdraw funding from the Christies Beach Shelter and to the allegations made about the Shelter. The latter are the critical issues.

Hereafter, these reasons begin with a brief note about women's shelters and the circumstances of the Christies Beach Shelter. They turn to funding issues before 1985 and then to the events in 1985, 1986 and 1987. They then examine some of the events following the decision to withdraw funding from the Christies Beach Shelter. That completes the resumé of the facts. Some of the facts are then examined more closely because of their relevance to the issues raised by some of the causes of action. The reasons then turn to examine the particular causes of action on which the plaintiff relies and deals with each of them.

In the early to mid 1970s, women's shelters began to be established throughout Australia. They were a response by women to the need to provide assistance to women and children who were the victims of domestic violence. The movement was well established by 1980. The shelters were initially self-funded though they also received small grants from government. Later, more substantial funding was provided by government. Shelters were first established in South Australia in 1974. In South Australia, they were funded by Commonwealth and State Governments through the Department of Community Welfare.

In the 1980s, the women's shelters had formed a committee called the "Women's Shelters Advisory Committee". It was commonly referred to as "WSAC" and has been mentioned earlier. The evidence does not show whether it had a constitution. It is apparent that WSAC comprised at least one representative from each shelter. It usually met once a month to discuss common problems. It was also an active lobby group for women's shelters. The plaintiff was a long serving member of WSAC.

At times there were divisions among the women's shelters. One divisive issue was a proposal in the latter part of 1984 to establish a service for migrant women to be called the "Migrant Women's Emergency Support Service ("MWESS"). The majority of shelters did not support the proposal, seeing it as a means by which funding might be diverted from them. At a meeting of WSAC on 21 June 1985, four shelters, Port Augusta, Mount Gambier, Whyalla and the Western Area Women's Shelter, were expelled from WSAC because of their support for the migrant women's service. These four shelters formed their own group called "Shelter Women's Action Group". The migrant women's service was established by February 1985 at Woodville. It continued to be a bone of contention between the shelters until about October 1986 when the Administrators of all shelters held a combined meeting to protest about funding issues. The plaintiff had been one of those who had been active in the opposition to MWESS and the expulsion of some shelters from WSAC and her opposition led to ill-feeling between her and Mrs Roberts, Ms Wighton and Ms Blake.

A women's shelter had existed at Christies Beach since 1975. Initially, it was a small voluntary organization. It later acquired premises from the South Australian Housing Trust ("the Housing Trust") and received government funding. On 8 November 1976 an association called "Women on the Move Inc" was incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 1956 and it operated the Shelter. On 9 June 1982 the association changed its name to "Christies Beach Women's Shelter Inc.". For the purposes of this action, it is not necessary to refer to events at the Shelter prior to the appointment of the plaintiff as Administrator in 1981.

Although after June 1982 the Shelter's letterhead clearly stated that the association was called "Christies Beach Women Shelter", the Department rarely addressed it by its correct name. Even the letter dated 11 August 1987 from Dr Cornwall to the Shelter informing it that funding had been withdrawn did not use its correct name.

The Shelter was run by a management committee. The management committee employed the staff. The management committee was elected at each annual general meeting of the association. The constitution of the Shelter permitted up to six employees to be on the management committee but required the number of non-employees to exceed employees by at least one. The constitution required the management committee to meet at least every two months. Quite often, the management committee met monthly. Minutes of all annual general meetings of the Shelter, as well as meetings of the management committee, were kept. The officers of the incorporated association were the chairperson of the management committee, a secretary and treasurer, all of whom had to be members of the management committee. From 1985 to 1987, the secretary of the association was Ms Helen McSkimming. The constitution provided for an auditor to be appointed at each annual general meeting.

The plaintiff remained Administrator of the Shelter from her appointment in 1981 until 4 September 1987. From 26 November 1986 until 4 September 1987 she was on sick leave and received worker's compensation and, during that time, Ms McSkimming was acting Administrator.

In October or November 1981, a dispute arose between the plaintiff and some of the members of the management committee of the Shelter. The plaintiff resigned orally but then withdrew her resignation shortly thereafter. This led to friction with some members of the management committee who resigned on 21 November 1981.

In 1982 and 1983 the plaintiff studied for the degree of Bachelor of Social Administration at Flinders University. This was a two year full-time course. She undertook the course with the consent and approval of the management committee of the Shelter.

In September 1983, the Department wrote to the Christies Beach Shelter expressing concerns about certain issues and seeking a meeting. The Shelter and the Department met on 4 October. It was an important meeting. Later in these reasons I set out what occurred at the meeting.

In 1981 the Shelter occupied two dwellings at 1 and 3 Fletcher Drive, Christies Beach which it rented from the Housing Trust. Those premises became inadequate and unsuitable for the Shelter's activities. After negotiations with the plaintiff and other representatives of the Shelter, the Housing Trust agreed in November 1982 to provide two dwellings to the Shelter at 5 and 7 Damian Court, Christie Downs in place of the dwellings at Fletcher Drive. It was necessary for a number of matters to be arranged before the Shelter could occupy the new premises. Ultimately, it moved to the new premises in July 1983. The new premises were officially opened one year later on 18 July 1984 by The Honourable Justice Evatt, then Chief Justice of the Family Court.

The Shelter paid rent to the Housing Trust for those premises. Events associated with the move to Damian Court became an issue between the Department and the Shelter in October 1983. At that same time, two other issues arose between the Department and the Shelter concerning receipts for rent paid to the Housing Trust and study leave taken by the plaintiff. These three issues were discussed with the Department at the meeting on 4 October 1983 mentioned in the last paragraph but one. I will deal later with what occurred at the meeting.

The Shelter also rented from the Housing Trust three houses called "halfway houses". Those houses were used to provide accommodation for women after they had left the Shelter and while they were waiting for accommodation to be provided by the Housing Trust. The Shelter let the halfway houses from the Housing Trust and sublet them to the women.

As already mentioned, funding for women's shelters was provided by the Commonwealth and State Governments and the funds were distributed by the Department. The arrangements by which the two governments contributed varied from time to time.

Before the end of each financial year, each shelter was required to submit to the Department its request for funding for the next financial year. The requests were, in reality, ambit claims rather than a structured budget submission. Funds were allocated to each shelter by the Department. The funds allocated varied from shelter to shelter. There is no clear evidence on what basis the Department decided how much should be allocated to each shelter. A Departmental document states that in 1982 a formula was established. But that formula was not proved. It is not critical for the issues in this action. Some shelters also received financial support from other agencies. For example, Bramwell House received some support from the Salvation Army. Most shelters depended entirely on government grants. The Christies Beach Shelter depended wholly on government funding.

The shelters were required to submit to the Department at the end of each quarter a financial statement showing the expenditure in the previous three months. At the end of each financial year, each shelter was required to submit to the Department an audited statement of its income and expenditure for that year.

Some shelters spent within their annual grant. Some spent more. Those shelters where spending exceeded the allocation asked the Department for additional funding and, generally speaking, received it. The annual grant was paid in quarterly instalments. Shelters requiring additional funding usually made their requests for those funds before the end of each quarter in the form of an advance against the next quarter's funding.

The evidence suggests, and I find, that the Department did not prescribe the level of services that any one shelter should provide. Not even requests for additional funds to supplement spending by a shelter would cause the Department to examine the level of services provided at the shelter and consider whether the shelter should continue to provide all of those services. Without the additional funding, a shelter would be forced to close. In this context, it is relevant to note that there was no evidence of any service provided by the Christies Beach Shelter which ought not to have been provided nor is there evidence of any service it was not providing.

In 1981 and 1982 the Christies Beach Shelter essentially spent no more than its annual grant. In 1983 it began to spend more than had been allocated to it and that practice continued until July 1986. When it was known that it was about to run out of funds, one of its staff would contact the Department and seek additional funding. The additional funds would usually be provided. On some occasions, the Department would make some enquiries before paying the extra funding. This excess of income over expenditure was called a "deficit". The use of the word "deficit" implies a budget and an excess of spending over that budget. It is wrong to infer that there were set budgets. Instead, there were set grants as already explained. Requests for funding were made in the manner described. The term "deficit" meant no more than spending in excess of the amount allocated to a shelter.

Christies Beach was not the only shelter to incur a deficit. At 1 July 1983, six out of the eleven shelters then operating had deficits in excess of $2,000. They were:

Hope Haven $5,245

Port Augusta $4,452

North Adelaide $3,727

Christies Beach $3,702

Para Districts $3,480

Western Areas $2,679

At 1 July 1985, six shelters had substantial deficits. They were the same six shelters, save that Port Lincoln had replaced the Western Areas Shelter.

At 25 November 1986, five of the 13 shelters then operating had substantial deficits. The following table lists those shelters, the deficits, and their funding allocation for the year ending 30 June 1986, the year in which the deficit was mainly accumulated.

Bramwell House had a deficit of a negligible amount. Three shelters, Port Augusta, Christies Beach, and North Adelaide, had been in deficit for the years 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986. Hope Haven was in deficit in 1984, 1985 and at 30 June 1986 but its deficit had been cleared by 25 November 1986.

At least two of the shelters which had accumulated deficits in 1986 were politically vocal and active in seeking additional funding for shelters. They were the shelters at Christies Beach and North Adelaide. The philosophy at Christies Beach was to provide a range of support services to women with the object of enabling them to be more self-reliant. Assistance to women included advising in relation to litigation in the Family Court and in other courts, obtaining accommodation, obtaining legal advice, and obtaining medical advice. Christies Beach agitated for greater funding to provide these and other services. Christies Beach and other shelters were politically active and that political activity enabled them to secure more funding in the form of payments to cover deficits. In all the agitation by the Christies Beach Shelter, by other shelters, and by WSAC, the plaintiff was prominent.

As just mentioned, the Christies Beach Shelter was in deficit for the year ended 30 June 1984. Two financial officers of the Department visited the Shelter on 23 February 1984. They met Ms McSkimming and Ms Underdown. The meeting followed a request by the Shelter for additional funding. The only record of this meeting are two notes prepared by an officer of the Department. One note does not record the purpose of the meeting but it is clear from the note that it concerned financial issues and the reasons for the Shelter continuing to be in deficit. The last portion of the Departmental note includes the following:

"The Shelter realizes that any further advance of funds at this stage will only delay the deficit problem until the end of the year. We have the impression that whatever they need they just go out and purchase, with no consideration of the funds available. They raised the question of W.E.S.P. funds and were told that no funds would be available until a Cabinet decision in Canberra was made. It was pointed out that if W.E.S.P. funds become available they probably would be distributed by 30/6/84. ...

Following the meeting we were given a guided tour of the premises. This consisted of two three bedroom houses with new lounge suite in each. All bedrooms had matching new pine bunk beds (including trundle beds), with matching linen and curtains. Helen pointed out that bettor (sic) curtains were needed for the lounge rooms of both premises.

The meeting was held informally and was quite amicable."

A second note of the meeting dated 23 February stated that the purpose of the visit was "to clarify some aspects of (the) shelter's financial return as at 31 December 1983 so that the overall financial position is clearer, and to look at current and projected financial position in view of this Department's concern about the deficits". A memorandum prepared by Ms Heath and dated 2 March identified some causes of overspending. It recommended payment of some expenses but excluded capital expenditure.

Another visit to the Shelter was made by two officers of the Finance Section of the Department on 13 March 1985. Ms Heath had a large part in organising the visit. The purpose of the visit was to discuss the Shelter's financial position. There were two causes for the visit. The first was that accusations had been made to the Department regarding financial mismanagement. As the Departmental note of this visit records "this information cannot be acted upon as the persons do not wish to make formal complaints". The second reason was that the Shelter had recently requested an advance of $10,000 because it had used all its funds. The Departmental note commented on the visit as follows:

"The visit did not reveal any major reasons for the shelter's current financial problems. The shelter staff stated that the problem is simply that this Department does not give them sufficient funding to cover their expenses. (The total allocation for 1984/85 is $133,350.) There were some concerns regarding the number of staff paid which were not shown on the wages schedule submitted to the Department and also the fact that no entries had been made in the shelter's cash-book for March. No attempt was made to conduct a detailed audit of the shelter's books.

Although there are still some concerns regarding the financial administration of the Christies Beach Women's Shelter, their current funding situation still needs to be addressed. The fact remains, however, that there is only $33,300 (i.e. 1/4) of the 84/85 allocation remaining and any advance will have to come from this. Ms. Helen McSkimming from the shelter is expecting to collect a $10,000 cheque from the Department today (Wednesday)."

The Department decided to advance the $10,000 requested by the Shelter.

As the Review Committee stated in the Report, the Department's supervision of shelter expenditure could have been more appropriate and the Department's practice of paying advances on top of the quarterly grants contributed to the practice of deficits being incurred. In about May 1985 the Auditor-General conducted a review of the methods employed by the Department to control the financial operations of women's shelters. The Auditor-General reported to the Department by letter dated 5 June 1985. He noted that the Department had failed to exercise sufficient financial control and supervision. He recommended a greater degree of monitoring of financial expenditure by shelters. The letter reads:

"A review of the methods employed by the Department for Community Welfare to control the financial operations of Womens' (sic) Shelters was conducted recently.

The objectives of the review were to determine whether -

- all funds were distributed to shelters in accordance with approvals and were properly brought to account;

- expenditure of those funds was adequately monitored by the Department as being responsible and in accordance with approved grant conditions.

The review revealed that although funds are properly distributed and debited, inadequate control is exercised by the Department over the expenditure of those funds by shelters.

Factors which led to this conclusion are as follows:-

: quarterly financial returns submitted by shelters are not all forwarded promptly or analysed by the Department to ensure that funds are spent responsibly and in accordance with approved purposes;

: two out of six shelters examined were in a very poor financial position as at 31 March and could expect to be $19 000 and $20 000 in deficit by 30 June. The remainder could expect to achieve as near as practical a balanced result.

: although action was taken by the Department in relation to the two shelters mentioned (Port Augusta and Christies Beach), it came far too late to allow financial recovery within the 1984/85 funds allocation;

: some shelters are using funds to purchase major capital items in contravention of grant conditions.

In summary, the Department has failed to exercise financial control on a continuous basis which has contributed to -

: financial deterioration in two shelters to an unacceptable level;

: expenditure of some money on items outside the scope of the grant conditions;

: the problem of either financing deficits at 30 June or carrying them into 1985/86 and aggravating financial viability in that year.

As a result of the review, it is recommended that -

: the Department take immediate steps to identify shelters with financial problems and provide the advice and assistance necessary to achieve financial viability;

: consideration be given to the financing of deficits which will exist in some shelters as at 30 June 1985;

: a system of continuous financial monitoring be implemented to ensure that funds supplied to shelters are expended in a responsible manner and only for approved purposes.

The matters referred to above have been discussed and agreed with the Acting Senior Project Officer and the Finance Officer and your comments would be appreciated."

It is not my purpose to be critical of the Department or its officers. I refer to these facts only to explain the funding issues which form a background to the events leading to the Report and its recommendations. The Department was faced with some women's shelters, including Christies Beach, who took a broad view of their role and who, through their political activities, secured extra funding through payments of deficits. The political activity continued until July 1987. It continued notwithstanding the introduction of the SAAP Program to which I now turn. The introduction of the SAAP Program led to a great deal of political agitation by women's shelters. I will examine that after describing the SAAP Program.

Late in 1984 the governments of the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories agreed new funding arrangements for women's shelters and some other forms of welfare assistance to commence on 1 January 1985. It was to be called the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program ("SAAP"). It was conveniently, if tautologically, called the "SAAP Program". The Commonwealth Government and the relevant State or the Northern Territory jointly provided the funding for the SAAP Program. The position in relation to the Australian Capital Territory was not proved and is not relevant to the issues in this action.

The SAAP Program was authorised by the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act, 1995 (Cth) ("the SAAP Act") which came into operation on 15 May 1985. That Act authorised the Commonwealth Government, first, to make an agreement with each of the States and the Northern Territory in the form prescribed in the schedule to that Act by which the SAAP Program was established and, secondly, to fund the program. The agreement was executed by the Commonwealth and the State of South Australia. I will call it "the SAAP Agreement". The operation of the agreement was retrospective to 1 January 1985 so that it was possible for funding of the program to begin on 1 January 1985.

The stated aim of the SAAP Program, as identified in the SAAP Agreement, was to provide a range of supported accommodation and related support services to assist men, women, young people and their dependants, who were either permanently homeless or temporarily homeless as a result of crisis, and who needed such assistance to move towards independent living where possible and appropriate. The program was to be sensitive to a number of problems including domestic violence. The program envisaged provision of accommodation and related support services through such means as refuges, hostels, halfway houses and day centres. It was intended to encourage self-help. The program was established to assist three groups in the community through three separate sub-programs. They were:

(1) Youth Supported Accommodation Program which was intended to provide supported accommodation and related support services to young people who were homeless;

(2) Women's Emergency Services Program (sometimes called either "WESP" or "Women's SAAP"), which was intended to provide supported accommodation and related support services for women and women with dependant children escaping from intolerable domestic circumstances or other crisis situations; and

(3) General Supported Accommodation Program which was intended to provide supported accommodation and related support services for homeless men, women and their dependants who were permanently homeless or who were temporarily homeless as a result of crisis.

Funding was to be provided by annual grants which in South Australia were administered by the Department. The Commonwealth Minister was invested with a discretion as to the amount to be granted to each State and the grant could be made on such terms and conditions as were specified in the SAAP Agreement: s 5(1) and s 5(2) of the SAAP Act. Those terms and conditions were expressed in the SAAP Agreement and, in particular, in cl 8 which, as will be seen, provided for guidelines to be established for the administration of the program.

The administration of the program was in the hands of the States which, by cl 8(9) of the SAAP Agreement, were given "maximum autonomy and flexibility" in undertaking that administration consistently with the SAAP Agreement and guidelines. The guidelines expressly stated that one of the principles of the SAAP program was joint decision-making between the relevant governments. The guidelines, therefore, listed a number of decisions which had to be made jointly by Commonwealth and State or Territory Governments. A decision not to continue to provide funding to a shelter or to withdraw funding had to be made jointly by the relevant Commonwealth Minister and the relevant State or Territory Minister: see cl 8 of the SAAP Agreement.

Clause 8(7) of the agreement provided for a joint review of the program in each State. It is in these terms:

"The Commonwealth and each State shall jointly review the State's program at such times and in such manner as are agreed upon by the Commonwealth Minister and the State Minister."

Clause 8(7) is to be compared with cl 9 which provided:

"The Commonwealth and the States shall commence a joint evaluation of the States' programs not later than 30 June 1987."

One of the issues in this action was whether the Review Committee was acting pursuant to cl 8(7), cl 9, or some other authority. I will return to that issue.

The administration of the SAAP Program was effected through the Department. In addition, there were advisory committees. The first was the Program Advisory Committee, which gave general advice on policy and the allocation of funding. The plaintiff and Ms Joan Balendran, the Administrator of the North Adelaide Shelter, were both members of that committee. In addition, there were three committees which reported to the Program Advisory Committee. Those committees represented each arm of the SAAP Program. Thus, there was a Youth SAAP Advisory Committee, a Women's SAAP Advisory Committee, and a General SAAP Advisory Committee. These committees were charged with the task of making recommendations to the Program Advisory Committee on policy and funding issues for their respective programs. Each shelter had a representative on the Women's SAAP Advisory Committee and the plaintiff represented the Christies Beach Shelter.

The guidelines pursuant to the SAAP Agreement were prepared and published. The SAAP Agreement required the guidelines to be published in the Commonwealth Gazette. Mr Stanley, who appeared for the Commonwealth defendants, drew attention to the fact that there was no proof of publication in the Gazette. Even if they were not published in that way, the plain fact is that both the Commonwealth and State expected compliance with them. Nothing turns on the fact that they may not have been published in the Gazette. It is necessary to note only some provisions of the guidelines.

As already mentioned, the guidelines required that a number of decisions be made jointly. Thus, decisions to approve new services, to increase or reduce funding significantly to a service, or to withdraw funding from a service had to be made jointly by the relevant Commonwealth and State Ministers. Decisions as to administration had to be made by the State Minister: see cl 9 of the guidelines. As will be seen, the condition requiring that a decision to withdraw funding should be a joint decision was the reason why Dr Cornwall had to consult with Senator Ryan concerning the decision to withdraw funding from the Christies Beach Shelter.

Clause 10 of the guidelines spelled out the conditions of a grant of funds under the SAAP Program. They were:

"• funds are to be used only for the purposes for which they have been approved;

• access is to be provided to Commonwealth-State/Territory officers. Such access is to be in consultation with the particular service provider and in accordance with procedures developed by the relevant advisory process and agreed by the State and Commonwealth (these procedures might include nominating particular officers and might be detailed in sub-program guidelines);

• provision of regular data to contribute to the development of needs-based service provision and to evaluation of projects and sub-programs. This data is to be the subject of consultation with service providers;

• provision of appropriate audited financial statements on at least an annual basis;

• provision of other information necessary for the effective administration of the program as requested by the Commonwealth and/or States/Territories following consultation with service providers. Such requests would not include confidential information which may identify clients/residents."

The guidelines contemplated that each State or Territory might issue additional guidelines. The Department published its own guidelines called "Administrative Guidelines". For present purposes, it is sufficient to note the effect of some provisions in paragraph 2 of those guidelines.

1. The SAAP Program provided a salary grant at a standard level. Payment of a salary below the standard required approval of the Women's SAAP Advisory Committee. There was no provision as to payment above the standard level. Services had to keep details of time worked, salary payments and deductions: para 2(a).

Operating costs should not exceed the amount of the annual grant. Where this cannot be achieved, cost restraints should be established: para 2(b).

Specific purchase grants are generally paid for equipment or for establishment grants: para 2(c).

4. Financial Undertaking, payments and financial statements

(i) Recurrent grants are conditional upon receipt of the Financial Undertaking. It should be signed by an authorised Management Committee office holder.

(ii) Payment for the first quarter is normally made in the first week of July of each year and the remaining quarterly payments are made during the week prior to the commencement of each quarter.

(iii) A quarterly financial return is required.

(iv) An audited financial statement is required annually: para 2(d).

Generally speaking, the guidelines accorded with the administrative practice in past years. What was new was the requirement for shelters to sign a financial undertaking. That requirement was consistent with cl 11(c) of the SAAP Agreement. It was to become a bone of contention between the shelters and the Department.

The proposal to introduce the SAAP Program was known to shelters in late 1984. Its introduction was opposed by most shelters who perceived that it might lead to a reduction in funding. They were concerned that they might lose additional funding because an umbrella program with three objectives might dissipate funds from the women's sub-program. The shelters also saw the SAAP Program as shifting the emphasis from shelters as places providing assistance to women who had suffered domestic violence by the provision of accommodation and services to enable them to resume their place in the community, to one merely providing accommodation for women who were homeless for whatever cause. They believed that the services would be cut and that the shelter movement was under threat because funds would be diverted to other programs. Opposition to SAAP was not confined to South Australia but existed also in other States. The shelter movement maintained a national profile and there was communication between shelters in different States.

Notwithstanding the introduction of the SAAP Program, some shelters continued to be in deficit and, in particular, the four shelters already named, Para Districts, North Adelaide, Port Augusta, and Christies Beach. On 14 November 1985 Ms Vardon, the Chief Executive Officer of the Department, went to Canberra to seek funds to pay out the deficits. This meeting appears to have been a forerunner to arrangements between the Department and the Commonwealth for payment of deficits which were put in place in June and July 1986 to which reference will be made shortly. Political agitation for increased funding to all shelters continued.

In about the middle of 1985, Dr Cornwall became Minister of Community Welfare. He held the dual portfolios of Minister of Health and of Community Welfare. As Minister of Community Welfare he was confronted with the issues concerning funding for shelters and the fact that some shelters were continuing to incur deficits and seeking additional funding. I also find that he became aware of the political activity of the plaintiff and others in the women's shelter movement. It is unnecessary to descend to details. It is sufficient to note that by May 1986 issues were coming to a head.

From May 1986 to October 1986 a series of events occurred which culminated, on 22 October 1986, with Dr Cornwall's decision to appoint the Review Committee. One important feature of the events of that period concerns the requirement that shelters execute the financial undertaking required by the SAAP Program. That, and other issues, caused the women's shelter movement to be particularly political, vocal and active.

In May 1986, about half of the shelters were in deficit. At that time, Rosemary Wighton sent a minute to Dr Cornwall in which she proposed that savings achieved in other areas be applied to fund the deficits, but pointed out that the Commonwealth Minister, Senator Grimes, would have to approve the proposal. She also informed Dr Cornwall that there was no guarantee that shelters would agree to sign the financial undertaking and that shelters were still unhappy with the level of funding and salary levels under the SAAP Program. An internal departmental memorandum dated 2 June 1986 shows that, by then, Cabinet had agreed to fund the deficits subject to certain provisos, one of which was that no advances over and above payments of quarterly grants should be made. On 6 June 1986 Dr Cornwall wrote to Senator Grimes seeking his approval to a joint decision to discharge the deficits of the shelters. The letter identified the causes of the deficits.

"It has been established, however, that the deficits from January 1 1985, have been caused by factors such as:

- Shelter management committees under-estimating operating costs,

- Long Service Leave payments not previously provided for,

- increased level of service or activity in the Shelters, thereby increasing operating costs,

- workers paid on the highest salary increment whereas salary grants only provide for the lowest increments,

- Irene Shelter relocating premises at an estimated cost of $20,000,

- unexpected costs, for example, replacement of motor vehicles.

The elimination of the deficits will be a once-only arrangement and will be contingent upon the shelters signing an appropriate undertaking to operate within available funds."

The total amount of the deficits at all shelters was estimated to be $88,700 as at 30 June 1986. Dr Cornwall proposed that the arrangement to pay deficits should occur once only and that payment of the deficit of a shelter should be conditional upon the shelter signing the undertaking to operate within its grant. At 30 June 1986 eight of the 13 shelters in South Australia were in deficit. Those eight shelters included Christies Beach. In June 1986, a number of shelters, including Christies Beach and Irene Shelter, were paid advances of the next quarter's funding to enable them to continue to operate.

By letter dated 2 July, Senator Grimes agreed to Dr Cornwall's proposal to pay out the deficits. The relevant part of the letter was in these terms:

"In your letter of 6 June 1986 you have sought my joint approval to the re-allocation of 'savings' in HPSG to eliminate deficits accrued by Women's Shelters. While I have given my approval to the use of funds for this purpose I am disturbed that SAAP funded services have been allowed to operate in a manner that has resulted in these deficits accruing.

- the level of approval being to a maximum of $88,700 (with the actual level being advised to me once it is known),

- the administrative and accounting practices of the services involved being jointly reviewed by officers of our departments,

- the services involved and all SAAP services signing agreements that include a requirement that they operate within available funds.

In respect of the final condition outlined above I assume that this would simply require modification of the existing agreement required by the guidelines between your department and service providers." (Original emphasis).

Dr Cornwall agreed with these terms. Thus, the requirement that shelters sign the financial undertaking was agreed by both Commonwealth and State Governments. The third of those conditions is relevant to the status of the Review Committee, an issue which is examined later in these reasons.

The financial undertaking was to be an agreement between the Department and each named service under the SAAP Program. Thus, in the case of the women's shelters, there was to be an agreement between the Department and each shelter. The original version of the undertaking listed a series of conditions on which funding to shelters was to be provided. Some of the conditions were:

• Clause 1 - That the Department was to decide whether to provide funding in the financial year ending 30 June 1987 and was to have absolute discretion whether to fund a shelter in ensuing years.

• Clause 3 - Money granted to a shelter for a specific approved purpose was only to be spent for that approved purpose provided that in any one financial year up to $1,000 could be transferred from one approved purpose to another.

• Clause 4 - That the shelter would comply with Clause 10 of the SAAP Guidelines. (The terms of Clause 10 are set out above.)

• Clause 7 - That the shelter would advise any change in its aims or objectives.

• Clause 10 - The undertaking would be determined on any breach and all monies were to be repaid to the Department.

Obviously, the terms rigorously bound shelters to adhere to the grant paid and not to incur a deficit.

Condition 3 was to be the source of a good deal of dissension by the shelters. It was in these terms:

"Unless the Department otherwise agrees, the moneys given to the Organisation by the Department under clause 1 hereof shall, if provided for a specific purpose, only be expended by the Organisation for that specific purpose (e.g. for salaries or for the salary of a particular person), or, if not provided for a specified purpose, shall only be expended by the Organisation for the purposes specified in clause 7 of the Commonwealth-State/Territory Guidelines for S.A.A.P., provided that the organisation shall be entitled, without applying to the Department for approval, to transfer funds from one specific purpose to another approved specific purpose to a maximum of $1,000 in any one financial year so long as such transfer does not result in expenditure exceeding the total funds provided by the Department."

At least one shelter (Para Districts) signed the undertaking deleting the proviso. The significance of the deletion did not seem to be appreciated by either the shelter or the Department. Plainly, the deletion of the proviso meant that a shelter was more strictly bound than if the proviso had been included, that is to say, the shelter had no capacity at all to transfer any funds from one approved purpose to another. I mention this because, when it ultimately came to sign the undertaking on 24 July 1987, the Christies Beach Shelter also deleted the proviso. As will be seen, the Department attempted to place some reliance on that fact. The deletion of the proviso may have been perceived by shelters as a symbol of defiance. However, the truth was that it was an empty defiance since a shelter which signed the undertaking and deleted the proviso was more strictly bound to adhere to its grant.

From July to October 1986, there was a good deal of debate, between the shelters on the one hand and the Department and Dr Cornwall on the other, concerning the obligation of the shelters to sign the undertaking. Broadly speaking, there were two main issues. The first concerned the fact that shelters were being required to sign such a document. Some saw this obligation as a barrier to gaining increased funding for shelters. Shelters were seeking additional funding to pay higher salaries to staff and to meet other costs of labour such as long service leave, as well as seeking additional funding for operating costs. They also sought funding for purchase of capital items. In the months July to October 1986, the other major source of contention was the requirement in the undertaking limiting the amount which could be transferred from one approved purpose to another. The following paragraphs note the course of events between the shelters and Government.

On 15 September, some shelters agreed to an amended form of the undertaking. The amended form of the undertaking was called "the Financial Agreement" or "the Agreement". Save for amendments to cls 3 and 10, the amendments were of no great moment. They were:

1. Clause 3 was amended to allow $1,000 per quarter to be transferred from one line to another. This enabled up to $4,000 per annum to be transferred in this way.

2. A sentence was added at the end of cl 3 in these terms:

"The Department undertakes that it will enter into negotiations with the Organisation if the Organisation advises the Department that it seeks the Department's approval under this clause."

This was no doubt included to assure the shelters that the Department would listen to requests to transfer more than $1,000 per quarter from one line to another.

3. Clause 8 was amended but it is not necessary to stay with that amendment.

4. Clause 10 was amended by inserting the words "subject to the rules of natural justice". Thus, the Department could not determine the Agreement for breach without giving the shelters an opportunity of being heard.

There were other minor amendments, but it is unnecessary to refer to them.

However, notwithstanding the amendments, some shelters still refused to sign. Others signed either the undertaking or the Financial Agreement. Some signed more quickly than others. The Shelter at Para Districts signed the undertaking deleting the proviso and saying that it had signed the undertaking under duress. Others also complained that they had signed either the undertaking or the Financial Agreement under duress. The failure of some shelters to sign either the undertaking or the Financial Agreement was stated by Dr Cornwall to be one reason for appointing the Review Committee. Ultimately, the shelters at North Adelaide and Christies Beach were the only shelters that refused to sign either document and they both held out until July 1987.

The narrative which follows sets out some of the detail of the opposition to the signing of either the undertaking or the Financial Agreement between July and October 1986 and notes the redrafting of the Agreement. It shows the level of political activity before the Review was announced and the coverage of that activity in the press. It shows that a number of shelters were opposed to the undertaking and the Financial Agreement. It demonstrates issues between shelters and Government. The plaintiff was actively and in a public manner involved in this political activity along with others such as Ms Joan Balendran, the Administrator of the North Adelaide Shelter.

At its meeting on 3 July 1986, the Women's SAAP Advisory Committee discussed deficits and the signing of the financial undertaking. It was noted that, while the program did not fund the acquisition of capital items such as washing machines, shelters would continue to be in deficit. The meeting expressed dissatisfaction with the terms of the proposed undertaking.

In a minute dated 21 July to Dr Cornwall, Ms Wighton identified issues concerning the undertaking which had been raised by the shelters. They were

(1) that the salary levels were too low, an issue which she saw as being essential when addressing the issue of deficits; and

(2) shelters sought to be able to move funds from one line in their budget to another to a maximum of $5,000. The Department was prepared to allow $1,000 only.

Ms Wighton recommended that the issue be addressed by salaries being funded at CO5 level, a level less than that which was sought by shelters. Dr Cornwall approved the minute. The Department sought to implement Ms Wighton's recommendations, as approved by Dr Cornwall, in a letter to the shelters dated 28 July 1986. The letter restated that deficits would be funded only if the undertaking was signed. It stated that the limit on the amount which would be transferred from one line to another would be $1,000 and not $5,000 as sought by the shelters. The letter recognised the problem of salaries but suggested that they be paid at CO5 level, adding that the Department believed that an independent assessment of salaries was required if higher salaries were to be paid and recommending that shelters seek an industrial award. The letter reiterated the conditions imposed by Senator Grimes for the payment of deficits, namely,

- that services sign an agreement to operate within available funds.

The shelters were not satisfied with the Department's proposal and continued their opposition to signing the undertaking.

By this time, the shelters were receiving legal advice from Ms Ann McLean on the terms of the undertaking. At a meeting on 11 August, the shelters reaffirmed their opposition to signing the undertaking. By a minute dated 15 August, Mr Bicknell informed Dr Cornwall of that fact. He predicted that the matter would come to a head because two shelters, Para Districts and North Adelaide, had asked for advances against their funding for the next quarter. They sought $20,000 and $15,000 respectively. In that minute, Mr Bicknell warned Dr Cornwall of a "confrontation" with those two shelters in the following week and suggested that the shelters would be supported by other shelters.

On 16 August, Dr Cornwall sent a minute to the Premier informing him of the refusal of the shelters to sign the undertaking. He said that he had instructed the Department to make no further payment to any shelter until the undertaking had been signed. He informed the Premier of the fact that two shelters (obviously Para Districts and North Adelaide) were seeking advances and alerted him to the fact that political action was a possibility if the shelters were not paid.

It seems that the issues being raised by the shelters were not falling on deaf ears. On 18 August 1986, Mr Bicknell wrote to the Department of Community Services in Canberra requesting funding for purchases of minor items of a capital nature, such as vehicles, refrigerators and washing machines. The Commonwealth Department replied in a somewhat non-committal manner in September 1986.

On 18 August, Ms Vardon added her voice on the question of signing the undertaking in a minute to Dr Cornwall. She recited the history leading to the accumulation of deficits and reminded Dr Cornwall that the Commonwealth had agreed to pay $88,700 to off-set deficits of shelters as at 30 June 1986 on condition that the undertaking was signed by the shelters. In effect, she reiterated most of Mr Bicknell's minute of 15 August.

On 18 August, the Department sent a letter signed by Mr Bicknell to all shelters requiring the undertaking to be signed. This was in response to Dr Cornwall's direction referred to in the minute to the Premier. In an attempt to compel the shelters to sign the undertaking, the Department stated that no further funding would be made available until the undertaking had been signed. The relevant parts of the letter were in these terms:

"This note is to remind you that no further advances or payments will be made to Shelters until the Financial Undertaking has been signed.

The Minister believes that Shelters have had adequate notification and consultation concerning the Undertaking and that the signing of this Undertaking is a reasonable request in regards to the expenditure of public money.

I remind you that $88 700 has been made available by SAAP to fund Shelter deficits to enable the Shelters to continue on a firm financial footing for the remainder of the 1986/87 financial year. The payment of this money is, however, dependent on the signing of the Financial Undertaking."

As will be seen in a subsequent letter dated 15 September 1986, the Department did not adhere to the condition in the first paragraph. Funding continued to be provided to those shelters which had not signed the undertaking. There was a difference between what was being said by the Department and what was being done.

On 20 August, the Para Districts Shelter signed the undertaking but only after it had deleted the contentious proviso. In its letter to the Department dated 21 August which enclosed the undertaking, the shelter said that it had signed the agreement "under duress". It is clear that the document was signed by the shelter in order to avoid having to close its doors. The shelter expressed its concern as to the manner in which the Department demanded the signing of the undertaking. Mr Bicknell's evidence, which I accept, was that the Department accepted the document notwithstanding the deletion of the proviso because it was anxious to fund deficits. There was a degree of inconsistency in the manner in which the Department accepted the deletion of the proviso from some shelters but not, as will be seen, from Christies Beach in July 1987.

On 24 August, Dr Cornwall issued a press release which became the subject of a report on the front page of The Advertiser on 25 August under the heading "Women's Shelters $88,700 in red as Govt withholds funding". The article referred to the fact that the shelters were required to sign the undertaking before receiving further funding. Dr Cornwall was quoted as stating that shelters had to be accountable for their expenditure and that shelters would not receive their next allocation of funds until they had signed the undertaking. He also announced that additional funding was being provided to shelters, the allocation being $6.73m. for the next financial year compared with about $5m. in the year just past. The press article quoted Ms Balendran as stating that the government was withholding advances until shelters signed the undertakings which have, she said, "many problems in them".

On 25 August, the same day as the article appeared in The Advertiser, representatives of shelters met Mr Bicknell and Mr B Selway, who was then a solicitor employed in the Crown Solicitor's Office. The purpose of the meeting was to negotiate the terms of the undertaking. In a minute dated 26 August and prepared by Mr Bicknell, Ms Vardon reported to Dr Cornwall that the main objection at the meeting was to the clause limiting the amount which could be transferred from one line to another to $1,000. She said that another meeting was being arranged and that she believed that most shelters were ready to sign the Agreement. She reported that some shelters objected to signing under duress. She also noted that Dr Cornwall had agreed to increase the amount which could be transferred from one line to another from $1,000 to $3,000 and that, pending negotiations on the terms of the Agreement, shelters in urgent financial difficulties would receive fortnightly payments. As will be seen, North Adelaide and Christies Beach were to receive funding by continued fortnightly payments until August 1987.

The article in The Advertiser on 25 August led to members of the Legislative Council asking Dr Cornwall questions in the House on 26, 27 and 29 August. The questions and answers prompted other exchanges between members which, at times, became unruly. On 26 August, Dr Cornwall repeated his view that shelters should be accountable and the reasons for requiring shelters to sign the Agreement. He also announced that he had instructed the Department to increase the amount which could be transferred in any one year from operating costs to salaries to $3,000. He informed the Council that shelters were to receive funding on a fortnightly basis. I mention the events in the Parliament as a matter of narrative only.

On 27 August 1986, The Advertiser published an article concerning funding of women's shelters under the heading "Clouds over shelter funding". It had been written by Mr Mike McEwen. The sub-heading to the article read:

"An SA Government ultimatum on funding for women's shelters has opened up old wounds on the issue".

The article included comments by Ms J Balendran, the Administrator of the North Adelaide Shelter, by the plaintiff, by Dr Cornwall and Ms Vardon. After quoting Ms Balendran's comments on the requirement that the shelters sign the Agreement, the article continued:

"Others are less circumspect, describing the proposed undertaking as 'odious', 'offensive' and 'this little Hitler's decree' ".

Later, the article quoted the plaintiff at length.

"Dawn Rowan, a spokeswoman for the Christies Beach women's shelter, is outspoken on the 'imposition of this odious undertaking document' by a government she sees as unsupportive and unappreciative of the shelter workers' efforts.

'Shelters are run on a shoestring budget and their work is possible only because of the dedication of staff willing to work 80 hours of unpaid overtime under conditions of extreme stress.

'It is offensive of the Government to be imposing even more stress and difficulty on us instead of doing something to help us,' she says.

'Christies Beach runs a service with 5.5 people, 24 hours a day, which would require 13 workers under normal Public Service conditions.

'On 1984 figures it cost $250 to keep one person for one day in a public hospital, $180 for the same person in government residential care and $10 to keep one person for one night in a women's shelter.

'Government budget advisers have been out here to try to give us financial guidelines and they go away scratching their heads and asking how we do it.

'Well, how we and the other shelters do it is by working long, unpaid hours of dangerous, stressful work, under conditions that most people would find debilitating.

'And the Government has the gall to be imposing a carelessly conceived, oppressive document on us to stop us running up small deficits. In effect, they are saying stick to the inadequate budget we are giving you, or close down for part of the year.

'Their claims about funding increases are wrong. We are not 36 p.c. better off over the past two years, as Dr Cornwall claims, we are in fact 40 p.c. worse off than we were five years ago.'

Dawn Rowan's anger is reflected in other shelters, where the Government's attempt to put a responsible face on its welfare expenditure is biting into workers' own salaries."

The publication of this article led to more questioning of Dr Cornwall in the Legislative Council on 27 August. In the course of one answer, Dr Cornwall referred to the comments of the plaintiff as published in the article in The Advertiser. His answer began with these words:

"That was a very long preamble before we got to the point: we went through Mike McEwen's feature and eventually arrived at Hope Haven. I make it very clear that I agree with Sue Vardon. On all the evidence available to me, I think the quality of the care, support and counselling in women's shelters in South Australia is the best in the country. That has never been in contention. Overall, I repeat that the quality of care, counselling and support in womens shelters in South Australia is very good, and I want that clearly on the record.

Secondly, the Hon. Ms Laidlaw referred to a statement by Dawn Rowan, who claimed that the shelters were 40 per cent worse off now than they were five years ago. I might say that Ms Rowan was one of the few people, relatively, who were named in the article. In the style of this particular journalist, there were very many unnamed sources. I was described by unnamed sources as being a number of things, including a 'little Hitler'. That is just not what responsible journalism is about."

"Dawn Rowan's statement is wrong and it is untrue - and there is an end to it. I really do not know why Ms Rowan chooses to use these tactics. Her statement is patently wrong. I do not like having to say that in this Parliament or anywhere else, but I am perfectly happy to repeat it outside the Parliament. What Ms Rowan said with regard to funding of womens shelters in this State is wrong."

He then went on to elaborate upon the answer. In his answer he also referred to action taken by the Department in relation to the Hope Haven Women's Shelter adding:

"I would not want anyone to think that the concerns that are specifically about Hope Haven apply across the board. I cannot repeat too often that they do not. I repeat yet again that I agree completely with Sue Vardon that the general standards of accommodation, particularly in relation to care, support and counselling in South Australian women's shelters are the best in the country."

He finished a long answer by returning to the issue of accountability of shelters saying:

"... quite obviously, the Federal Government as well as the State Government is insisting on some formal lines of accountability. I believe that is perfectly respectable and responsible. I think it is most regrettable, knowing that we will ultimately arrive at agreement, that a small but significant number of women who had to fight for every penny that they got when the sheltered programs were less well established still seem to consider it necessary to create and get involved in some sort of public dog fight."

In answer to questions in the Council on 29 August, Dr Cornwall repeated his view that shelters had to be accountable for their spending. Again, I mention these matters as narrative only and draw no inference. In the ensuing narrative there are a number of references to what was said in the Parliament. They are all included only as narrative. I have drawn no inferences from them.

On 29 August, Dr Cornwall met representatives from the women's shelters to discuss issues relating to the Migrant Women's Shelter. The representatives from women's shelters included the plaintiff and Ms Balendran. There is no evidence that anything concerning the execution of the Agreement occurred at that meeting.

On 11 September, representatives of the Department of Community Welfare met representatives of the shelters to negotiate the terms of the Agreement. Henceforth, it was called "the Agreement" or "the Financial Agreement" but was occasionally still referred to as "the undertaking", not only by shelters but also by Departmental officers. The plaintiff did not attend the meeting. The representatives of the shelters included their legal adviser, Ms McLean. The Department was represented by Mr Bicknell, Ms Meredyth Taylor and Mr Selway. The meeting agreed the form of the Financial Agreement. The cap on the amount which could be transferred without approval was $1,000 per quarter, effectively $4,000 per annum. Shelters were permitted to apply for approval for larger amounts to be transferred. The Department reported the outcome of the meeting to Dr Cornwall on 16 September. By letter dated 15 September, the Department sent the Financial Agreement to the shelters for execution. The letter included the following paragraph:

"The final document should be signed as soon as possible, or at the latest by 26th September, and returned to Rod Foran (SAAP Finance Officer) so that second quarter payments can be made. This will also mean that deficit payments can be allocated to individual shelters."

Funding was provided to shelters who signed the Financial Agreement. Despite the fact that the Financial Agreement had been resolved at a meeting on 11 September, some shelters, including Christies Beach and North Adelaide, were still not prepared to sign it. North Adelaide's refusal to sign continued notwithstanding that Ms Balendran, the Administrator of that shelter, had been present at the meeting on 11 September.

On 18 September, Dr Cornwall, in answer to a question in the Legislative Council, said that an amended Agreement had been prepared and that all differences had been resolved.

Another issue which, to use Mr Bicknell's words, exacerbated a difficult situation in August to October 1986 concerned what were called SAAP expansion funds and Dr Cornwall's desire to fund a new shelter called "Judith House" for sexually abused young women. Expansion funds were intended both to assist expansion in existing shelters and to provide new services in areas of high need. Judith House was perceived by Dr Cornwall as a service in an area of high need. On 25 September 1986, a meeting of the Program Advisory Committee considered how the expansion fund of $698,000 for the year ending 30 June 1987 should be allocated among the three SAAP programs. The committee recommended the following allocation:

The committee was aware that Dr Cornwall intended to establish Judith House as a new shelter. The committee had earmarked $100,000 for that project. The women's shelter representative on the Program Advisory Committee had opposed the recommendation because it would leave only $76,000 to be divided between the thirteen shelters. Thus, of the total sum of $698,000, only 25 per cent was being provided to women's shelters and, of that, the greater part was allocated to the establishment of Judith House. Dr Cornwall was informed of these events including the opposition of the women's shelter representative in a minute recommending the proposals. He approved the recommendation the same day.

The decision of the Program Advisory Committee prompted a strong response from the women's shelters. It was voiced in a letter dated 30 September written to Dr Cornwall by Joan Balendran on behalf of all shelters. The letter protested that funding to women's shelters was being reduced, asserting that, when women's shelters joined SAAP, they received 47 per cent of the pool of funds but that had dropped to one-third and it was now being suggested that it should be reduced to 25 per cent. The letter also protested the diversion of funds to Judith House. The letter asked that one-third of the SAAP expansion funds remain for women's shelters.

The Departmental briefing note to Dr Cornwall informed him that, although women's shelters had originally received 40 per cent of the SAAP expansion funds, that did not imply a continuing commitment by SAAP to maintain their funding at that level.

It is clearly not necessary for the purposes of this action to determine whether either the shelters' demands or the response from Dr Cornwall and his Department were reasonable. It is sufficient to note that the women's shelters were actively agitating for increased funding and that they disagreed with Dr Cornwall's proposals. In addition, the issue of expansion funds was an issue contributing to what was, as Mr Bicknell described, and I find, quite a tense time in October 1986 so far as Dr Cornwall and women's shelters were concerned. I have identified two major issues causing controversy. There were others. It is not necessary for the purposes of this action to note them all. They all contributed to the tense times in October.

Some time earlier, the Christies Beach Women's Shelter had written to Dr Cornwall inviting him to attend their annual general meeting to be held on 20 October 1986. On 29 September, he declined the invitation because of other commitments. The invitation is relevant, not because Dr Cornwall declined it, but because it indicates the willingness of the Shelter to be visited even when issues were being vigorously debated with the Minister. The Shelter wanted to show the Minister the reality and difficulties in running a shelter.

Thus, at the beginning of October 1986, there were several issues concerning SAAP on which strong points of difference were being voiced between the shelters and Dr Cornwall. They included

• the fact that some women's shelters did not wish to be part of SAAP;

• the requirement that women's shelters should sign the undertaking which, by October, was being called the Financial Agreement;

• the perceived reduction in expansion funds for women's shelters; and

• the funding of the establishment of Judith House from the limited expansion funds.

The position deteriorated thereafter. All of these issues were, from time to time, being reported in The Advertiser and often on the front page as a lead story.

The issue of the allocation of SAAP expansion funds continued to be a point of contention between Dr Cornwall and shelters. On 2 October 1986, the Women's SAAP Advisory Committee met. Its membership included representatives of all women's shelters. The meeting directed its chairperson, Ms Judith Healy, to write to Dr Cornwall protesting the decision of the Program Advisory Committee, pointing out that it was contrary to a promise made by Dr Cornwall in the course of remarks in the Legislative Council on 27 August 1986 that about $200,000 would be available to shelters as expansion funds. The letter which was dated 7 October also protested against the proposal to establish Judith House using $100,000 of that sum of $176,000. Dr Cornwall's response was to restructure the Women's SAAP Advisory Committee to remove representatives of women's shelters. On 20 October 1986 he wrote to Senator Grimes seeking his concurrence in that decision. In that letter he asserted that the terms of reference of the Women's SAAP Advisory Committee were "unworkable and require change". He said that the Program Advisory Committee should no longer have the responsibility to make recommendations on the allocation of funds and an inter-departmental committee comprised of equal members of the State and Commonwealth Departments should undertake the process. The terms of reference for the sub-program committees would also be changed. In this way, shelter representatives were removed from the Program Advisory Committee and their numbers reduced on the Women's SAAP Advisory Committee. As will be noted shortly, Dr Cornwall went to Canberra on 21 October to meet Senator Grimes. I find that at that meeting they agreed to the restructuring of the committee. In a letter to Ms Healy dated 27 October, Dr Cornwall informed her of his decision to restructure the Women's SAAP Advisory Committee.

"I have decided that the Women's S.A.A.P. Advisory Committee should be restructured to the same format as the Youth and General S.A.A.P. Committees.

I have taken this decision in consideration of the fact that the Committee is clearly too large to be workable, and that meetings develop into bitter arguments.

Despite the significant increase in funds available to S.A.A.P. programmes over the last three years, the Women's Committee does not appear to have recognised the need for new services which is a significant component of the overall aims of S.A.A.P.

I thank you for the effort you have put into chairing the Committee."

The effect of the decision was to reduce the representation of women's shelters on the committee. That letter was written five days after Dr Cornwall had announced his decision to establish the Review Committee.

On 6 October, Dr Cornwall wrote to Senator Grimes with his proposals for the allocation of funds based on the Program Advisory Committee's decision on 25 September. Senator Grimes replied by letter received by Dr Cornwall on 16 October 1986. In that letter he expressed concern that the funding for Judith House had been accorded a high funding priority and that the funding was proposed to be taken from the allocation to women's SAAP and not from the Youth SAAP funding. He asked that the decision be reconsidered.

At some time in October, Dr Cornwall wrote to Senator Grimes responding to that letter. Dr Cornwall pressed the recommendation as to funding and the recommendation that Judith House be established and funded out of the women's SAAP funds. The tendered copy of the letter is undated. I find that there was an exchange of correspondence which resulted in Dr Cornwall going to Canberra on 21 October to confer with Senator Grimes on issues relating to the administration of the SAAP Program.

One further event in early October 1986 needs to be mentioned because it was to be a cause of further dispute with women's shelters. That event was the naming of Dr Cornwall as "Father of the Year" by the Lions Club of Adelaide.

On 17 October, a meeting of all shelters was held in Adelaide to discuss what the minutes called the "current funding crisis" and to plan strategies to deal with government. The meeting was not only attended by Administrators but, as well, by many staff. The strategies discussed involved a number of forms of political agitation. The meeting was chaired by the plaintiff. Only one shelter was not represented. It was Whyalla and Judith Blake, its Administrator, had sent an apology. It seems that by this time the split in WSAC had been repaired. Strategies to attract increased funding for shelters were discussed. One such strategy was that shelters should accumulate large deficits. The meeting was aware that Dr Cornwall had been named "Father of the Year" by the Adelaide Lions Club. The meeting resolved to call for the withdrawal of that award. Following the meeting, a letter was written seeking a meeting with Mr Bicknell and representatives of the State and Commonwealth Departments to discuss funding difficulties.

The meeting was reported on the front page of The Advertiser on the next day, 18 October. The article was headed "Call to drop Cornwall as father of the year". The article began:

"Representatives of SA's 12 women's and children's shelters want the Minister of Community Welfare, Dr Cornwall, dropped as SA Father of the Year because of 'his treatment of the needs of the State's battered and abused children'.

The call was made at a historic meeting of the shelter representatives in Adelaide yesterday."

The article was accompanied by photographs of the plaintiff and Ms Dawn McMahon who had founded the first women's shelter in South Australia. The article included remarks made by Ms Balendran and the plaintiff. The plaintiff's remarks were reported in this way:

"The Administrator of the Christies Beach women's and children's shelter, Ms Dawn Rowan, challenged Dr Cornwall's statement in Parliament on October 9 that 'women's shelters are now relatively well-established'.

'We urge Dr Cornwall to spend 24 hours in one of SA's women's shelters to see just how established we are - we struggle the whole time,' she said."

Ms Balendran was reported as having said that, by cutting funds to shelters, the Minister "was neglecting thousands of children, who were helped by SA women's and children's shelters". The prominence given in this article to the call for the withdrawal of the nomination of Dr Cornwall as Father of the Year angered him. I do not rely on the remarks he made in the Legislative Council four days later to which I shall refer in a moment. The evidence shows that his annoyance was apparent to some officers in the Department, in particular, Mr Bicknell. His evidence in this trial showed that it still angers him.

As already mentioned, on 21 October Dr Cornwall went to Canberra to confer with Senator Grimes. The visit was reported in the press. The press article was not tendered. Remarks made the next day by Ms Laidlaw, a Member of the Legislative Council, when asking Dr Cornwall a question, suggest that Judith House was one reason for the visit as well as the constitution of the SAAP committees. She said:

"Yesterday, the Minister visited Canberra to speak with the Minister for Community Services in an effort to seek more money for emergency accommodation for adolescents and families. I register the disappointment of groups that have spoken to me since reading an announcement in the paper yesterday that the Minister's journey to Canberra was confined to those interests and did not include the needs of women's shelters. I acknowledge the acute need for youth and family shelters, but believe that the needs of shelters to cater for the needs of women and children should not be compromised in the process. From recent statements in the media it has become clear that the Minister is on a campaign to repeatedly deny that women's shelters have been harshly treated under his stewardship in respect of allocation of new funding (and I emphasise new funding) this financial year.

Repeatedly, he dismisses funding statements made by the women's shelters as distorting the facts, although I have confirmation that figures used by the women's shelters have been confirmed by the Minister's departmental officers. Why is the Minister determined to pursue a campaign to dismiss and denigrate the current needs of shelters catering for women and children? I suggest that a more fitting approach for a person recently nominated as Father of the Year would be to campaign for emergency funding for shelters not only for adolescents and families, and that such a campaign should not be at the expense of the legitimate needs of shelters for women and children."

In the course of a quite lengthy answer, Dr Cornwall announced that the Women's SAAP Advisory Committee would be reduced in size. He then announced that he was about to review the administration of women's shelters. Both announcements were made at a relatively early stage in the answer. Dr Cornwall also referred in his answer to the meeting of representatives of women's shelters on 18 October which had been reported in The Advertiser as an "historic meeting". The Hansard record reads:

"The Hon. J.R. CORNWALL: My colleague Don Grimes and I agreed in discussion yesterday that that situation was unworkable and untenable and will not be allowed to persist. First, the committee structure for the women's shelters will be altered. Apropos of this historic meeting that they held last week, let me tell honourable members that they have been holding historic meetings where they all come together on a regular basis for years. Furthermore, each representative who has attended those meetings has been paid at my expense. So much for the historic meeting!

The Hon. J.R. CORNWALL: At the taxpayers' expense, quite right. They have each and every one of them been paid. I might also say that at least one women's shelter has received a quite adverse auditor's report. We will no longer tolerate a situation where an administrator of a shelter forms a small management committee and then, of course, they decide at what rate they should pay themselves: they decide that they can break the rules and pay cash on termination instead of time in lieu.

The Hon. J.R. CORNWALL: I am about to review the administration of the women's shelters generally - that is the action that I am taking. We are going to have a bit of accountability. That is why I insisted, again with the Federal Minister's support, that they should sign agreements. We are going to have accountability. The other thing is, of course, that we are not going to any longer have a situation where they are taxpayer funded to all come together. They will have nominees to that subcommittee just as the youth subcommittee has and the general shelters have.

The general shelters, let me say, are for families and children. There is a general shelter at the park (sic) for families and children in real distress which operates on an annual budget of $38 000 a year in one of the most depressed areas of metropolitan Adelaide. As against that, the women's shelters are operating on average budgets of between $160 000 and $200 000. Does Miss Laidlaw, champion of the needy, seriously suggest that there should not be a priority given to those sorts of family shelters in 1986? Let her stand up and not be some sort of political opportunist in the matter. She is lining up with this small number of bully girls to stand over the program and say that we cannot give money to teenage girls who have been sexually abused; she is lining up with those people to attempt to stand over me to say that we cannot make youth a priority."

In his evidence Dr Cornwall admitted that the reference to "bully girls" included the plaintiff. Dr Cornwall again used the expression "bully girls" on 23 September 1987 when answering questions in the House of Assembly Estimates Committee. Dr Cornwall confirmed that, on that occasion, he was again referring to the plaintiff. However, I have no regard at all to these statements because of the privilege of Parliament.

The announcement of the proposed review was reported in an article in The Advertiser on 23 October. The plaintiff did not then give any particular attention to the proposal.

The question of a review of women's shelters had not been the subject of any Departmental recommendation to Dr Cornwall before he made the announcement in the Legislative Council. I accept Mr Bicknell's evidence that there had been no mention of the review in the Department before Dr Cornwall's announcement and that it had only been mentioned in the letter from Senator Grimes dated 2 July 1986. I find that Dr Cornwall was stung into announcing the review by the events of October 1986 and, in particular, the public criticism of him by shelters. However, the review would have been conducted in any event. It will be recalled that one of the terms in Senator Grimes' letter dated 2 July 1986 in which he had agreed that the Commonwealth would fund the payment of deficits was that the administrative and accounting practices of services be jointly reviewed by officers of the Commonwealth and State Departments. I find that the review was instituted for that reason. It was simply announced a little earlier than might have been intended. The review was intended to be a review of the management and administration of all shelters. I find that it was not intended to examine any one particular shelter. I later examine the status of the Review Committee and its implications for the issues in this action.

Not until some three weeks later did any Departmental minute on the intended review come into existence. It is a minute dated 13 November from Ms Wighton to Dr Cornwall as Minister. The minute recommends:

"That a Review Committee, chaired by Mrs Judith Roberts, assisted by an independent consultant, conduct a review of the administration of Women's Shelters in South Australia, to be completed by 31/1/87."

The minute proposed a committee of five persons including Mrs Roberts and Ms Harrison Anderson as the independent consultant. Its terms of reference were as follows:

"1. To review the administrative practices of Women's Shelters in South Australia with particular reference to:

2. To review the management structure of Women's Shelters in South Australia, in particular, the composition and role of Committees of Management and their capacity to effectively and efficiently manage the staff and resources allocated by the State and Commonwealth Governments.

3. To review the extent to which Shelters fulfil their objectives as established under the S.A.A.P. guidelines."

Dr Cornwall approved the recommendation on 14 November 1986.

Earlier in October, the Port Lincoln Shelter had signed the Agreement. On 21 October, the shelter wrote to the Department to state that it no longer considered itself bound by the Agreement. The shelter said that the Agreement had been signed "in the mistaken belief that this shelter would receive an appropriate level of funding". The letter protested a lack of consultation to reach a workable compromise on funding. Other shelters who had signed the undertaking or the Financial Agreement sent similar letters to the Department at that time.

On 24 October, a meeting of WSAC was held. Those present expressed concerns as to funding and discussed continuing the opposition to SAAP.

On 31 October, another meeting of Administrators and staff from all shelters was held. It was, in effect, a continuation of the meeting begun on 17 October. Whyalla attended on this occasion but apologies were received on behalf of three country shelters, namely, Mount Gambier, Port Lincoln and the Riverland. The meeting discussed, among other things, opposition to the proposal of Dr Cornwall to restructure the SAAP Advisory Committee and continued political action on funding issues.

When the Review Committee was appointed, eight of the thirteen shelters had signed the Financial Agreement. The five shelters which had not were Christies Beach, Irene, North Adelaide, Mount Gambier, and the Riverland Shelter. Of those five, Christies Beach, Irene, and North Adelaide had deficits. Christies Beach and North Adelaide (and presumably Irene) were receiving funding on a fortnightly basis. As already mentioned, some shelters sought to withdraw their consent to the Financial Agreement. They did not in the end do so. Others, such as Para Districts and Port Lincoln, had protested that they had signed "under duress". The Riverland Shelter signed the Financial Agreement in January 1987. Its letter sending the Financial Agreement to the Department said that the Agreement had been signed "under duress". It had not received any funding since September 1986.

Late in October 1986, Senator Grimes wrote to Dr Cornwall with a proposed compromise on the funding issue. The letter is undated but, as its contents show, it was written after the meeting in Canberra. He confirmed that the shelters would be paid the deficits totalling $88,700 and proposed, among other things, that the cost of Judith House be allocated in another way to enable the full amount of $176,000 to be available for women's shelters. He sought Dr Cornwall's consent to the proposal. This letter does not mention the announcement of the Review Committee. As will be seen, that is mentioned in a later letter. I therefore find that the two main issues discussed in Canberra on 21 October were the funding issue and the composition of SAAP committees, but not the establishment of the Review Committee.

On 5 November 1986, Mr Bicknell rang and spoke to one of the staff at the Christies Beach Shelter and left a message which was recorded in the Shelter's message book. He said that no advances would be made until the Agreement had been signed. He said that Dr Cornwall was not pleased with the attitude of the Christies Beach Shelter and added that Dr Cornwall was being difficult because of the "Father of the Year" issue. He said that the Shelter should think about signing the Agreement. On 7 November, Mr Bicknell again rang the Shelter reminding it that it had not signed the Agreement. On that occasion he said that six shelters had not signed the Agreement at that date and four had asked to withdraw their signing of the Agreement.

On 5 November 1986, the Christies Beach Shelter requested an advance of $19,000 from its funding for the next quarter (1 January to 31 March 1987) to enable it to continue its operations until 31 December. Ms Wighton reported the request to Dr Cornwall in a minute noted by him on 11 November 1986. In that minute she also reported that the Christies Beach Shelter had not signed the Agreement. Dr Cornwall endorsed the minute and directed, among other things, "Christies Beach is to be paid fortnightly pending the outcome of the proposed review". Henceforth, until August 1987, both the Christies Beach and North Adelaide Shelters were funded by fortnightly payments.

Three days later, on 14 November, Dr Cornwall approved Ms Wighton's minute recommending the establishment of the Review Committee and the persons to comprise the Committee. On the same day, Dr Cornwall received another letter from Senator Grimes in which Senator Grimes approved, among other things, the funding allocations under SAAP and the revised structures for the SAAP Advisory Committees. The approved funding enabled Judith House to proceed but at a later date. Plainly, Dr Cornwall had already written in response to Senator Grimes' letter in late October. By some means, perhaps in Dr Cornwall's letter, Senator Grimes had learned of the establishment of the Review Committee. In his letter, Senator Grimes approved the establishment of the Review Committee. He asked that an officer of his Department be on the Committee. He said:

"I commend your decision to undertake a review of the administration of the womens shelters in South Australia. This review will hopefully not only result in the more efficient administration of the shelters but also of SAAP services generally, as well as put to rest the often inaccurate press statements concerning the SAAP funding of these shelters.

In view of the joint funding nature of SAAP might I suggest that an officer of my Department be involved in the process, if not already included, whether by membership of any steering review committee established or by participating in drafting the terms of reference for the consultant. This would accord with one of the specific conditions placed upon the provision of funds for the elimination of the WESP deficits in my letter of 2 July 1986, namely that, 'the administrative and accounting practices of the services involved being jointly reviewed by officers of our departments'."

As will have been noticed from Ms Wighton's minute of 13 November, the membership of the Review Committee was wider than had been proposed by Senator Grimes in his letter of 2 July 1986. His proposal had required that the review be conducted by officers of the respective Commonwealth and State Departments.

On 26 November, Dr Cornwall announced the membership of the Review Committee. He did so by a Ministerial Statement in the Legislative Council. He did not name all members of the Committee. Those named by him were Mrs Roberts as chairperson, Ms Colleen Johnson, Ms Judith Blake, and Ms Harrison Anderson as consultant. He stated also that the other members of the Committee would be a representative from the Department of Community Services and a representative from the Department of Community Welfare. At some later date which was not proved, it was decided that the representative of the Department of Community Services was to be Ms Robyn King and the representative from the Department was to be Ms Jan Lowe.

The announcement of the membership of the Review Committee caused the plaintiff considerable distress. Her evidence, which I accept, was that she was devastated by it. She perceived that her previous antagonism with Mrs Roberts would inhibit any capacity for her to represent the Shelter and to justify its work. She was disappointed that Ms Blake was a member because she did not believe that Ms Blake was an appropriate person to represent shelters since she had a different philosophy on the administration of shelters from most of the other Administrators. The plaintiff believed that it would not be a fair review. The next day she took sick leave. It is clear that she had a nervous breakdown. She was away on sick leave for the rest of 1986 and much of 1987. She did not return to work because the withdrawal of funding caused the Shelter to terminate her employment in late August 1987.

Ms Anderson began her work in late November. However, as she said in evidence, work did not start in earnest until January 1987. At some time before 2 December 1986, Ms Anderson together with Mrs Roberts and Ms Wighton met Dr Cornwall. The purpose of the meeting was to brief her as to her work and why the review was being held. The Review Committee was aware that the Minister had directed that the resources of the non-government welfare unit were available to assist it. The Department provided secretarial and other assistance. Officers of the Department at all levels provided information and answered questions.

The first meeting of the Committee was held on 2 December 1986. It was, very much, a preliminary meeting to acquaint the Committee with the issues. The only record of that meeting which now exists is a set of handwritten notes taken by Ms King. She recorded that all members of the Committee, including Ms Jan Lowe, were present. In addition, two employees of the Department were present. They were Mr Peter Bicknell and Ms Meredyth Taylor. Ms King noted that Mr Bicknell provided "pro-tem advice on background" and described Ms Taylor as "Secretariat". Mr Bicknell briefed the Committee on the factors which had led to the review. According to Ms King's note, those factors were

He referred to the dispute with women's shelters about signing the Financial Agreement and noted that Christies Beach "resolutely refused to sign agreement - has made little difference to Christies who are receiving fortnightly payments (now using January '87 funds). Cornwall concerned that recurrence is not possible". In her evidence, Ms King said that the Christies Beach Shelter was mentioned as an example. I accept that evidence because Christies Beach was then one of five shelters which had not signed the Agreement. Her note also states:

"Intended to review shelters in general rather than in particular: attempt to get some principles of operation and accountability."

Ms King's note is that four issues were identified, namely,

I accept Ms King's note as an accurate record of what occurred at the meeting. It accords with Mr Bicknell's recollection. When giving her evidence, Ms King gave the impression of being a person who would take care in preparing such notes. It will be noticed that issues were being discussed broadly. There was no suggestion that any one shelter required particular investigation.

The Review Committee kept minutes of its meetings. However, copies of minutes of only two other meetings now exist, the meetings held on 7 and 29 January 1987. As already noted, it is a curious fact, to say the least, that no other records of the work of the Review Committee now exist.

According to Ms King's notes, the next meeting after the meeting on 2 December was to have been on 19 December. Some witnesses doubted whether a meeting had been held on 19 December. Nothing turns on whether a meeting was in fact held on 19 December. I find there was no meeting on that date because the minutes of the meeting of 7 January record that the minutes of the meeting on 2 December were confirmed, but there was no mention of a meeting on 19 December.

The absence of any minutes or other records means that there is no record of the number of meetings held by the Committee or the dates on which they were held. The only assistance as to the date of meetings is to be found in the diaries of Mrs Roberts for 1986 and 1987, which suggest that meetings were possibly held on the following dates:

1987 7 January

29 January

23 February

25 March

2 April

6 April

12 May

9 June

22 June

No witness had any independent recollection of what occurred at any of these meetings or the dates of the meetings or on how many occasions the Review Committee had met. No member had any real recollection of the meeting on 2 December.

The Review Committee had originally been asked to complete its report by 31 January 1987. The Committee secured two extensions of this deadline. The first was to the end of February 1987 and the second until the end of March 1987. Obviously, an extension was granted until June 1987 but there is no documentary evidence of that. Nothing turns on the fact that the extensions were asked for or granted.

The meeting on 2 December was the only meeting attended by Ms Lowe. Although she had been appointed to the Review Committee as the representative of the Department of Community Welfare, she took no further part in the work of the Committee after 2 December. At some time between 2 December and the next meeting of the Committee on 7 January 1987, Ms Lowe was replaced by Ms Wighton. There is no minute or other document recording why or when this change in the composition of the Committee was made or approved. Neither any member of the Review Committee nor Dr Cornwall nor Mr Bicknell was able to explain why this change occurred. I find it difficult to accept that none of those witnesses could recall the reasons for this change in the membership of the Committee. There was no suggestion that Ms Lowe was either unwilling or unable to continue as a member of the Committee. She was a relatively senior officer and thus a suitable appointment. Dr Cornwall described her as a competent person. I find that Ms Wighton wished to be actively involved in the work of the Committee and she decided that she would replace Ms Lowe as the Department's representative and arranged for that to be effected.

By letter dated 9 December and signed by Mrs Roberts, all shelters were informed of the review and the membership of the Review Committee. The Terms of Reference were attached to the letter. The letter invited submissions. The letter also stated that it may be necessary to extend the period of the review and expressed an intention to report to the Minister by the first week in March 1987. Two paragraphs in this letter read:

"Written submissions from Shelter personnel - both staff and Management Committees - are most welcome and can be forwarded to me C/o. the Non-Government Welfare Unit, Department for Community Welfare, Box 39, Rundle Mall Post Office, Adelaide. To enable the Committee to give due consideration to written submissions, we would appreciate it if any input you wish to make reaches us by January 20th. Please contact Harrison Anderson on 213 3367 (Tuesdays and Wednesdays) if you need to negotiate an extension.

Feedback from consumers - past or present - of Shelter services is also very welcome. A poster briefly detailing information about the Review is enclosed. We would be grateful if you would display this prominently, as it is no easy matter to make contact with consumers."

The plaintiff complains that the Review Committee did not adhere to its stated objective of obtaining "feedback from consumers" of shelter services. When the Review Committee visited the Christies Beach Shelter on 11 February 1987, the staff at Christies Beach had arranged for women, who had used the Shelter or were using the Shelter, to be present to speak to the committee. I accept the evidence of Ms McSkimming and Ms Lachlan that members of the Review Committee did not provide any opportunity for discussion with those women.

The narrative which follows has an obvious emphasis upon the Christies Beach Shelter and the activities of Dr Cornwall, the Department, and the Review Committee so far as they relate to the Christies Beach Shelter. Plainly, that is a consequence of the fact that this action concerns that part of the Report which dealt with Christies Beach and its consequences for the plaintiff. It is a consequence also of the fact that most of the documents tendered deal with the Christies Beach Shelter and the Review Committee.

By letter dated 15 December, Ms McSkimming wrote on behalf of the management committee of the Christies Beach Shelter to Dr Cornwall. The letter was in these terms:

"Members of this committee who had seen the article expected that at our recent Management Committee meeting (December 9), the shelter would have full details of the Review for their consideration, including membership, terms of reference, time frame of operation etc. We are very dissatisfied that this information was not available, particularly at this time of the year as we would not meet during January. It now appears that the Review will be nearly completed before this committee has an opportunity to fully consider its brief. (At the time of writing on December 15, this shelter has still received no correspondence on the matter.)

We are alarmed also to read in the Advertiser article of an 'unnamed shelter' which had been referred to as being of particular concern. This type of unspecified reference is most undesirable, as it raises questions of all shelters and affects their credibility within their own support groups and communities. Such innuendo only serves to undermine the high standing of the majority of shelters, built up after many years of responsible and dedicated service provision.

This committee is also concerned about the process of the appointment of members of the Review committee. Shelters were not consulted about the membership structure, nor invited to nominate a person to represent the shelter's view. We consider the Department's appointment of one shelter administrator to be totally inappropriate in such a process.

This committee believes that the Review will highlight the enormously successful work done by women's shelters with grossly inadequate funds. We are looking forward to working with the Review committee, and demonstrating our accountability in all facets of our service."

The reference in the letter to an "unnamed shelter" is to Dr Cornwall's statement on 22 October, when he mentioned that an unnamed shelter had received an adverse auditor's report for the year ended 30 June 1986. That shelter was Port Augusta. On 7 January 1987, a member of Dr Cornwall's ministerial staff wrote to Ms McSkimming acknowledging receipt of the letter of 15 December and said that a response would be sent in due course. However, there was no further response to the Shelter's letter of 15 December.

The Christies Beach Shelter was not the only shelter to express concern as to the manner in which the Review Committee had been selected and as to the manner in which it was intending to carry out its work. In a letter dated 5 February 1987 to Mrs Roberts written by Ms McSkimming as Secretary of WSAC, a number of concerns were expressed on behalf of other shelters.

"I am writing following a recent Women's Shelters Advisory Committee meeting to advise you of our concerns regarding the Review.

This committee cannot accept that such a Review will not be visiting all shelters. Each shelter is an autonomous body, with an independent management committee, and across the range of services in South Australia there is a broad perspective of philosophies, operating methods and management structures. We are most concerned that the report will be in general terms which will allude to 'some' shelters, or 'most' shelters, and that it will not specify which issues are related to which shelters. We consider it absolutely vital that each shelter is visited, fully assessed, and individually documented.

WSAC also feels that the time span allowed is totally inadequate for a general review. The consultant has spent no more that (sic) a couple of hours in any one shelter, in which it is impossible to become fully familiar with each shelter. Management needs to be considered as an integral part of the way in which a shelter operates.

We are also critical of the way in which the Review committee was formed. Contrary to Peter Bicknell's view that we declined to nominate, we in fact received no notification of the formation of the review until approached by the media for comment. We were not at any stage asked to give suggestions of an appropriate shelter membership. We do not consider that Judith Blake is representative of all shelters; nor that any one person could successfully represent the views of a diverse range of shelters.

We look forward to your response on these matters."

The letter was not answered until 13 April when Mrs Roberts also responded to a letter from WSAC dated 12 March which had asked that the Committee make its report available to shelters for comment before it was released to the public. WSAC also asked that copies of interviews of shelters be made available to it. Mrs Roberts' reply was to state, quite correctly, that the "release of any fact pertaining to a review commissioned to the Minister would only be authorised by the Minister" and invited WSAC to contact Dr Cornwall's Ministerial Assistant, Ms Pengelly. The evidence suggests that the matter stopped there. Mrs Roberts' letter did not address the issues in WSAC's letter of 5 February.

The second meeting of the Review Committee was held on 7 January 1987. Copies of the agenda and minutes of the meeting still exist. The minutes show that Christies Beach was one of the first six shelters to respond to the letter inviting submissions. The minutes suggest that the Committee was making a study of shelters generally and did not intend to deal particularly with any one shelter. The meeting resolved to publicise the review by a press release. A press release was issued on 8 January.

Invitation from Christies Beach to the Committee

By letter dated 16 January, Ms McSkimming wrote on behalf of the Christies Beach Shelter to Mrs Roberts. Given the criticisms that were made of the Christies Beach Shelter, it is important to recite the terms of this letter. It clearly demonstrates the willingness of the Shelter to participate in the review and be examined by the Committee.

"I was requested at a recent Management Committee meeting to write to you regarding the current Review of our shelter.

As you are no doubt aware, this shelter has been struggling over the past few years to maintain its services on increasingly inadequate funds. We believe we have very effectively and efficiently continued to function as a fine-tuned and comprehensive service for women and children fleeing from domestic violence. We are confident that the current review process will support the work we do, in light of very severe budget restraints.

This committee feels that it is important that all members of your committee are fully aware of these problems if they are to contribute to the report. We would very much like to invite your full committee to visit this shelter in February, so that these issues can be fully discussed in much more specific terms. We look forward to hearing from you to arrange a suitable time for such a visit."

The Shelter did not receive any written reply to that letter. However, on 19 January, Ms Anderson visited the Shelter alone and, on 11 February, she again visited the Shelter, on that occasion accompanied by Mrs Roberts and Ms Johnson.

The Christies Beach Shelter was represented at the meeting on 19 January by Ms McSkimming as acting Administrator, Ms Staiff, Ms Lachlan, and other members of staff. The plaintiff was not present. She was still on sick leave. Dr Baum, the chairperson of the management committee, was not present. Ms Anderson, Ms McSkimming, Ms Lachlan, and Ms Staiff all gave evidence as to their recollection of the meeting. Where it conflicts, I prefer the evidence of the three witnesses from the Shelter to that of Ms Anderson. Ms Lachlan had made notes of the meeting as it was proceeding. Ms Anderson said that she also made notes but that those notes have disappeared together with all of the other records of the Review Committee.

Ms Anderson had a long list of questions which she intended to ask at all shelters she visited. The list is Appendix V to the Report. It is a long list of questions. Although the list is 28 paragraphs, a number of paragraphs ask more than one question. Ms Anderson asked the questions on her list. That is confirmed by Ms Lachlan's notes which, in many respects, mirror Ms Anderson's list. The questions were of a general nature directed to the administration and financial management of the Shelter. It is curious that Ms Anderson did not ask questions on some other issues. However, this is not the place to explore that issue. Ms Anderson said that the visit lasted about three hours, though the witnesses from the Shelter said it was about one and a half to two hours. I find that it was about two to three hours. Whether it was two or three hours is of no real consequence. The important fact is that the visit was relatively inconsequential. In the course of the meeting Ms Anderson mentioned the Financial Agreement. She did not advise the Shelter to sign it. It was not her place to do so. She simply asked what was the Shelter's response to it and what problems the Shelter saw with it. Ms Anderson did not make any suggestion that the financial management of the Shelter was inadequate. The fact that the visit was inconsequential is confirmed by the minutes of the meeting of the management committee of the Shelter held on 9 February. The only issues identified in the minute were

• employment conditions for staff including lack of contracts;

• lack of documentation in the form of timesheets; and

• questions as to the financial expertise of members of the management committee.

The management committee of the Shelter, at its meeting on 9 February, agreed that it would keep timesheets if so requested.

In the course of the meeting, Ms Anderson had asked to be supplied with some records. By letter dated 29 January, the Shelter sent records of the experience of each member of the staff at Christies Beach, the years of service, and a note of the sick leave taken by staff in 1986. Ms Anderson's evidence was that she had asked for more information. The witnesses from the Shelter deny that and say that the shelter provided all that had been requested. I accept the evidence of the Shelter witnesses.

The next meeting of the Review Committee was held on 29 January 1987. A copy of the minutes of that meeting still exists. All members of the Committee, except Ms King, were present. Ms Anderson was also present. The minutes record an apology on behalf of Ms Meredyth Taylor, who was not actually a member of the Committee, but I do not think anything turns on that. Among items noted by the Committee was the invitation from the Christies Beach Shelter for the Review Committee to visit the Shelter and a document prepared by Ms Anderson as a standard form of questionnaire. I find that Ms Anderson decided to use that questionnaire after her visit to Christies Beach. The minutes do not record any report as to the number of shelters which had been visited by then. The Committee decided to respond to the invitation from Christies Beach that all members of the Review Committee visit by sending Mrs Roberts, Ms Johnson and Ms Anderson. There is nothing in the minutes of this meeting which in any respect comments adversely on Christies Beach in consequence of Ms Anderson's visit. Ms Johnson's evidence was that Ms Anderson gave an oral report concerning her visit to the Shelter and her evidence did not suggest that Ms Anderson commented adversely on the Shelter. I find Ms Anderson had not formed an adverse view of the Christies Beach Shelter as a result of her first visit. Had she done so, it would have been recorded in the minutes or reported orally to the meeting.

Ms Roberts, Ms Anderson and Ms Johnson visited the Christies Beach Shelter on the morning of 11 February 1987. There was a dispute as to the time spent on this visit. That is not a question which is critical to the issues in this action. However, I find that the visit lasted about one and a half hours, shorter than the estimates of Ms Roberts and Ms Anderson. There were disputes also as to the matters discussed. I find that the issues which were raised were discussed on a general basis. Nothing was said which caused the representatives of the Shelter present at the meeting to have any concerns. There might have been some questions about TOIL records but, as the Shelter's management committee had at its meeting on 9 February decided to implement them if requested, that could not have been an important issue.

The management of the Shelter had asked residents to attend the meeting and a number were present. I find that though the residents wished to express views, the Review Committee gave them no real opportunity to do so. This was inconsistent with the Review Committee's expressed position that it sought the views of residents, past and present, who had used the services of shelters. One cannot know what those residents would have said because there is no evidence on that topic. However, had the members of the Review Committee listened to those women, they might have formed a more favourable impression of the Christies Beach Shelter than they ultimately did. That is apparent from the results of police investigations to be mentioned later. At the conclusion of the visit, the Review Committee briefly visited a halfway house close to the Shelter.

I find that there were no allegations of financial mismanagement or other allegations of misconduct put to the Shelter representatives at this meeting nor did anything then occur which gave rise to a particular concern on the part of the Review Committee about the management or administration of the Shelter.

The next meeting of the Review Committee was held on 23 February 1987. An agenda exists for that meeting as well as Ms Anderson's report to the meeting. Although no minutes of the meeting exist, I find that the meeting occurred. Ms Anderson's report to the meeting mentioned the visit to the Christies Beach Shelter in one line. There is nothing in her report which even hints at any problems at the Christies Beach Shelter. I find, therefore, that the visit to the Shelter was not controversial. That finding is reinforced by the reference to the visit in the minutes of the next meeting of the management committee of the Christies Beach Shelter. The visit by the Review Committee was noted but there is nothing to suggest that anything controversial occurred. Rather, the minutes complained that the Review Committee either did not indicate or was not prepared to indicate an understanding of the philosophies of the Shelter and the way in which it dealt with its clients and had questioned the need to be a 24 hour service. The minutes also complained that the comments from residents were discounted.

There was no other direct communication between the Review Committee and the Christies Beach Shelter thereafter. No record of any kind exists as to the dates of other meetings of the Review Committee or the proceedings at those meetings apart from the diaries of Mrs Roberts which record meeting dates only. The only evidence whether there were other meetings was given by the surviving members of the Review Committee and Ms Anderson. The evidence is sketchy. Obviously, it is not possible for them to clearly recall specific dates or events of this kind which happened some 14 years earlier.

The next document which identifies any event in the work of the Review Committee is a minute from Ms Wighton to Dr Cornwall dated 22 April 1987 headed "Briefing orders re Women's Shelters Review". It reads:

"A series of events including accumulated deficits by three shelters since 1981/82 and the resistance by most shelters to signing a financial agreement with the government prompted the Minister of Community Welfare to announce an independent review of:

1. The administrative practices of Women's Shelters in South Australia with particular reference to:

2. The management structure of women's shelters in particular, the composition and role of Committees of Management and their capacity to effectively and efficiently manage the staff and resources allocated by the State and Commonwealth Governments;

3. The extent to which shelters fulfil their objectives as established under the SAAP guidelines.

The Review Committee is comprised of Judith Roberts (Chairperson), Colleen Johnson (Executive Director, Management Services, S.A.H.C.), Robyn King (Senior Assistant Director, Commonwealth Department of Community Services), Judith Blake (Executive Officer, Y.W.C.A. Whyalla and Administrator, Whyalla Shelter). Harrison Anderson, an independent consultant has been employed for the duration of the review.

Considerable consultation has occurred during the review. This included, visiting all shelters, contacting and seeking comments from other community Agencies and individuals referring to or likely to be receiving referrals from shelters and receiving feedback from consumers.

A final draft of the review report is currently before the Minister and Review Committee members for consideration. The report recognises that the majority of South Australian Women's Shelters are well managed facilities with dedicated and compassionate staff and responsible management. As the level of funding in this area has increased so too have the expectations of government administrators for professional standards in the areas of management administration, service delivery and evaluation of programs.

The recommendations contained within the report propose guidelines for government administrators, management committees and shelter staff which should resolve the deficit problem and allow the shelters to be administered more efficiently, have greater control of their resources and be more accountable."

It will be noticed that the penultimate paragraph states that the final draft of the report "is currently before the Minister and Review Committee members for consideration". The rest of that paragraph and the following paragraph appear to be, and I find them to be, a summary of the report as it then existed. It is apparent that the report dealt with management and administration of shelters in a general way and did not single out any individual shelter for special mention. Dr Cornwall had no recollection whether a draft report was then before him. Despite having no recollection of a draft, he said that he had no hesitation in saying that Ms Wighton's minute was wrong. I find that Dr Cornwall is in error. That is confirmed by a minute from Ms Wighton dated 11 May which also refers to Dr Cornwall receiving two reports. It is too improbable that Ms Wighton would have erred twice. There was a final draft and it had been drawn to his attention.

The members of the Review Committee could not throw much light on the content of the final draft. Two drafts of the report have been located in the files kept by the Commonwealth Department of Community Services. They were drafts which had been given to Ms King. One is clearly an early draft and could not be the report to which Ms Wighton's minute refers. The other draft which is Exhibit P644 is quite substantial. The tenor of the draft is consistent with the description of the draft in Ms Wighton's minute and it is expressed in terms which are consistent with that description. In her evidence, Ms King could not be certain that Exhibit P644 was the draft mentioned in the minute. She acknowledged that she could not be certain when Exhibit P644 had been compiled. Given that Ms Wighton's minute does not mention the Christies Beach Shelter nor any other shelter by name, and that the description of the draft in the minute accords with the substance and tenor of Exhibit P644, I find that Exhibit P644 was the draft to which Ms Wighton's minute refers. If it is not, it is at least a document very close in time to it and accords with the general tenor of that report.

I find that, as at 22 April, the intention of the Review Committee was to publish a report of a general kind which would not criticise any one shelter. However, that intention changed in the next few days and, by 12 May, it had been decided to include a section critical of the Christies Beach Shelter. I will first recite the events and later examine the reasons for this change.

Cornwall Promises to Meet Christies Beach and North Adelaide

When noting the events which led to the decision to criticise the Christies Beach Shelter, it is also important to compare and contrast the position of Christies Beach with that of the North Adelaide Shelter during the period 1 May to 11 August 1987. During the first few months of 1987, the funding issues persisted for the shelters at both Christies Beach and North Adelaide. Both had not signed the Financial Agreement. Both were continuing to be funded by fortnightly payments. Both were still in deficit. Both wanted to resolve the problems of funding and the signing of the Financial Agreement. They sought a meeting with Dr Cornwall to resolve these issues. The request was contained in a letter dated 17 February 1987 from WSAC which had been signed by Ms Joan Balendran, which was in these terms:

"We are writing on this occasion to seek an appointment with you, at your earliest convenience, to discuss funding difficulties.

Two of our members; namely the Women's Emergency Shelter at North Adelaide and the Christies Beach Women's Shelter have to date indicated to your department and office their reluctance to sign the 'Agreement' which is mostly due to their apprehension regarding present levels of funding and future possible levels of funding.

Several other members have signed the 'Agreement' under duress and have sought to retract their signatures. Some of these shelters received a small increase in funds following our campaign last year. The 2 Shelters with a large turnover and good record of assistance to victims of violence received no increase for the 1986/87 year (except for inflation).

These 2 Shelters in particular and some of the other members are concerned about their inability to keep within the funds allocated to them this year.

The Agreement, to some extent, does imply that Shelters should aim towards keeping within stated government allocations. It has been relayed to us on numerous occasions by Mr. Peter Bicknell, Ms. Meredyth Taylor and Ms. Harrison Anderson that 'you do not have to keep within your budget,' 'you can run into a deficit' ' we would not be able to make you sign something which said (or implied) you would not be able to incur a deficit.'

We were of the understanding that the whole purpose of drafting and signing an Agreement was to properly account for public funds and it was originally seen by The Government as a means of restricting growing deficits in the Women's Shelters. We therefore feel we need to meet with you to get this situation clarified for once and all.

We have said often, we understand the need to sign an 'Agreement', however, our funding potential was greatly reduced last year due to other government priorities which has made some of us very wary about doing so. The lack of funding in the Women's Shelters is now CRITICAL - particularly for North Adelaide and Christies Beach Women's Shelters. With no sign of extra funds in sight, unnecessary anxiety prevails.

We are eager to resolve the matter of both the Agreement and FUNDING.

We hope you will agree to a meeting with a small group of our representatives with this aim in mind." [Emphasis as in original.]

The tenor of the letter is conciliatory. On 26 February 1987, Ms Pengelly, Dr Cornwall's Ministerial advisor on community welfare, replied stating that "the Minister will be pleased to meet with a small group of your representatives soon after he has received the report" from the Review Committee. She promised to contact Ms Balendran in the near future regarding this appointment. However, she did not do so. The promise was reiterated on 15 May by the Department in circumstances to which I will refer in a moment. However, the promised meeting was not held.

On 6 May, Mr Bicknell had contacted both shelters to give them an opportunity to sign the Agreement. Both refused. Ms Wighton reported this in an undated minute. Remarks in a later minute from Ms Wighton to Dr Cornwall dated 11 May 1987 (a Monday) makes it clear that this minute had been written on 8 May. The minute was noted by Dr Cornwall on 8 May. Ms Wighton reported the response of both shelters to the invitation to sign the Agreement in these terms:

"The Manager, Non-Government Welfare Unit, contacted both shelters on 6/5/87 to inform them of this situation and give them the opportunity to sign a Financial Agreement. Ms Joan Balandran, North Adelaide, said that they are refusing to sign 'until the Shelter meet with the Minister to gain funding assurances' and to discuss the Women's Shelter Administrative Review. Ms Helen McSkimming also supports this view and in addition, said that you had indicated that the Shelter would be funded on a fortnightly basis until the Review was completed."

The reference in that paragraph to the meeting with the Minister is plainly a reference to the meeting promised in Ms Pengelly's letter of 26 February. The minute concluded with the following recommendation:

"Consistent with (a) the recommendation of the Review of Administration of Women's Shelters, and, (b) Senator Grimes' conditional approval, it is recommended that both shelters be informed that once their 1986/87 allocations are advanced, no further payments will be made until a Financial Agreement is signed." [Original emphasis.]

"Seen. I wish to meet with Ms. McSkimming and Balandran as soon as I have discussed the report with H. Anderson and Judith Roberts. Next payment (fortnight) to be made in the interim."

In a letter to the Christies Beach and North Adelaide Shelters dated 15 May, Mr Bicknell repeated that Dr Cornwall would meet Ms McSkimming and Ms Balendran when he had seen the Report.

Before leaving the events of 6 and 8 May, it is necessary to refer again to Mr Bicknell's telephone call to the Christies Beach Shelter on 6 May. The Shelter had a book in which telephone messages were noted. It records Mr Bicknell's call on 6 May. He spoke to Ms McSkimming. She made this note.

$19150 in hand deficit Comm. Govt. - only if sign undertaking. Review nearly finished. Next fin year - difficult into next year. If pay deficit - O.K. for into next July.

Taking away from criticism in Review if sign undertaking. Get back by Friday Peter or Meredyth."

Mr Bicknell was reiterating that the deficit would be paid only if the Christies Beach Shelter signed the Financial Agreement. This is but one instance of officers of the Department referring to the Financial Agreement as the undertaking. One question is what is the criticism to which Bicknell referred? Was it simply criticism of financial mismanagement or was it the unsubstantiated allegations? Mr Bicknell had seen a list of unsubstantiated allegations which had been prepared by Ms Anderson and had been shown to the Minister on 4 May. Mr Bicknell would have learned of the allegations from either Ms Wighton or Ms Anderson or both. He would therefore have been aware of those allegations when he spoke on 6 May to Helen McSkimming. I find, therefore, that the word "criticism" referred to the unsubstantiated allegations. I find that he hinted that Christies Beach would be criticised in the Review Committee's report but that the criticism would be withdrawn or reduced if the Shelter signed the Financial Agreement. In his evidence, Mr Bicknell acknowledged that he said something to that effect. It was a clear threat to the Shelter.

On 15 May 1987, Mr Bicknell wrote on behalf of the Department to Ms McSkimming at the Christies Beach Shelter. The letter enclosed a cheque for $7,000, being the funding for the next fortnight. This is the letter in which Mr Bicknell reiterating Dr Cornwall's promised meeting. The letter withdrew the offer to sign the Financial Agreement pending the meeting with the Minister to discuss funding. The letter was in these terms:

Funding will continue on a fortnightly basis until the Minister of Community Welfare has fully considered the implications of the Review Report. The Minister will then meet with you, as previously agreed, and discuss issues related to funding and the Agreement.

Pending these considerations the offer for your shelter to sign the Financial Agreement is hereby withdrawn."

It will be noticed that the letter conveys the effect of Dr Cornwall's endorsement made on 8 May on the minute he had received from Ms Wighton that day. The letter states in the clearest terms that Dr Cornwall intended to meet Ms McSkimming to discuss issues relating to funding and the Financial Agreement. On 12 May, Ms Pengelly had written a minute to Mr Bicknell confirming that the meeting would be held. The promise to meet and the fact that the fortnightly payments continued was likely to have allayed any concern on the part of the management committee at Christies Beach which might have resulted from the final paragraph of the letter. That was in fact the evidence of Ms McSkimming and Dr Baum. I find that it did allay any concerns about not signing the Financial Agreement. In addition to allaying any concerns, the withdrawal of the offer meant that the shelters were unable to sign the Agreement. The means to do so had been withdrawn.

A letter in the same terms as the letter dated 15 May to Christies Beach had been sent to North Adelaide on the same day. Thus, clear and unequivocal promises had been made to both shelters that the Minister would meet representatives of both shelters once the Review Committee had reported. The meeting would discuss issues related to funding and the Agreement. The meeting was never held. I will return to that issue.

It should not be thought that during these months the staff of Christies Beach were neglecting the management and administration of the Shelter. Steps were being taken to improve the Shelter's premises. There is no suggestion that services were not being provided to women during this period. In addition, other issues were being attended to by the Shelter such as arrangements concerning long service leave and discussions with the Minister concerning the collection of data for the SAAP Program. The issue of data collection was not particularly contentious. However, additional funding was sought for the purpose.

I return to the events which led to the Report's criticism of the Christies Beach Shelter.

A meeting had been arranged for 1 May between Dr Cornwall, Mrs Roberts and Ms Anderson. The meeting did not proceed as Ms Anderson was unable to attend because of a bereavement in her family. The meeting was re-arranged for 12 May. The previous meeting of the Review Committee had been held on 6 April. Obviously, at some time after that meeting, Mrs Roberts, Ms Wighton and Ms Anderson had decided to seek a meeting with Dr Cornwall. According to Mrs Roberts' diary, the next meeting of the Review Committee was also to be held on 12 May. It appears that it was held after the meeting with Dr Cornwall.

On 4 May, Dr Cornwall had been informed of allegations concerning the Christies Beach Shelter. They were listed in a document prepared by Ms Anderson which was handed to him that day.

On 11 May 1987, Mrs Roberts sent a note to Ms Wighton. The memorandum had been prepared by Mrs Roberts and Ms Anderson. It read:

"Issues to be discussed with the Minister at 11.30 a.m., Tuesday May 12th. (G.R.E.). Interview will be attended by Judith Roberts and Harrison Anderson.

1. Long-standing allegations about administrative malpractice and professional abuses at the Christies Beach Women's Shelter.

- implications for the report (i.e. what action the Department might be prepared to take and, therefore, how best the report could suit the purpose.)

* Memo regarding the allegations has been prepared.

- implications for the tenor and style of the report.

e.g. (a) in general terms, as initially directed, without naming any shelters,

(b) naming shelters and adding more detail (apart from historical context material).

Both of the above approaches have certain advantages according to the chosen mode of release."

("G.R.E." is a reference to the Guardian Royal Exchange Building where the meeting was to be held.) The comment "*Memo regarding the allegations has been prepared" is a reference to the memorandum prepared by Ms Anderson and see by Dr Cornwall on 4 May. There is no evidence when Ms Wighton saw that note. It is reasonable to infer from its contents that it was intended that she should see it before the meeting with Dr Cornwall on 12 May. I find that she did.

In the course of her evidence, Mrs Roberts asserted that the Review Committee was independent of the Department. This memorandum belies that evidence. In the paragraph which is numbered 1, the expression "the purpose" in the phrase how best the Report could suit the purpose plainly refers to the Department and its purpose. In other words, Mrs Roberts is asking Ms Wighton how the Report could serve the purposes of the Department.

On the same day, 11 May 1987, Ms Wighton sent a minute to Dr Cornwall concerning the review. It reads:

"As I reported to you last Friday there has been some delay in finalizing this review due mainly to dissatisfaction in the balance of the draft earlier submitted to you. In addition Ms. Harrison Anderson has had a death in her family and has been unable to work on the revised report for nearly 2 weeks.

At my last meeting with Judith Roberts and Harrison Anderson I relayed to them your message that you were not happy to receive two completely separate reports:

1. A bland blue print for the future with little evidence of shelters' mismanagement, and

2. A detailed account of financial inaccuracies in the shelters handling of money.

I suggested to them that the way to handle this difficult matter was to present to the Minister a full report containing all the information that should be put to the Minister as a result of the review; and that after you have read it you would decide for yourself which sections could be made public and which sections might need to be kept confidential.

It does seem likely that some of the details of strange financial behaviour may not be able to be substantiated in a court of law and might therefore need to be handled differently from the body of the report.

Another slight difficulty is the necessity to have a unanimous endorsement by the Review Committee of the financial report. There is no doubt in my mind that the shelters will exploit any indication of disagreement between members of the Review Committee.

Judith Roberts and Harrison Anderson and I will be meeting you at 11.30a.m. Tuesday, 12th May to discuss these particular matters." [Original emphasis.]

It was seen by Dr Cornwall on 11 May. It will be noticed that Ms Wighton again refers to a draft report which had been submitted earlier to Dr Cornwall. This is further confirmation of the fact that Dr Cornwall had received a draft report. The reference to "the balance of the draft earlier submitted to you" suggests that Dr Cornwall may have received the draft in more than one part. It is unnecessary to resolve this question. It does not appear to affect the issues in this action.

The meeting with Dr Cornwall took place on 12 May 1987. No record of this meeting was proved. No one present could recall whether any note or other record of the meeting was made. If Ms Anderson had made a note, it would have been destroyed along with all other records of the Committee that she handed to the Department. The evidence shows, and I find, that those present at the meeting included at least Dr Cornwall, Mrs Roberts, Ms Wighton, Ms Anderson, and Ms Pengelly. According to Dr Cornwall's diary, he had another appointment at noon. I find that the meeting occupied at least one half hour. The meeting discussed the allegations. It was also decided there should be one report and that the allegations concerning Christies Beach should be included in it.

The meeting also discussed withdrawing funding from Christies Beach. Dr Cornwall said that he would have been surprised if it had not been discussed and the evidence shows that it was. Mrs Roberts had prepared a memorandum dated 12 May 1987 addressed to Dr Cornwall. I find that it was handed to Dr Cornwall at the meeting. Mrs Roberts' memorandum reads:

"Regarding requests for advances made by Christies Beach and North Adelaide Women's Shelters:

In accordance with the confirmed recommendations of the Review Committee regarding the payment of advances, I recommend that no future advances be made in respect of predictable expenditure (i.e. ordinary operating costs).

In particular, advances should not be made across financial years as this effectively results in those shelters receiving more money than they have been granted for that year."

Neither Mrs Roberts nor any other member of the Review Committee could satisfactorily explain how Mrs Roberts had authority to make these recommendations. There is nothing in the Committee's Terms of Reference which expressly give that power. The recommendations are remarkably similar to those in Ms Wighton's minute to Dr Cornwall dated 8 May.

I find that at the meeting of 12 May it was decided to withdraw funding from Christies Beach, not immediately, but at a later time. Dr Cornwall said that it had only been decided to make contingency plans against the day when funding might be withdrawn. I reject that evidence. I will state the reasons for these conclusions a little later.

As soon as she returned from the meeting, Ms Wighton instructed Mr Bicknell to seek advice from the Crown Solicitor whether there was sufficient evidence to initiate legal action against the Christies Beach Shelter. She informed him that she was doing so at the direction of the Minister. Her instruction to Mr Bicknell was contained in a handwritten note dated 12 May which read:

"The Minister has asked us to contact the Crown Solicitor and get an early opinion about whether we have enough material about Christies Bch Shelter (financial and in reltn (sic) to harassment) to initiate legal action. He wants to get this moving without delay so that he has some idea by the time he receives the final Review in two weeks or so. Could you please prepare the paper work for the Cr. Sol?"

On the same day, the Department began to make enquiries to find alternative accommodation for a shelter in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. The enquiries were directed to the South Australian Housing Trust. The Housing Trust kept a file concerning the Christies Beach Shelter. A file note reads:

"How's this for a bombshell! I've just been advised in confidence that DCW is considering taking steps to defund Christies Beach Women's Shelter due to financial mismanagement, poor treatment of clients etc. I was asked if Trust would assist with alternative accommodation if defunding proceeds and a new Management Committee is formed. I advised that we would help but stressed that we did not want to be seen to be taking sides in what is really a DCW/DCS administrative matter and would therefore not take steps to evict CBWS from the five properties they lease from the Trust, if they continue to pay rent and operate a service."

The note was written by Mr David Cunnew and, though addressed to the Acting Assistant General Manager, found its way to Mr Paul Edwards, the General Manager of the Housing Trust.

Another file note a few days later in the Housing Trust file records a conversation with Mr Bicknell. The note comprises a series of short phrases. It is clearly a record of a conversation with Mr Bicknell. It reads:

- Examination by C'mee - headed by Judith Roberts.

- C/Beach under close scrutiny - Corp Affairs also involved.

Cmee reports to MCW near future - inefficiency, poor admin, apart from one shelter more than compensated for by vol. Work (good will) commitment of staff-

C/Beach - serious breaches of law (Criminal Law & Assoc Inc Act). MCW → Chief Sec & MCA to take action in concert. MCW writing to MCS rec. defunding.

Personal allegations about conduct of administrator.

Financial - poor records - over expended - Staff benefiting directly from Shelter funds.

MCW feel CBWS no longer safe place for women & children.

Timing - MCW to meet & discuss allegations with F. Baume (sic) - encourage transfer of existing facilities to new c'mee. Fall back in the event of a 'lock out'."

The author of the note could not be identified. The note is not dated but it is clear that it was written before another note dated 27 May to which I refer in the next paragraph. The note does indicate that an officer of the Department had provided full information concerning the proposed report to officers of the Housing Trust. Mr Bicknell said that he could not remember that conversation. He agreed, however, that there was urgency. He said that he and his staff would have been stressing to the Housing Trust that the Department would like to find out where it stood as urgently as possible. His evidence was that the Housing Trust was making contingency plans in case the Minister decided to withdraw funds from the Shelter. I reject that evidence for the reasons I will give in a moment. In addition, this note and the note in the next paragraph speak of an intention to withdraw funding very soon. Mr Bicknell's evidence was that the persons in the non-government welfare unit who, on 12 or 13 May would have been aware of these matters, were Ms Wighton, Ms Adrienne Summers, Ms Meredyth Taylor, and himself.

The Housing Trust file also includes a confidential memorandum dated 27 May from Mr Halkett, the Acting Assistant General Manager, Housing Services to Mr Edwards, the General Manager of the Housing Trust. It reads:

"You will recall David's note of a couple of days ago re Christies Beach Women's Shelter.

Contact today from D.C.W. and John Luckens indicates that Mr. Cornwall is going to move this week and that the allegations are extremely serious! They have asked for us to provide an alternative facility should they need to set up a new Shelter overnight. I have pointed out the obvious difficulties and said that at best we might be able to find a pair of double units somewhere around Mitchell Park as a temporary measure. I have assured them of the best possible co-operation and I suspect that 'bricks and mortar' will be the least of their worries."

I find that "David" refers to David Cunnew, who had written the first file note. Mr John Luckens, who is mentioned in the second paragraph of this confidential memorandum, was the Ministerial Advisor to the Minister for Housing. Mr Bicknell had dealings from time to time with Mr Halkett. He could not remember whether he had spoken to him on 27 May. Whether it was Mr Bicknell or someone else who spoke to Mr Halkett does not matter. It is clear that an officer from the Department of Community Welfare had passed on this information. The Housing Trust had at least two properties ready by 27 May.

Mr Bicknell had made an appointment to see Mr Philip Jackson, a solicitor employed in the Crown Solicitor's office, on 14 May. The meeting had been arranged in consequence of Ms Wighton's instruction on 12 May. Ms Summers went with him to that meeting. Mr Bicknell took with him a list of allegations and a file relating to those allegations. Mr Jackson advised that the Department should withdraw the offer to sign the Financial Agreement from both the Christies Beach and North Adelaide Shelters. It was pursuant to that advice that Mr Bicknell had sent the letter dated 15 May mentioned above to Christies Beach withdrawing the offer to sign the Financial Agreement but promising the meeting with the Minister.

The Departmental file contained two handwritten notes. The notes are not dated. It is not clear whether they are one document or two related documents. Mr Bicknell identified the handwriting as being that of Ms Adrienne Summers. The notes record steps to be taken prior to the withdrawal of funding from Christies Beach and persons who would need to be contacted in respect of particular matters associated with the withdrawal of funding. I find that the notes were made either during the meeting with Mr Jackson or shortly before or after it and are clearly a plan of intended action. Mr Bicknell said that he would have discussed the matters mentioned in those notes with her.

On 19 May, Mrs Roberts spoke with Ms Anderson. On 21 May, Mrs Roberts spoke with Ms Pengelly. On 22 May, Mrs Roberts had lunch with Mrs King. No one could clearly recall what occurred at those meetings and I pass over them.

On 26 May, Mr Bicknell and Mr Jackson met Dr Cornwall. Mr Bicknell believed that it was probable that Ms Vardon and Ms Wighton were also present at the meeting. I find that they were as the issues being discussed were very important. The only document which refers to this meeting is a minute to Ms Pengelly prepared by Mr Bicknell. The document is undated but the content of the minute indicates that it would have been written after Mr Bicknell had seen Mr Jackson on 14 May and before the meeting on 26 May. By this time, all files had been given to Mr Jackson in the Crown Law Office and he was ready to advise. It reads:

"In preparation for meeting with the Minister on 26/5/87 all files and available material has been sent to Mr Phil Jackson from Crown Law. Mr Jackson is expecting to gain the Minister's advice at this meeting but has been unable to prepare a written opinion at this stage.

The attached list of allegations and concerns was compiled by Ms Anderson and seen by the Minister on 4/5/87. I have provided this list to Mr Jackson and suggested that it would provide an appropriate checklist for discussing the allegations with the Minister.

Attached also is a chronological summary of allegations and various statements and summaries which the Minister might find useful in evaluating the nature of the evidence."

The chronological summary and other documents referred to in the last paragraph could not be located. Presumably, they are some of the documents which have been lost or destroyed. Mr Bicknell's recollection is, and I find, that there were discussions about the allegations against the management and the staff at Christies Beach, that Mr Jackson gave advice to Dr Cornwall who then decided to refer the allegations to the police and to the Corporate Affairs Commission for investigation.

I find that the meeting on 26 May discussed the issues concerning Christies Beach. No record of this meeting was proved. However, on 29 May Ms Vardon sent a long minute to Dr Cornwall. This is an important minute. Because of its importance and because it was not the practice for Ms Vardon to draft minutes to Dr Cornwall, I find that it was prepared by Ms Wighton. That finding is consistent with the evidence of Mr Bicknell. Despite its length, it is desirable to set it out in full:

RE: WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER, CHRISTIES BEACH

The Department has been concerned for some time about management practices and administration of the Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach together with complaints alleging unprofessional behaviour of certain staff at the shelter. The Committee Reviewing the administration of Women's Shelters, which has received further allegations in the course of its work, has conducted enquiries and reviewed the files of the Department. The Committee has brought to the Department's attention a number of matters of serious concern. These concerns involve poor administrative practices over several years and allegations of serious professional misconduct made by certain clients and staff of the Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach, and by other workers in the district. The allegations and other information have been made available to the Crown Solicitor's Office, who advise that further investigation is warranted and recommend that investigations should be requested from the Commissioner of Police (to investigate allegations of physical and emotional abuse) and the Commissioner of Corporate Affairs (to investigate allegations of mis-appropriation of assets and other practices which may be in breach of the Associations Incorporation Act 1985).

As mentioned above, the Department has for some time been seriously concerned about the lack of accountability and poor management practices of the Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach. They have continuously overspent their budget and have not been prepared to undertake proper budgetary and accounting procedures so as to ensure proper care is taken of the government funds. The shelter has continually refused to sign a financial undertaking, which undertaking would bind the shelter to spend government funds for the purposes for which they were granted. Their failure to sign the financial undertaking is a serious breach of the Commonwealth/State Guidelines and, together with their failure to respond adequately to the Department's request for proper accounting practices and their long-standing deficits, are the basis for the Department now recommending that funds be withdrawn from the Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach, as of 30/6/87.

The Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach, has considerable assets, the majority of which have been purchased with government funds. These include a vehicle and various items of equipment and furnishings. The buildings and fixed assets are the property of the South Australian Housing Trust. The equipment and furnishings etc are the property of the Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach and the Department has received legal advice that the disposal or transfer of such assets is the prerogative of the Management Committee, or, in the event of the organisation winding up, on a vote of 2/3 of the members of the Association.

It would clearly be in the best interests of the clients for there to be a smooth transfer of all equipment and property to a new iterim (sic) Management Committee to be appointed to run the service for a 12 month period to allow all matters to be settled and a new Management Committee to be established. To this end, it is the Department's intention that, should a decision to defund be accepted, a meeting be urgently convened with Dr Fran Baum, Chairperson of the Management Committee, to inform her of the seriousness of the situation and seek her co-operation in effecting a smooth transfer.

The employment status of current staff is the responsibility of the current Management Committee who would need to act appropriately, according to the information and finances available to them. The Department's officers are prepared to assist the Committee, if requested, to minimise the impact on staff, bearing in mind that certain investigations are to be undertaken which may have various implications for one or more staff members.

To effect the smoothest possible transition, the Department will provide an interim service through Crisis Care and will appoint a Senior Project Officer, located with Crisis Care, to act as interim administrator of the new service. This person will be responsible for the establishment of whatever interim service is needed to ensure the needs of the clients are met during the interim period.

The Department and the South Australian Housing Trust have several houses available for accommodating women and children and will make other necessary arrangements, eg., furnishings.

1. That the Police Commissioner be requested to undertake investigations into allegations of possible misuse of the Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach funds, violent behaviour and intimidation by Ms Dawn Rowan, Administrator, Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach.

2. That the Commissioner of Corporate Affairs be requested to undertake investigations into the affairs of the Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach, to ascertain whether or not there have been breaches of the Associations Incorporation Act.

3. The SAAP funding for the Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach, be suspended as of 30/6/87 and that the concurrence for this de-funding be sought from the Minister of Community Services.

4. That the Department make interim arrangements to provide an alternative service for clients of this shelter.

5. That Dr Baum, Chairperson of the Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach, be informed of the situation and steps be taken to secure the assets for the future use of women and children, victims of domestic violence.

6. That an interim Management Committee be set up immediately for the purpose of establishing the new centre and giving oversight to the management of the service, and that up to 3 months funding, from the Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach, be made available at the discretion of the Department."

It was seen by Dr Cornwall the same day. He endorsed the minute approving recommendations 1 and 2. He added two directions to the Department. They were first, that fortnightly funding to Christies Beach should continue pending the final recommendations of the Review Committee or further information. The second was to ask his officers to ensure that officers of the Commonwealth Department of Community Services briefed their Minister.

The fact that Dr Cornwall did not accept the recommendation to withdraw funding after 30 June is not inconsistent with my finding that on 12 May it had been decided to withdraw funding from the Christies Beach Shelter in the near future. As already mentioned, Dr Cornwall had to wait for the report of the Review Committee to be completed. He did not know when that would occur. Only then, could he, as a matter of political reality, seek the concurrence of the Commonwealth Minister to the decision to withdraw funding. So far as recommendations 4, 5, and 6 are concerned, the evidence shows that the interim arrangements to provide an alternative service were well advanced by 29 May.

On 29 May, Dr Cornwall sent one minute to the Chief Secretary and another to Mr Sumner, the Minister for Corporate Affairs. The minutes were in similar terms but it is desirable to set out each. They request investigation of the staff at the Christies Beach Shelter by the police and the Corporate Affairs Commission.

RE: ALLEGATIONS, WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER, CHRISTIES BEACH

I have recently appointed a Committee to review the administration of Women's Shelters in South Australia. While that Committee has yet to hand down its report, I have received information with respect to the operation of the Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach, which gives me cause for great concern. Allegations of conduct which may constitute criminal behaviour on the part of members of staff have been made. Accordingly, I ask that you arrange for the Commissioner of Police to make available sufficient officers to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken into these allegations.

In the first instance, contact should be made with Ms Harrison Anderson, a consultant to the Review Committee, who could provide further information.

I am concerned that some women who have provided information to the Review Committee have indicated that they are in fear of their safety and that Ms Anderson herself has expressed similar concerns to me. This factor should be borne in mind when the investigation is being carried out and I would ask that all possible protection be afforded to Ms Anderson and other persons assisting in the investigation.

The Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach is operated by an Association incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 1985, and I have also requested the Minister of Corporate Affairs to arrange for the Corporate Affairs Commission to undertake an investigation for the purposes of the Act, as there are allegations of financial mis-management by the Association. Because of this there should be liaison between the two agencies in the conduct of the investigation."

The minute of the Minister of Corporate Affairs, Mr Sumner, was in these terms:

RE: REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION : WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER, CHRISTIES BEACH

I have recently appointed a Committee to review the administration of Women's Shelters in South Australia. While that Committee is yet to hand down its report I have received information with respect to the operation of Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach, which gives me cause for great concern. Allegations have been made that indicate that staff may have been using funds of the incorporated association for their own purposes. As employees may also be members of the Management Committee, breaches of Sections 55 and 58 of the Associations Incorporation Act 1985 may have occurred. Difficulties have been experienced in obtaining properly audited accounts. This suggests that the association may be in breach of Section 222 of the Act.

The Shelter is operated by an Association incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 1985, and I request that you arrange for the Corporate Affairs Commission to undertake an investigation for the purposes of that Act.

In the first instance, contact should be made with Ms Harrison Anderson, a consultant to the Review Committee, who could provide further information.

As there are allegations of conduct that may constitute criminal behaviour on behalf of members of staff I have requested that investigations be undertaken by the Commissioner of Police. It is therefore important that the two agencies liaise in the conduct of the investigation."

On the same day, that is on 29 May, Ms Vardon complemented her Minister's actions by writing letters to the Commissioner of Police and the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs asking each to investigate the allegations. The letters were in almost identical terms. The only difference was in the fourth paragraph where Ms Vardon mentions the Minister to whom Dr Cornwall had written. I set out only the letter to the Commissioner of Police which was in these terms:

"The Minister of Community Welfare, the Hon. John Cornwall recently appointed a Committee to review the administration of women's shelters in South Australia. During the time of the review, the Minister has been made aware of allegations that staff of the Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter at Christies Beach may have been using funds of the incorporated association for their own purposes.

I am writing to request that you undertake investigations into allegations of possible misuse of the Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter, Christies Beach funds, violent behaviour and intimidation by Ms. Dawn Rowan, Administrator of the Shelter. I am also writing to the Commissioner of Corporate Affairs to request that he investigate the Shelter to ascertain whether or not there have been breaches of the Associations Incorporation Act.

I will arrange a full briefing for your staff at your convenience. We are anxious that the Shelter is not made prematurely aware of the investigation before it has been co-ordinated with all the appropriate agencies. I will ring you to discuss this matter further.

The Minister has written to the Chief Secretary seeking an official police investigation and to the Minister for Corporate Affairs seeking an official investigation into possible misuse of funds of the incorporated association.

Papers relating to this matter are attached for your information."

I find that the minute dated 29 May deals with matters which were discussed at the meeting on 26 May. I do so notwithstanding that it does not purport to be a record of that meeting and concludes with recommendations to Dr Cornwall. There is an earlier example of a minute being prepared after the event. It is Ms Wighton's minute of 14 November 1986 recommending that a Review Committee be established, a minute written some three weeks after the announcement of the establishment of the Committee. I find that this is another minute written after the event. That conclusion is reinforced by the fact that on 29 May, the same day as the minute was written, Dr Cornwall and Ms Vardon made their respective requests for investigations by the police and the Corporate Affairs Commission. The Department knew of Dr Cornwall's intentions because of what had transpired at the meeting on 26 May. Obviously, the minutes from Dr Cornwall to the Chief Secretary and to the Minister for Consumer Affairs were sent with the minute of 29 May. It is therefore apparent that the Department knew that Dr Cornwall wanted these investigations to be made and sent the minutes for his signature. They were signed on 29 May. To put the matter shortly, so much occurred on 29 May that the plain probability is that it had been discussed and decided on 26 May.

I find also that the recommendations reflect what action the meeting had decided would be taken in respect of Christies Beach. However, it was plainly not possible to implement everything at that stage. For example, Dr Cornwall had to wait for the Report of the Review Committee to be completed. He did not know when that would occur. In addition, he knew that he had to seek the concurrence of the Commonwealth Minister to the decision to withdraw funding because the SAAP Guidelines required that a decision to withdraw funding from an existing shelter had to be a joint decision of the Commonwealth and State Ministers. Clearly, he could not seek that concurrence until the Report had been completed and was ready for publication. That was the political reality. That was why he was prepared to approve recommendations 1 and 2 which enabled the investigations of the Shelter to proceed, but he did not approve the withdrawal of funding and instead directed that funding by fortnightly payments continue.

Although Dr Cornwall did not approve recommendations 4 and 6, the evidence clearly shows that interim arrangements to provide an alternative women's shelter were quite well advanced at this stage. Women were being approached in late May to act as the chairperson of the management committee of a new shelter and by the end of May the Department knew that the Housing Trust could provide alternative accommodation. The funding of the new shelter could be provided when required. Ms Vardon's evidence was the Department could not act contrary to a ministerial direction. However, the arrangements had already been put in train and Dr Cornwall did not endorse the minute in a way which either countermanded what had been done, or prevented the Department from continuing to pursue the arrangements.

Dr Cornwall's evidence was that even at 29 May he was hoping that the Christies Beach Shelter would sign the Financial Agreement. He said that was why he did not accept all of the recommendations. He said that no decision had been made to withdraw funding either at the meeting on 12 May or on 26 May, although it was under consideration. He added that the arrangements for alternative accommodation were only contingency plans. I do not accept that evidence for the reasons which follow.

At the meeting on 12 May it had been decided to include the unsubstantiated allegations and other criticisms of Christies Beach in the Report. The only logical reason for doing so was that it was intended to withdraw funding from the Shelter. If funding was to be withdrawn, it was unnecessary to include the allegations. I find that on 12 May Dr Cornwall decided that he would, in due course, withdraw funding from the Christies Beach Shelter. That decision was confirmed at the meeting on 26 May. The reason why Dr Cornwall did not endorse the recommendation to withdraw funding in the minute of 29 May was that he knew that he had to wait for the Report of the Review Committee. It was clear to all that the decision to withdraw funding and to establish a new shelter could not finally made until the Report, which contained his reasons for withdrawing funding, was ready for publication and Dr Cornwall had the concurrence of his federal counterpart. The only decision which remained to be made was when the decision to withdraw funding would be announced. The events which followed the meeting of 12 May might be consistent with a decision to make contingency plans against the day when funding might be withdrawn, but they are more consistent with the fact that the meeting on 12 May had decided to withdraw funding. The conclusion that Dr Cornwall made his decision in May is reinforced by the fact that after 29 May, the Christies Beach Shelter was treated in a way quite different from the shelter at North Adelaide. The conclusion is also confirmed by Ms King's evidence that arrangements for a shelter to replace the Christies Beach Shelter were being made before she signed the report. In addition, Dr Cornwall was going overseas on 8 July. He wanted the matter resolved before he left. There was no evidence of any meeting before he left on 8 July with either the Department or the Review Committee after the meeting on 26 May nor of any documents in which he decided to withdraw funding. Dr Cornwall met Mrs Roberts, once in June and once in July, but she had no authority in relation to funding. That points to the conclusion that he decided on both 12 May and 26 May that he intended to withdraw funding subject to the concurrence of the Commonwealth Minister. Finally, as Mr Vardon said at this time, it was clear that the Christies Beach Shelter had no intention of complying with the financial constraints which the Department required (which plainly included signing the Financial Agreement) and the Department had come to the end of the road.

The police and the CAC responded quickly to the requests of Dr Cornwall and Ms Vardon of 29 May. On 2 June Ms Anderson and Mr Bicknell met police officers and officers from the CAC. Dr Cornwall's Ministerial advisor, Ms Pengelly was also present. The only record of this meeting is a minute from Mr Bicknell to Ms Vardon which bears two dates, 11 June and 12 June. The relevant part reads:

On 29/5/87, the Minister of Community Welfare wrote to both the Chief Secretary and the Minister of Corporate Affairs requesting investigations into allegations relating to the Christies Beach Women's Shelter and Ms Dawn Rowan, the Shelter's Administrator.

On 2/6/87, Ms Harrison Anderson, Ms Wendy Heath, Ms Ann Pengelly and Mr Peter Bicknell met with senior officials of the Corporate Affairs Commission and the Police. Ms Anderson and Ms Heath gave detailed statements and provided available documentation on allegations. Ms Pengelly and Mr Bicknell stressed the importance of the matter to the Minister, especially the allegations of threats and harassment to clients.

After hearing the allegations and reading the documentation available at that time, the Police and Corporate Affairs investigators' response can be summarised as follows -

(1) Further investigation would be undertaken initially by more careful reading of the files and written letters and statements.

(2) Corporate Affairs requested comprehensive documentation from DCW files of all records and reports relating to Christies Beach.

(3) The Police stated that, on the basis of the available written material and the statements of Ms Harrison and Ms Heath, they would not be in a position to proceed further at that stage. They would be prepared to reconsider this in the light of:

[b] further evidence becoming available (especially substantiated complaints), or

[c] criminal offences being uncovered through the Corporate Affairs investigation to which they would be a party.

(4) Officers of the Corporate Affairs Commission understood to undertake further investigation under the Associations Incorporation Act 1985. They expressed concern however, that the majority of the allegations related to events prior to June 1985 and would therefore be considered in respect to the previous Act which they considered was weak in many respects and had not proven to be an adequate basis for prosecution."

Ms Vardon sent the minute immediately to Dr Cornwall who read and noted it on 12 June. He added an endorsement in these terms:

"D.G. asked to request Police Commissioner to reconsider information/allegations re behaviour of the Administrator, Christies Beach."

This direction to Ms Vardon to ask the Commissioner to reconsider the information was directed at the plaintiff, in contrast with his earlier letter to the Chief Secretary which had asked that the staff of the Shelter be investigated. The intention to target the plaintiff is apparent also in the first paragraph of the minute.

Mr Bicknell's minute was not the first occasion on which Dr Cornwall had been advised that the allegations might not have substance. In a minute to Dr Cornwall dated 10 June 1987 and read by Dr Cornwall the same day, Mr Bicknell informed him that on 11 June the investigation of the financial management of the Christies Beach Shelter by CAC would begin. The minute included this paragraph:

"At this stage, it is not believed that criminal offences have been committed, although investigation of the shelter records may later provide this information. This means the investigation will proceed under the Associations and (sic) Incorporations Act."

Dr Cornwall received a third intimation that it might be difficult to obtain evidence about the unsubstantiated allegations in a minute from Ms Vardon dated 19 June and read by him the same day. The minute reported on a meeting with the Police Commissioner. It read:

"Peter Bicknell and I spoke with Mr. Hunt yesterday and went through the information that had been raised by the Review Committee and Harrison Anderson. We told him of the advice from Inspector Fricker that the evidence would be difficult to obtain. We advised him as well that Corporate Affairs was taking action.

Mr. Hunt said he would have difficulty trying to determine what sort of charges could be laid if evidence could be obtained from reliable sources but he understood the Minister's responsibility to have at least an initial investigation carried out by the police. He will arrange for all possible leads to be followed up.

Mr. Hunt will ask Inspector Fricker to arrange for Judith Roberts and others to be interviewed."

Ms Vardon and Mr Bicknell could add little to what was recorded in that note, although Mr Bicknell said that he believed that the Commissioner of Police said words to the effect "that it might be difficult to establish the allegations". The minute is little more than a reminder of the earlier advice on this issue and informs the Minister that the police investigation is proceeding. Standing alone, it might have little weight. However, when read with the two previous minutes which had mentioned difficulties in obtaining evidence, it ought to have sounded a warning to Dr Cornwall to be careful in the use to be made of the unsubstantiated allegations. It is clear that it did not or, if it did, he did not heed it.

A meeting of the Review Committee was to have been held on 5 June but it was cancelled. The next meeting was held on 9 June. There was no evidence explaining the change of date. I do not think anything turns on this change in the date of the meeting.

On 8 or 9 June, an officer of the Department of Community Welfare had asked Dr Baum and Helen McSkimming to attend a meeting at the offices of the Department on 11 June with Ms Vardon. Dr Baum and Ms McSkimming both attended the meeting. When they arrived they found that, in addition to Ms Vardon, there were also present Ms Wighton, Ms King and Mr Bicknell. The only documents concerning this meeting are Mr Bicknell's minute to Ms Vardon which bears two dates 11 June and 12 June and a letter commenting on the meeting written by the Shelter on 18 June. Mr Bicknell's minute is the minute mentioned in the last paragraph but one which had reported on the police investigations. That part of the minute which dealt with the meeting on 11 June was in these terms:

On 11/6/87, the Chief Executive Officer (Ms Sue Vardon) convened a meeting of Dr Fran Baum (Chairperson, Christies Beach Women's Shelter) and Ms Helen McSkimming (Acting Administrator), Ms Wighton (Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Programs), Ms Robyn King (Department of Community Services) and Mr Peter Bicknell (Non-Government Welfare Unit).

Ms Vardon outlined the concerns of the department in respect to this shelter and the Administrator. She particularly stressed the serious nature of the allegations and the necessity for the Minister, having been informed of such allegations, to instigate proper investigation.

Ms Wighton and Ms King then explained the concerns that had arisen through the Review of the Administration of Women's Shelters relating to financial accountability, alleged mismanagement of funds and the professional conduct of the Administrator and allegations of harassment and intimidation. Mr Bicknell gave some detail to these concerns and raised their refusal to sign the Financial Agreement.

Dr Baum stated that the Management Committee had nothing to hide and would co-operate with any enquiries.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Senior Detective Russell Gibb and Company Investigator, John Guest, served notice on Dr Baum requesting that specified records be provided to Corporate Affairs by 10 am 15/6/87. Dr Baum and Ms McSkimming stated that they would comply with this request.

Mr Guest stated that, depending on what they found, their enquiries could be expected to take between 2 and 6 weeks."

The minute is reasonably accurate but does not convey the fact that the meeting was planned or the flavour of the meeting. Generally speaking, there is a reasonable degree of unanimity in the evidence concerning what occurred at the meeting. Where there is any inconsistency, I prefer the evidence of Dr Baum and Ms McSkimming because the meeting, plainly, had a grave effect on them so that the course of the meeting would be likely to be the more fixed in their recollection.

It is quite apparent that the meeting had been planned and with a degree of secrecy since Ms King was not aware of the fact that officers of the CAC would be present until shortly before the meeting. Dr Baum and Ms McSkimming were not aware that they were going to be informed of allegations or required to produce documents. All they had been told was that the meeting was to discuss the affairs of the Christies Beach Shelter.

The meeting opened with Ms Vardon giving a broad background to the reasons for the meeting and of the allegations against the Christies Beach Shelter and the plaintiff. She then left the meeting. I find that Ms Wighton then ran the meeting and that the discussion mainly involved Ms Wighton and Dr Baum. As Ms King said, she did not take an active role but left the running of the meeting to Ms Wighton.

The main emphasis of the allegations concerned the financial mismanagement of the Shelter, but some mention was also made of the allegations against the plaintiff of professional misconduct. The allegations were put in a very vague way. Dr Baum repeatedly sought details but they were not provided. She ascertained little more than that most of the allegations were not current. The Shelter's refusal to sign the Financial Agreement was mentioned. Dr Baum and Ms McSkimming were informed that the refusal to sign did not put the Shelter in a good light. This was a curious observation given that Ms Wighton must have known that Dr Cornwall had withdrawn the offer to sign the Financial Agreement and had promised to meet representatives of both the Christies Beach and North Adelaide Shelters. The shelters had been informed of that in Mr Bicknell's letter of 15 May. It is the more curious given that Mr Bicknell was also present at this meeting. There was no suggestion that the funding of the Shelter was under threat or that there was any risk that its funding might be withdrawn, a fact confirmed by Mr Bicknell in his evidence. Dr Baum and Ms McSkimming were clearly surprised and taken aback by the allegations, the more so when the CAC officers entered and requested a long list of documents. It is clear that Dr Baum expressed the willingness of the Shelter to co-operate with the enquiry. The meeting lasted a little more than one hour.

The list of documents sought by the CAC officers was extensive. It sought the following documents for a five year period from 1 July 1982 to 30 May 1987. The documents were:

Receipt books

Cash books showing payments and receipts

Cheque butts

Bank statements for bank accounts in the name of Christies Beach Women's Shelter Inc

Bank deposit books for all accounts held by the shelter

Ledger cards

Paid creditors invoices

Employee wage records

Weekly pay sheets

Financial returns

Auditor's reports

Assets register

Committee minute book

Minutes of annual general meetings

Members' register

The request was, in effect, for all of the financial records of the Shelter over a period of five years. Dr Baum and Ms McSkimming produced the documents to the CAC officers on Monday, 15 June, four days after the request had been made. The documents filled 12 large boxes. This was a commendable response. The CAC later requested other documents and they were supplied.

I find that this meeting was not the meeting which had been recommended in the fifth recommendation in the minute of 29 May because Dr Baum was not informed of the intention to withdraw funding nor was she asked to do anything to secure the assets of the Shelter for future use. Instead, the purpose of the meeting was to assist the CAC investigation. The allegations were mentioned in a vague way for the purpose of seeking to justify the request for the documents. The propriety of this meeting is open to question but I do not stay with that issue.

On 18 June 1987, the management committee of the Christies Beach Shelter wrote to Ms Vardon complaining of the way in which the meeting had been conducted and the vagueness of the unsubstantiated allegations. The relevant parts of the letter read:

"We are writing in regard to the meeting held on Thursday June 11, with several members of your Department and our Chairperson and Acting Administrator.

We have several very serious concerns about the process which was adopted in informing us of your complaints, and the manner in which, from our perspective, unsubstantiated allegations have been made.

Firstly, the committee was alarmed that the meeting was called, with no information whatsoever about what was to be discussed being given. With two days notice only, our chairperson was requested to attend the meeting by a clerical officer, and was not able to find out its purpose, although several phone calls were made and messages left in an effort to determine the substance of the meeting.

We are also most dissatisfied with the conduct of the meeting. Vague statements were made of alleged misuse of funds, but no specific numbers of complaints, nature of complaints, dates or names of informants were given to us. We were informed that these complaints were not relating to the last two years, and are aware that questions were raised several years ago which we believe were answered satisfactorily at that time. We now question why these matters have been raised again, after so many years, and why our responses which were assumingly satisfactory at that time, are now being re-examined.

We are surprised at the heavy-handed way in which the meeting was conducted. The refusal to provide us with information has left us very confused about the exact nature of the allegations. From our point of view, we are being subjected to very serious scrutiny on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo. We are unable to respond in a meaningful way while we do not have clear documentation of the alleged improprieties.

We have no clear indication as to the nature of the matters Corporate Affairs are investigating, and feel this procedure was unnecessary, given that we have said repeatedly to various members of the Department that our books are available at any time for examination. In fact, on at least 3 occasions in the last 5 years, DCW financial officers have examined our books and been unable to find any impropriety or misuse of funds. Suggestions of police involvement also surprised us, as we see no basis for police investigation into the allegations.

The committee would have expected that there would be established procedures for an enquiry of this importance, including clear guidelines regarding documentation of interviews, verification of allegations and formal reporting of the findings. As discussed at the meeting on 11/6/87, the committee will expect a formal, written record of the outcome of the investigations.

The committee would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns with you, as we feel we need further clarification and explanation of the substance of this enquiry. Members of our committee can meet with you at a time convenient to you, but see this as a matter of some urgency. Please contact the Chairperson on 326 0433 or 224 5135 to arrange a suitable time."

I find that, to the extent that this letter refers to what had occurred at the meeting, those events did occur. The letter shows that Ms Wighton, who conducted the meeting, knew that the allegations were at least two years old. The complaints expressed in the letter were justified, particularly given the nature of the allegations and the unwillingness to give them any substance. However, the Shelter received no reply to its letter. Despite its request, no meeting was held.

On 16 June Mrs Roberts had lunch with Dr Cornwall. It was Mrs Roberts' evidence that she had lunch four to five times a year with Dr Cornwall in 1986 and 1987. She said that they had no purpose other than to meet for lunch. I find that to be a somewhat disingenuous answer. I do not accept her evidence that the issues concerning the review would not have been mentioned at that luncheon. I find that at those meetings they would discuss issues on which both were then working in one capacity or another. There is no evidence concerning what occurred at any of those meetings. Mrs Roberts also met and conferred with Dr Cornwall on 7 July, the day before he left on a trip overseas. The proximity of this meeting to the completion of the Report suggests that it was related to the Report. However, it is not possible to make any finding as to what occurred as the evidence of both Dr Cornwall and Mrs Roberts is that they could not recall what occurred.

On 22 June, the Review Committee met. This is the last meeting of the Committee recorded in Mrs Roberts' diary. I find that it was the last meeting when all members of the Review Committee were present. The evidence indicates that it was at the meeting of 22 June that the Review Committee determined upon what they believed was to be the final form of the Report. However, the Report was to undergo further amendment because of legal advice to which I will refer in a moment. But the meeting on 22 June was the last occasion at which all members of the Review Committee were present to discuss the form of the Report. I find that at that meeting they agreed upon the form of the Report as it then existed.

The letter transmitting the Report to Dr Cornwall was dated 26 June. The reader might infer that the Report had then been completed. But that was not the true position. Mrs Roberts was not then in Adelaide. On 25 June she had gone to Melbourne returning on Sunday, 28 June. The evidence shows the letter was not signed on 26 June by all members of the Review Committee.

The evidence concerning the signing of that letter is not clear. None of the members of the Review Committee or Harrison Anderson had any clear recollection when or how it was signed, or whether the letter was attached to the Report, or whether the Report was then complete. The evidence indicates that the letter was not signed at a meeting of the Committee but was circulated for that purpose. In one sense, the fact that all members of the Review Committee did not sign the Report on 26 June is of no consequence other than indicating a degree of carelessness and a lack of concern with accuracy. But it is important in another sense. As I have said, the reader might infer that the Report had been completed by 26 June but that was not the fact. Later amendments were made in consequence of legal advice and those amendments were seen and approved by only two members of the Review Committee, Mrs Roberts and Ms Wighton, and also by Ms Anderson. Neither Ms Blake, Ms Johnson nor Ms King played any further part in the preparation of the Report after the meeting on 22 June. Although they signed the letter dated 26 June believing they had approved the final report, the later amendments were made after they had signed the letter. The evidence is quite clear as to that. I turn to it.

On Friday, 26 June, Mr Selway received a request to advise the Department concerning the section in the Report dealing with the Christies Beach Shelter. The advice was required by the afternoon of Monday, 29 June. The advice had been sought by Dr Cornwall on behalf of the Department. Plainly, Mr Selway was, in truth, being asked to advise the Review Committee. The Review Committee wished to deliver the Report to Dr Cornwall as quickly as possible. It was important that they should do so because Dr Cornwall was intending to leave for a trip overseas on 7 July and he wished to have the matter dealt with by Cabinet before he left.

Mr Selway prepared the advice over the weekend. The minute of that advice was delivered to the Department on 29 June. It was handed to Ms Summers who in turn handed it to Ms Anderson. Although the advice was addressed to Ms Vardon as Director-General of the Department, it seems clear that she did not see the advice. She does not recall ever seeing it.

Privilege was waived in respect of Mr Selway's advice. He advised that the proposed publication of the Report did not give rise to liability in defamation even though the Department did not have sufficient information to prove the relevant allegations. In giving that advice, Mr Selway said that he had assumed that the allegations as to mismanagement and inadequate financial controls could be proved. He was aware that the Department did not have sufficient information to prove the allegations of improper behaviour, including theft and sexual harassment. Significantly, he assumed that malice was not present. I later find that was not the position. The advice was as follows:

"1. I am asked to urgently advise as to the possible liability in defamation if a draft report into the Women's Shelter at Christies Beach were to be published.

(a) The Minister has established a Committee to review the administration of Women's Shelters.

(b) That Committee has engaged an independent consultant to assist the Committee in such review.

(c) The Consultant has prepared the draft Report.

(d) It is proposed that the Committee will adopt the Report and forward it to the Minister.

(e) It is proposed that the Minister will submit the Report to Cabinet.

(f) It is proposed that the Minister will table the Report in Parliament.

(g) It is proposed that the Minister and Departmental officers will publish the Report to Women's Shelters and other interested bodies including the media.

3. The Report deals with various problems at the Women's Shelter. In particular:

(a) Mismanagement and inadequate financial controls. These are detailed in the Report. I assume that the particular matters identified could be proved.

(b) Allegations of improper behaviour including theft and sexual harassment. The allegations primarily relate to the Administrator. These allegations are being investigated by the police and the Corporate Affairs Commission. Without prejudging those investigations, I understand that the Department does not have sufficient information to prove any of those allegations.

4. Given the urgency of this request for advice, I will deal with the legal issues in a summary way:-

(a) In my view the Consultant has a duty to report to the Committee and the Committee has a duty to receive the Report; similarly the Committee has a duty to report to the Minister and the Minister has a duty to receive it; ditto for the Minister and Cabinet. In these circumstances, each of the Consultant, the Committee and the Minister has a qualified privilege in respect of that publication and will not be liable in defamation unless the publication was actuated by malice. I assume that malice is not present.

(b) The Minister is protected by Parliamentary privilege for anything he says or does within the Legislative Council. He cannot be sued in defamation for tabling the Report in the House.

(i) Fair press reports of the proceedings (including the Report) are absolutely privileged and the press cannot be sued in defamation (section 7 of the Wrongs Act, 1936).

(ii) Other reports of the proceedings (e.g. by the Minister or the Department) have a qualified privilege i.e. the person publishing the information may be liable in defamation if it can be shown that the publication was actuated by malice. Again, I assume that malice is not present.

(d) Publication outside of these parameters may give rise to liability in defamation.

5. Against this background, it is my view that the proposed publication of the Report will not give rise to liability in defamation even if the Department does not have sufficient information to prove the relevant allegations.

(a) Even though one may be suspicious as to the Administrator's behaviour, the Minister may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to table a Report containing unsubstantiated allegations concerning the activities of an identifiable individual or group of individuals. This has obvious implications for civil liberties. It is, however, a question relating to the Minister's Parliamentary functions and I do not advise further concerning it.

(b) The Department and the Minister have two functions in this matter:

(i) As officers of the Crown they are responsible to ensure that the laws of the State are complied with. This function has been properly discharged. The Minister has caused the allegations to be investigated by the appropriate authorities.

(ii) They are responsible for the funding of the Shelter. In this case the Shelter has refused to sign the funding agreement and is guilty of proveable (sic) financial mismanagement. Whether or not the allegations of improper behaviour are true, it is my view that there is sufficient information available to the Department to justify the cessation of further funding to the Shelter. (In the absence of an agreement, such funding is discretionary in any event.)

7. Against this background, the Minister may feel that it is unnecessary for the material tabled in the Council to contain the detailed allegations of improper behaviour. On the other hand, the Minister may feel that it is appropriate to at least refer to those allegations and to the findings in the Report of the inadequacy of the Departmental response to them so that the Parliament may be kept fully informed.

8. It is not my place to draft the Committee's Report. However, I have taken the liberty of making some draft alterations to that Report. The effect of those alterations is that the allegations of improper behaviour are referred to but are not detailed. The draft alterations are made in pencil on the copy Report herein."

As Mr Selway confirmed in his evidence, the advice given in paragraphs 6 and 7 was intended to warn Dr Cornwall as to the consequences of using parliamentary privilege to publish unsubstantiated allegations. Mr Selway did not intend to state that the Minister should not publish those allegations. Instead, his purpose was to suggest that there may be other ways of dealing with them. As the last paragraph of the advice indicates, Mr Selway had made alterations to the Report. An examination of his alterations shows that he removed some of the more extreme allegations and softened the impact of others.

On 1 July, Mr Selway met some members of the Review Committee. He does not recall how many were present. I find that not all members of the Review Committee were present. Ms King, on her own evidence, was not present. She was not informed in June 1987 that advice on the Report had been obtained. She learned that fact some time later. I find that Ms Blake was not present since the meeting had obviously been arranged hastily and she would have had to come from Whyalla. Ms Johnson could not recall the meeting. I find she was not present. The fact that neither Ms Blake, Mr Johnson nor Ms King recollect meeting Mr Selway fortifies the conclusion that none of them was present. If they had been present, they would have remembered a fact as significant as a meeting with a legal adviser at a very late stage, after the letter transmitting the Report to Dr Cornwall had been signed. It was a significant event, particularly as a small part of the Report was deleted and other parts were amended. It was so unlike other meetings of the Review Committee that each would have remembered if they had been present - even at a distance of some 14 years.

I find, therefore, that only Mrs Roberts, Ms Wighton, and Ms Anderson were present. The meeting accepted Mr Selway's changes and, with his assistance, made further alterations to the Report.

It is not clear when the Report was delivered to Dr Cornwall. No-one has any precise recollection of that event. Plainly it had to be after Mr Selway had met Mrs Roberts, Ms Wighton and Ms Anderson. I find that it was delivered to Dr Cornwall on 1 July 1987. That is confirmed by the events noted in the next paragraph.

On 1 July 1987, Dr Cornwall sent a minute to the Premier seeking a waiver of the 10 day rule, a Cabinet directive, which requires submissions to Cabinet to be made at least 10 days before the meeting at which they are to be considered. The next meeting of Cabinet was to be held on 6 July. That was the last meeting of Cabinet before Dr Cornwall went overseas on 8 July. He wanted to deal with the matter before he left. Dr Cornwall's minute was in these terms:

"In view of the sensitive nature of this report, I request that it be submitted to Cabinet prior to my departure overseas.

As investigation into one shelter has commenced, there is some possibility of public reaction prior to my return. I believe it is essential that members of Cabinet are familiar with the Report should this occur.

Because of the need for the Review Committee to approve the final Report and seek legal advice on the contents, it was not possible for the Report to be submitted 10 days prior to Cabinet meeting.

The 10 day rule was not waived. The minute shows Dr Cornwall's assessment that the Report might result in political agitation. The minute also proves that the Report had then been delivered to Dr Cornwall since he could not expect Cabinet to consider it unless it had been first delivered to him.

On 7 July 1987, before leaving for his trip overseas, Dr Cornwall signed a minute to Cabinet recommending that the Report be noted and be approved for tabling in the Legislative Council in August. Dr Cornwall was to return to Adelaide on 7 August and resume his parliamentary duties on Monday, 10 August. The minute was considered at a meeting of Cabinet on 10 August. The minute to Cabinet does not seek Cabinet approval for a decision to withdraw funding. That was a decision which could only be made by Dr Cornwall jointly with the Commonwealth Minister.

As already mentioned, on 7 July, the day before he went overseas, Judith Roberts met Dr Cornwall and conferred with him. Mrs Roberts could not recall what was the business of that meeting.

I have already found that Dr Cornwall had decided in May that, subject to the concurrence of the Commonwealth Minister, funding would be withdrawn from Christies Beach. All that remained for him to decide was when the decision would be announced and that depended on the Report of the Review Committee being ready for publication. Only then could he seek the concurrence of his federal counterpart. By 1 July he had the Report in his hands and was ready to proceed. He wished to table the Report and withdraw funding before he left to go overseas. However, he had been frustrated in that endeavour because he could not secure a waiver of the 10 day rule. He therefore took the steps necessary to enable the matter to be placed before Cabinet as soon as he returned. That is apparent from the fact that on 7 July 1987 he had signed the minute to Cabinet recommending that the Report be noted and be approved for tabling in the Legislative Council. The signing of that minute shows he had decided when to announce his decision. There was no other point in doing so. Although the Department would, as a matter of course, continue to process matters while its Minister was overseas, that does not explain the coincidence of Dr Cornwall's return to his parliamentary duties on 10 August and the fact that the minute was before Cabinet on the very same day. I do not accept Dr Cornwall's evidence to the effect that he did not put the arrangements in place before he left. The conclusion that the timetable had been put in place before Dr Cornwall went overseas is confirmed by Ms King's report dated 5 August 1987 to the first Assistant Secretary of her Department in which she said that Dr Cornwall was "expected to return to SA on 11 August and tabling of the Report is to occur on that day or at least in that Parliamentary week". Although she was slightly inaccurate as to dates, the substance is correct. In addition, the Department took the formal steps to enable the decision to be announced. Before scrutinising those steps, it is necessary to note other events in July.

As at 1 July 1987 only two shelters, Christies Beach and North Adelaide, had not signed the Financial Agreement. The offer to sign it had been withdrawn from both. Both shelters had deficits. The Minister had promised to meet representatives of both shelters to discuss funding once the report of the Review Committee had been published. The effect of the Department's letter of 15 May was that, if either signed the Financial Agreement, the decision whether to accept it was effectively for Dr Cornwall to make.

On 6 July the North Adelaide Shelter informed the Department that it was willing to sign the Financial Agreement. According to a minute from Ms Vardon to Dr Cornwall dated 6 August 1987, the reasons given for this change in attitude were:

"(a) The shelter was faced with large rent and workers' compensation bills which could not be paid on the current $7,000 per fortnight payment.

(b) The shelter does agree with the need for a financial undertaking and has always been happy to comply with this, but initially refused to make a point on the allocation of new monies in the 1986-87 financial year. Ms Balendran stated that 'in retrospect' this was not appropriate action.

(c) Ms Balendran agreed to write to you requesting permission to sign the Agreement."

In that minute Ms Vardon recommended that the Minister accede to the request. I will return to this minute.

On or about 12 or 13 July, the Christies Beach Shelter learned that North Adelaide intended to sign the Financial Agreement. I find that the Shelter decided to sign the Agreement because it did not wish to be left out in the cold. An appointment had been made for Ms Vardon to visit the Christies Beach Shelter on 13 July but Ms Vardon cancelled the meeting at the last minute. She informed Dr Baum and Ms McSkimming that there would be no negotiations with her until after the investigations had been completed. In her evidence, Ms Vardon gave two reasons for her action. The first was that Ms Wighton had said to her that the meeting on 11 June had got nowhere and that the Shelter was going over her head anyway. That was an inadequate reason given the nature of the meeting on 11 June. Her second reason was that she shared Ms Wighton's view concerning the funding of the Shelter. Both reasons are unsatisfactory. I find that she decided not to visit the Shelter because the Department and the Minister had by then decided to withdraw funding. There was no point in negotiating as that decision had already been made.

On 14 July 1987, Helen McSkimming telephoned Ms Vardon to inform her of the Christies Beach Shelter's disappointment that the meeting for 13 July had been cancelled. She also informed Ms Vardon that the Shelter wished to sign the Financial Agreement. Ms Vardon told her that the Shelter would have to write to the Minister seeking his consent. In her evidence, Ms Vardon explained that she said this because decisions about funding could only be made by the Minister. Ms Vardon's response to Christies Beach contrasted with her response only a week earlier to the information she had received that North Adelaide wished to sign the Financial Agreement. As is apparent from the minute to Dr Cornwall of 6 August recommending that he accept the agreement signed by North Adelaide, the Department was quite receptive to it. I repeat, Ms Vardon did not wish to meet representatives of the Christies Beach Shelter because the decision had already been made to withdraw funding.

The Christies Beach Shelter decided to take up Ms Vardon's suggestion and wrote to Dr Cornwall. By letter dated 23 July 1987, the Management Committee of the Christies Beach Shelter informed him that it was willing to sign the Agreement. Their reasons for doing so were stated in the letter which read:

"I am writing on behalf of the Management Committee on the matter of the signing of the Agreement.

We received correspondence dated July 11, 1987, which explained that we would not be able to receive our one-off grant for 1986/87 which has been allocated to this shelter until the issue of the signing of the Agreement is resolved. The committee is most concerned that these funds are to be withheld, particularly those which have been allocated for a replacement van. We consider our current van, now 5 years old, to be unsafe and unreliable. During the recent Vacation Care Program the vehicle leaked considerable amounts of water into the cabin, causing children and their belongings to become damp. We are also urgently in need of the other items approved for the one-off grant. We have, in fact, already had to replace some office chairs as the old ones were extremely dangerous, and now need reimbursement of that amount.

Fortnightly funding, while allowing us to continue operating, has made it impossible for us to plan and budget our finances over any extended period, and has prevented the shelter from addressing long-term needs or replacement of major items. We are finding it increasingly difficult to manage funds efficiently in this manner.

We are therefore requesting that the offer for this shelter to sign the agreement, which was withdrawn in your letter dated May 15, 1987, be re-instated. While we are not satisfied with current funding arrangements and wish to discuss them fully with you at the proposed meeting with all shelters next month, we consider we have no option but to make this request, in order to alleviate our financial restraints and enable us to plan for the long term needs of the shelter.

We ask you to favourably consider this request. We are signing this document under extreme pressure, but in consideration of the needs of the hundreds of women and children who use our service each year in times of crisis, and for whom we provide an essential service.

A copy of the signed agreement is enclosed with this request, in anticipation of your favourable reply, as we require an urgent resolution of our financial situation."

The letter was signed by Dr Baum. It was received in Dr Cornwall's office on 27 July. Although the letter stated that the signed Agreement was enclosed, it was not the Financial Agreement but the Undertaking which the Committee had signed. In addition, the management committee had deleted the proviso to cl 3 which limited the amount which could be transferred from one budget line to another. The document was thus in the same form as the document which had been signed by the Para Districts Shelter and had been accepted by the Department in August 1986.

Shortly after, in a letter dated 27 July 1987, the North Adelaide Shelter informed Dr Cornwall that it was willing to sign the Financial Agreement and enclosed the signed Agreement. The North Adelaide Shelter did not alter the document. The letter was in these terms:

"We are writing to inform you of our willingness to sign the 'Agreement'. Please find enclosed a signed Agreement in this regard. We believe the signed Agreement between ourselves and the government will assist us to maintain our credibility and high standard of service to the Community. We believe it will assist us to get on with the job of assisting the public and accounting for the public funds we receive."

Neither the letter from the Christies Beach Shelter nor the fact that it had signed the undertaking persuaded Dr Cornwall to depart from his decision to withdraw funding. Plainly, he did not see either document until he returned from overseas, presumably on 10 August when he returned to work and not long before the Cabinet meeting. He would not have been disposed to change his mind at that late stage.

To summarise, Ms Vardon dealt with the two shelters in quite a different manner in July and August 1987. Ms Vardon was willing to deal with the North Adelaide Shelter but not with the Christies Beach Shelter because it had already been decided to withdraw funding from the Christies Beach Shelter. Despite her protestations in her evidence that the Department was anxious that all shelters should sign the Financial Agreement, the proffering by the Christies Beach Shelter of the signed undertaking, albeit with the proviso deleted, did not cause anyone in the Department to seek to persuade it to sign the Financial Agreement instead. Ms Vardon's note of her telephone conversation with Ms McSkimming shows that she knew that the Shelter intended to sign the Financial Agreement. Not even knowledge of that fact caused her to ask the Shelter to sign the Agreement. Ms Vardon also relied on the fact that the Shelter had signed the undertaking and not the Financial Agreement and had also deleted the proviso. I do not accept that evidence. The fact that the undertaking bound the Shelter more strictly than the Financial Agreement, even with the proviso deleted, could not have escaped the attention of the Department. After all, the undertaking was the Department's original document. Furthermore, the Department had already accepted signed undertakings with the proviso deleted from at least two other shelters.

By a minute to Dr Cornwall dated 6 August 1987, Ms Vardon recommended that he accept the request of North Adelaide to sign the Financial Agreement. As will be seen, no such recommendation was made with respect to the Christies Beach Shelter. I will later examine the reason for this difference in attitude.

While Dr Cornwall was overseas, Mr Greg Crafter acted as Minister for Community Welfare. On 5 August Ms Vardon sent a minute to the Minister recommending that funding be withdrawn from the Christies Beach Shelter, that an interim management committee be established to run a new shelter and be funded for a period of three months, and that the Department negotiate with the existing management committee in an attempt to transfer the assets of the Shelter to the new shelter. The minute was in these terms:

That following the recommendations of the review of the management and administration of women's shelters, you approve of the defunding of the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc as of 4/9/87 and that you write to the Minister for Community Services seeking his concurrence.

On 26th November last year, you announced a review into the management and administration of women's shelters in South Australia. The review is now completed and the department has prepared a detailed response to each of the recommendations. There is, however, one recommendation which requires urgent attention. The Review Committee recommended that: 'in view of the mal-administration, both historically and currently, of this shelter and in view of the uncertainty as to whether services to clients are both fully available and appropriate' SAAP funding should be withdrawn. The department concurs with this recommendation.

The department has been concerned for some time about management practices and administration of the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc, together with complaints alleging unprofessional behaviour of certain staff at the shelter. The committee reviewing the administration of women's shelters received further allegations in the course of its work, conducted enquiries and reviewed the files of the department. The report raised a number of matters of serious concern. These concerns involve poor administrative practices over several years and allegations of serious professional misconduct made by certain clients and staff of the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc and by other workers in the district. These allegations and other information have been made available to the Commissioner of Police and the Commissioner of Corporate Affairs, both of whom have instigated investigations, which are proceeding.

As mentioned above, the department has for some time been seriously concerned about the lack of accountability and poor management practices of the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc. They have continuously overspent their budget and have not been prepared to undertake proper budgetary and accounting procedures so as to ensure proper care is taken of the government funds. The shelter has continually refused to sign a financial undertaking, which undertaking would bind the shelter to spend government funds for the purposes for which they were granted. Their failure to sign the financial undertaking is a serious breach of the Commonwealth/State Guidelines and, together with their failure to respond adequately to the department's request for proper accounting practices and their long-standing deficits, are the basis for the department now recommending that funds be withdrawn from the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc., as of 4/9/87.

The Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc has considerable assets, the majority of which have been purchased with government funds. These include a vehicle and various items of equipment and furnishings. The buildings and fixed assets are the property of the South Australian Housing Trust. The equipment and furnishings etc are the property of the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc and the department has received legal advice that the disposal or transfer of such assets if the prerogative of the Management Committee, or, in the event of the organisation winding up, on a vote of 2/3 of the members of the Association.

It would clearly be in the best interests of the clients for there to be a smooth transfer of all equipment and property to a new interim Management Committee to be appointed to run the service for a 12-month period to allow all matters to be settled and a new Management Committee to be established. To this end the department will negotiate with the present Management Committee in an attempt to seek their co-operation in affecting a smooth transfer of assets.

The employment status of current staff is the responsibility of the current Management Committee who would need to act appropriately, according to the information and finances available to them. The department's officers are prepared to assist the Committee, if requested, to minimise the impact on staff, bearing in mind that investigations are being undertaken which may have implications for one or more staff members. Withdrawing funds as of 4/9/87 will allow the Management Committee to give staff 3 weeks' notice.

To effect the smoothest possible transition, the department will recommend to you the appointment of an interim Management Committee which will be in a position to receive the SAAP funding currently allocated to the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc. The department will assist this Committee to provide a service, initially through Crisis Care, and will second a Senior Project Officer to the Committee to act as an interim administrator of the new service. In co-operation with the interim Management Committee, this person will be responsible for the establishment of a service to ensure that the needs of clients are met during this period.

The South Australian Housing Trust has several houses available for accommodating women and children and the department will make other necessary arrangements, eg, furnishings.

1. That SAAP funding for the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc be withdrawn as of 4/9/87 and that concurrence for this de-funding be sought from the Minister assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health. A draft letter is attached.

2. That an interim Management Committee be set up immediately for the purpose of establishing a new centre and giving oversight of the management of the service and that up to 3 month's funding from the funds now allocated to the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc be made available to this interim Management Committee at the discretion of the department.

3. That the department negotiate with the current Management Committee in an attempt to secure the assets for the future use of women and children, victims of domestic violence."

It will be noticed that the minute did not mention the fact that Christies Beach had signed the undertaking. Mr Crafter, as acting Minister, approved the minute. I find that Mr Crafter's involvement was merely a formality as the decision to withdraw funding had been made in May and, before leaving on his trip overseas, Dr Cornwall had on 7 July signed the minute to Cabinet recommending that the Report be tabled. Mr Crafter did not, therefore, have to make any decisions. They had already been made. He simply had the formal task of signing the minute and the letter. Thus, Ms Vardon had recommended that the Minister accept the Financial Agreement signed by North Adelaide but did not accept the undertaking signed by Christies Beach, notwithstanding that it was in the same terms as that which had been signed by Para Districts and notwithstanding that it bound the shelter more stringently than did the Financial Agreement which had been signed by North Adelaide.

On the same day, Mr Crafter signed a letter dated 5 August 1987 to Senator Ryan, the Minister assisting the Commonwealth Minister for Community Services and Health, which sought her concurrence to withdraw funding from the Christies Beach Shelter.

"I write to seek your concurrence with my decision to withdraw SAAP funding from the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc as of 4th September, 1987.

On 26/11/86 I established a review of the management and administration of women's shelters in South Australia, chaired by Mrs Judith Roberts, past Chairperson of S.A.C.O.S.S. The Committee included Ms Robyn King, Senior Assistant Director, Commonwealth Department of Community Services, and was assisted by an independent consultant, Ms Harrison Anderson.

This review was necessary because of my serious concerns about the administration of some women's shelters in South Australia, particularly their financial management and accountability.

The review found that 'the majority of South Australian women's shelters are well-managed facilities which, through the double bonus of dedicated and compassionate staff and responsible management, provide an essential service for women and children suffering the devastating effects of violence, rape, incest, homelessness and poverty.' The review, however, highlights serious concerns about the management of one shelter ... the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc.

The Review Committee, during the course of its investigation, became seriously concerned about the administration of the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc. The review recommended that 'in view of the maladministration, both historic and current, of this shelter, and in view of the uncertainty as to whether services to clients are both fully available and appropriate, the Review Committee recommends that funding be withdrawn'.

My Department has for some time been seriously concerned about the lack of accountability and poor management practices of the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc. They have continuously overspent their budget and have not been prepared to undertake proper budgetary and accounting procedures so as to ensure proper care is taken of the government funds. The shelter has continually refused to sign a financial undertaking, which undertaking would bind the shelter to spend government funds for the purposes for which they were granted. The failure to sign the financial undertaking is a serious breach of the Commonwealth/State Guidelines and, together with their failure to respond adequately to the Department's request for proper accounting practices, and their long-standing deficits, are the basis for my now seeking your concurrence with my decision that funding be withdrawn as of 4th September, 1987.

In order to minimise the effect that this decision will have on clients, it is my intention to establish an interim management committee to receive the SAAP funding currently allocated to the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc. and establish an alternate service. As an interim measure, my Department will assist this committee and will second a senior project officer to the committee to act as interim Administrator of the new service. The South Australian Housing Trust has several houses available in the area and my Department will make other necessary arrangements, e.g. furnishings. This may require some non-housing capital expenditure from re-allocated savings from other areas of SAAP.

I also therefore seek your concurrence with the redirection of the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc. recurrent funds to a new interim management committee.

I am informed that officers of both our Departments have been monitoring these issues very closely and will continue to work together to re-establish a service in the southern areas of Adelaide as cost effectively as possible.

It is my intention to table the Review of the Management and Administration of Women's Shelters in the South Australian Legislative Council as soon as possible following commencement of the Budget Sitting on 11/8/87. In tabling the report, I wish also to announce our joint acceptance of the Committee's recommendation that funding be withdrawn from the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc and also that a new service will be established in that area. Since this is a matter of considerable delicacy, I seek your urgent concurrence with these decisions."

That letter, like the minute signed by Mr Crafter, failed to recount the facts fully in that it did not mention that the Christies Beach Shelter had signed the undertaking with the proviso deleted and did not mention the call from Mr McSkimming to Ms Vardon on 14 July. Furthermore, the request to concur in the decision to withdraw funding was made notwithstanding that the fact that the Christies Beach Shelter had signed the undertaking which bound it more strictly than the Financial Agreement.

Dr Cornwall returned to work on Monday, 10 August. That day he attended a Cabinet meeting at which Cabinet approved his minute signed by him on 7 July recommending that the Report of the Review Committee be noted and that it be approved for tabling. The recommendation was in these terms:

4.1 The Report of the Review of the Administration of Women's Shelters be noted.

4.2 The Report be approved for tabling in the Legislative Council in August."

During the day, Dr Cornwall was briefed on developments concerning the Christies Beach Shelter. He had not had an opportunity to see the letter from the Christies Beach Shelter enclosing the signed financial undertaking before 10 August. It is reasonable to infer, as I do, that at this briefing he was informed that North Adelaide had signed the Financial Agreement. Ms Vardon's minute recommending that he accept the Agreement signed by North Adelaide was dated 6 August. Dr Cornwall approved the recommendation on 12 August, the day after he had announced that funds be withdrawn from Christies Beach. Dr Cornwall sought to justify his decision to accept the North Adelaide document and reject the Christies Beach document on the ground that Christies Beach had signed the wrong document and had deleted the proviso. For reasons I later express, I do not accept that evidence.

Dr Cornwall did not on either 11 or 12 August make any inquiry as to the progress of the investigations by the police and CAC. For reasons which appear shortly, had he done so, he would have learned that there was little, if any, evidence to support the unsubstantiated allegations.

On 11 August, Dr Cornwall telephoned Senator Ryan to seek her consent to withdraw funding from the Christies Beach Shelter. Before that call, Senator Ryan had been briefed by her staff. Senator Ryan's major concern was that Dr Cornwall assure her that another shelter would be established in place of the Christies Beach Shelter. He gave that assurance. He also told her that his reasons for withdrawing funding were the failure of the Shelter to sign the Financial Agreement and its continued incurring of deficits. He did not tell her that the Christies Beach Shelter had signed an altered form of the undertaking. Senator Ryan agreed with the decision. Senator Ryan's evidence, which I accept, was that Dr Cornwall said that the matter was urgent in that he had the Report and wanted to act quickly. There was in truth no urgency. The timing was of Dr Cornwall's own choosing.

The plaintiff alleged that Senator Ryan had some antipathy towards her. I find that none existed.

Shortly after 2.15pm on the afternoon of 11 August, Dr Cornwall sought and obtained leave from the Legislative Council to make a Ministerial Statement. In the course of that statement, he summarised the Report of the Review Committee and announced that funding would be withdrawn from the Christies Beach Shelter on 4 September 1987. Referring to the shelter he said:

"During the course of its review, the committee became seriously concerned about the administration of the Christies Beach Women's Shelter. Concerns about deficiencies in financial management, unacceptable management practices and a number of unsubstantiated allegations of professional and personal misbehaviour were forwarded to me. These allegations and other information have been referred to the Commissioner of Police and the Commissioner of Corporate Affairs, both of whom have instigated investigations which are proceeding. The Review Committee further recommended that 'in view of the maladministration, both historic and current, of this shelter and in view of uncertainty as to whether services to clients are both fully available and appropriate' funding be withdrawn. In accordance with the recommendation, funding of the Christies Beach Women's Shelter will be withdrawn from 4 September 1987, and the Department of Community Welfare is making contingency arrangements for the provision of services for women and children in crisis in the southern area previously covered by the shelter."

Later that day, Ms Adrienne Summers visited the shelter and handed to the management committee a letter dated 11 August 1987 informing it of the decision to withdraw funding. The letter was in these terms:

"I have tabled the Review Report on the Management and Administration of Women's Shelters in Parliament today.

During the course of its investigation, the Review Committee had serious concerns about the administration of the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc. The Review recommended that -

'In view of the maladministration, both historic and current, of this shelter [Christies Beach] and in view of uncertainty as to whether services to clients are both fully available and appropriate, the Review Committee recommends that funding be withdrawn'.

I concur with this recommendation and wish to advise that funding for the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc will cease as of 4th September, 1987.

It is essential that services continue to be provided for women and children in crises and the Department for Community Welfare is making contingency arrangements for this. Officers of the Department will maintain contact with you during this period of transition."

There was a dispute whether on that occasion Ms Summers handed the management committee a copy of the Report. Ms Summers visited the Shelter again on 12 August together with Mr Bicknell. Certainly, the Shelter received a copy of the Report by 12 August. Nothing turns on this issue.

The publication of the Report in the Legislative Council was reported on at least the ABC News and other television programs on the night of 11 August. It was reported on the front page of The Advertiser on 12 August under the headline, "Christies Shelter to close over allegations".

On the evening of 12 August, two television stations broadcast reports including interviews with Mrs Roberts and a representative of the Christies Beach Shelter. The first was a report on a program called "State Affair" broadcast by Television Broadcasters Limited on what was then Channel 7 and is now Channel 10. The report took the form of an interview involving both Mrs Roberts and Dr Baum which was broadcast as the interview occurred. The second interview was broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in its program called The 7.30 Report. That report consisted of extracts of previously recorded interviews with Mrs Roberts and Ms McSkimming. In both reports a number of the unsubstantiated allegations were repeated. I will deal later with the plaintiff's claims for defamation arising out of these two broadcasts.

The decision to withdraw funding had the inevitable consequence that the Shelter had to close. Its very existence depended on government funding. It ceased operations on 4 September 1987. Its work was taken over by a different shelter and management committee at different premises. None of the staff of the Christies Beach Shelter were employed in the replacement shelter.

The Shelter attempted to get Dr Cornwall to reverse his decision but those attempts were unsuccessful. On 14 August, Dr Baum wrote a long letter to Dr Cornwall protesting that the decision to withdraw funding had been made without giving the management committee an opportunity to respond to the unsubstantiated allegations. She then set out her response to the criticisms in the Report. She asked Dr Cornwall to reconsider his decision. She followed up that letter with a telephone request to Ms Pengelly to ask the Minister to meet the management committee of the Shelter. On 20 August, Dr Cornwall met some of the management committee at the Shelter. However, he was unwilling to review his decision. The meeting, essentially, was concerned with the management of the winding-up of the Shelter. He confirmed his refusal to review his decision in a letter dated 21 August.

The staff at Christies Beach co-operated with Mr Bicknell and other officers of the staff in facilitating the transfer of the service to the replacement shelter and arranging for the transfer of residents to that shelter.

On 27 August, the management committee wrote to the plaintiff informing her of the withdrawal of funding and terminating her employment as from 4 September. Similar letters were written to other members of the staff. There was a degree of evidence concerning the financial arrangements in relation to the winding-up of the Shelter. It is unnecessary to examine them. It is sufficient to note that some financial assistance was received by the Shelter from the State Government to wind up its affairs. The incorporated association was formally wound up at a special general meeting on 17 September 1995. However, it did not operate as a women's shelter after 4 September 1987.

The decision to withdraw funding prompted protests from other shelters and other individuals. In addition, the United Trades and Labor Council wrote to Dr Cornwall. I will refer to these later. After the Shelter had closed, members of the staff of the Shelter other than the plaintiff wrote letters to politicians complaining of the decision and seeking compensation. Ms McSkimming wrote a number of letters in 1987 and 1988. None of the letters resulted in any compensation to members of the staff. Ultimately, some members of the staff instituted legal proceedings. They agreed a compromise of their claims. The plaintiff commenced this action in June 1990.

Investigation by the CAC resulted in the prosecution of the plaintiff as well as Ms McSkimming and Ms Lachlan. Although the charges were proved, the learned magistrate found the offences to be trifling and did not record a conviction. It might be said that the investigation began with a bang and ended with whimper. Before noting those events, it is necessary to examine two prior dealings between the Shelter and the CAC.

In 1985 the Associations Incorporation Act 1956 was repealed and replaced by the Associations Incorporation Act 1985. That Act introduced new requirements for reporting by associations and came into force on 1 July 1985. The CAC had published an advertisement in the press on 5 July 1985 concerning the new requirements. It was read by Ms McSkimming. She was concerned to know whether the Shelter was reporting in the manner required by the new legislation. On the same day, she rang and then wrote to the CAC to seek further information. The CAC replied on 22 July 1985 enclosing a booklet. On receiving that letter, she purchased a copy of the Act. Thereafter, she pursued the matter with Mr Griffiths, an officer of the CAC. Her evidence was that she could not get a definitive answer to her questions. I accept her evidence.

The enquiries made by Ms McSkimming show that the Shelter had a responsible attitude in that she was seeking information and wishing to comply with the requirements of the 1985 Act. It may be that she did not fully understand what was required but the fact that she made enquiries of the CAC bespeaks a willingness to comply.

The next dealings between the Christies Beach Shelter and the CAC concerned the appointment of the Shelter's auditor. The management committee of the Shelter had appointed a Ms Maunder as auditor of its accounts for the year ending 30 June 1986. The annual statements, as audited by Ms Maunder, were lodged as the periodic return of the Shelter. On 13 May 1987, the CAC questioned the appointment of Ms Maunder as auditor on the ground that she did not have the prescribed qualifications. Ms McSkimming replied on 2 June 1987 stating Ms Maunder's qualifications and applying for Ms Maunder to be approved as auditor. The person to whom Ms McSkimming spoke in relation to the qualifications of Ms Maunder as auditor was again Mr Griffiths. The application was being considered by the CAC at the same time as it had begun to investigate the Shelter in response to Dr Cornwall's request. On 16 June 1987, the CAC noted that it was necessary to co-ordinate the inquiry as to Ms Maunder's qualifications with the broader inquiry into the Shelter. By letter dated 9 July 1987, the CAC informed the Christies Beach Shelter that Ms Maunder did not have the appropriate qualifications as auditor and recommended the appointment of another auditor in her place. However, the CAC did not then require a fresh audit.

In the meantime, the CAC's broader investigation of the Shelter continued. The plaintiff was interviewed by Detective Gibb on 6 August 1987 in the presence of her solicitor. Ms McSkimming and Ms Lachlan were also present and they too were interviewed. The plaintiff did not exercise her right to silence. She answered all questions, often quite fully. The questions largely concerned the Shelter's savings account in which donations to the Shelter were deposited.

On 17 August, Detective Gibb reported to the CAC that the investigation had not disclosed any evidence of criminal offences or any criminal misuse of funds by any person at the Shelter. It is fair to state that he was critical of some aspects of the financial processes of the Shelter and suggested reforms. However, he also reported that the plaintiff, Ms McSkimming, and Ms Lachlan had been reported for breaches of s 57(1) of the Associations Incorporation Act in respect of a Savings Bank donations account which had not been included in the periodic returns to the CAC. The results of the CAC enquiries were sent by letter from the police dated 31 August 1987 to the Department of Community Welfare. It was received by the Department on 7 September.

On 29 September 1987, the plaintiff, Ms McSkimming, and Ms Lachlan were charged on complaint with two offences against s 35 and s 57(1) of the Associations Incorporation Act. I set out the provisions in s 35 relevant to this action.

" 35. (1) An incorporated association to which this Division applies shall keep its accounting records in such a manner as will enable-

(a) the preparation from time to time of true and fair accounts of the association;

(b) the accounts of the association to be conveniently and properly audited in accordance with this Division.

(2) An incorporated association to which this Division applies shall, as soon as practicable after the end of a financial year of the association, cause accounts in respect of the financial year to be prepared and audited by a registered company auditor, a firm of registered company auditors, a member of the Australian Society of Accountants, a member of The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia or such other person who may be approved by the Commission as an auditor of the accounts of the association for the purposes of this section.

"If a member of the committee of an incorporated association fails to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance by the association with its obligations under this Act, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars."

The first offence charged was against s 35(1) and s 57(1). It was alleged that the Shelter had failed to include the donations account in its financial records and, therefore, had failed to keep its accounting records in such manner as would enable

(a) preparation from time to time of true and fair accounts of the Shelter; and

(b) the accounts of the Shelter to be conveniently and properly audited in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

The investigation into the books of the Shelter had, therefore, found only one discrepancy. The second offence charged was against s 35(2) and s 57(1). It was alleged that the Shelter did not cause its accounts to be audited for the year ending 30 June 1986 by an authorised auditor. The charge related to the fact that Ms Maunder was not a duly qualified auditor. Given the fact that Ms McSkimming had applied for approval of Ms Maunder as auditor, this appears to be an unnecessarily vigorous response by the CAC, a view confirmed by subsequent events.

The plaintiff, Ms McSkimming, and Ms Lachlan appeared before the Christies Beach Magistrates Court on 26 October 1987 and the hearing of the complaints was adjourned to 27 April 1988. The matter resumed on that date before Mr Ackland SM. The three women pleaded not guilty. The hearing was completed on 27 April. Mr Ackland SM reserved judgment. On 1 June 1988 he delivered his judgment. He found the offences proved but held that they were trifling. He did not, therefore, record a conviction. He made no order as to costs, stating that it would be unfair to order the three women to pay costs. In his reasons, the learned magistrate said that he reluctantly reached the conclusion that the two counts had been proved, stating that they were technical offences. He noted that the prosecution had expressly stated that there was no allegation of misappropriation of funds. He added:

"In my opinion, if the allegations before me are the only substantial allegations of wrongdoing made against the defendants, the not inconsiderable amount of money spent on this prosecution would have been better spent on the women and children for whose support and protection this shelter was set up."

There was no challenge to these reasons. The magistrate's unwillingness to convict is hardly surprising, particularly given the fact that at the time the CAC commenced its investigations, Ms McSkimming was dealing with the CAC in relation to the qualifications of Ms Maunder as auditor. This was not an instance of a deliberate breach of the Act. The evidence also suggests that this had been the only prosecution ever under s 35(1) and (2) and s 57(1) of the Act.

The detailed police enquiries began on about 22 June. The officer in charge was Detective Chief Inspector Simons, as he then was. Documents had been supplied by the Department to the police. On 28 July and 4 September, police officers conducted long interviews with the plaintiff. The transcript of both interviews shows that she answered questions willingly and often quite fully. She denied the allegations put to her.

On 2 August 1987, Detective Anderson, one of the detectives involved in the investigation, sent a report to the Assistant Commissioner (Crime) of Police concerning his part of the investigation. It related to the allegations of financial mismanagement, an allegation that the plaintiff and others at the Shelter had used promises of gaining priority housing with the South Australian Housing Trust in return for sexual favours, and an allegation of doubtful counselling techniques and offensive behaviour to staff and residents of the Shelter. The detective recommended that no police action be initiated against any person in relation to the allegations. His report noted that the issue of financial mismanagement was being investigated by the CAC and he drew no conclusions in relation to that matter.

Detective Anderson commented in some detail on the allegations other than those of financial mismanagement. He said that there was no evidence to support the allegations that the plaintiff and others had used the promise of advancement on the priority housing list to elicit sexual favours. He added, "It appears extremely unlikely that such advancement is possible". In relation to the other allegations he reported that there was no evidence that counselling techniques were in any respect unlawful adding, "most ex-residents interviewed, were supportive of the Shelter staff". He did note that, whilst some witnesses were critical of the plaintiff's approach to clients and the counselling techniques, this depended on the viewpoint of the witnesses. He said:

"Many witnesses were critical of the length of time involved between the events described and the commencement of the investigation. Most were unsure of facts, because of the time lapse. Many were initially reluctant to re-open the matter at all, and much time had to be spent convincing these people of the need for them to make their views known.

It appears from many of the witnesses that Rowan is a forceful person who fights to the limit when she believes in her cause. She has been responsible for enforcing the rules by which the Shelter and associated houses are run. She is apparently a strong feminist.

These areas of activity would naturally bring her into occasional conflict with people, some of whom may have complained because of a feeling of personal animosity towards Rowan or her administration. There are many more persons who could be interviewed in relation to this enquiry, but there is no suggestion at this time, that their information would be any more fruitful than that already obtained from the enquiries made to date."

The report stated that police had interviewed approximately 60 persons during the investigation.

On 14 September 1987, Detective Chief Inspector Simons reported to the Assistant Commissioner (Crime) that there was no evidence of the commission of any criminal offences by the plaintiff or any other members of the Shelter staff. By that time, 78 persons had been interviewed. His report included the following comments on the allegations of sexual harassment, professional abuse in counselling sessions, and intimidatory tactics. His report concerned the same matters as had been the subject of Detective Anderson's report. It noted that the allegations of financial mismanagement were being attended to as part of the CAC investigation.

In respect of the allegation of advancement on the priority housing list in return for sexual favours he said:

"There is no direct evidence to support the allegation that the former Administrator Ms. Dawn ROWAN, or any other staff member, past or present, had offered sexual services in return for promotion of priority, on the South Australian Housing Trust 'Priority Housing List' ...

There is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that Ms. Dawn ROWAN, or any other staff member, past or present, had influenced the decision of the Priority Review Committee to either support an unjustified application or to decline an application which on its own merits should have succeeded. ...

The structure and composition of the Priority Review Committee, and the process of application procedures, is such that it is highly unlikely that any one person, e.g. Dawn ROWAN as the S.A.C.O.S.S. representative, could significantly favour an unjustified application or alternatively disadvantage one which should on its merits succeed ...

The majority of persons interviewed, including members of the Priority Review Committee, were supportive of the work in this area by Dawn ROWAN and other staff members and had no complaints concerning her involvement in either the application process or as representative on the Committee."

In relation to the allegations of inappropriate counselling and harassment, his report contained detailed comments which might be summarised by stating that the allegations lacked detail and were unsubstantiated or there was otherwise insufficient evidence. He noted that some of the allegations related to conduct as far back as 1982 and that there was reluctance by some to relate information concerning events which had occurred so long before. The delay also meant that many were unable to provide precise details.

On 23 September, the Commissioner of Police sent the report of Detective Simons to Ms Vardon. It was received the next day.

I have set out the comments made by the investigating officers because they represent such a different picture of the plaintiff and the staff of the Shelter from that presented in the Report. This is relevant because this kind of picture was already emerging on 2 August 1987 in Detective Anderson's report. That report was made eight days before the Cabinet meeting on 10 August. Had Dr Cornwall or any member of his staff or an officer of the Department asked the police for a progress report before the meeting of Cabinet, there is every likelihood that the enquirer would have been informed of Detective Anderson's views, even if that view was qualified by the fact that the investigations were not then complete. That would have sounded a real note of caution to the Department and Dr Cornwall. Ordinary fairness ought then to have caused Dr Cornwall to delay the release of the Report until the police investigations had been completed.

Such an enquiry may have also disclosed that Detective Gibb was reaching a similar view as to the allegations of financial mismanagement. Although his report is dated 14 August, it is likely that in the week preceding 10 August he would have had a preliminary view which could have been passed on to the Department and thence to Dr Cornwall.

When asked whether it was prudent to check the status of the CAC and police investigations before releasing the Report, Dr Cornwall replied "no" stating that the decision to withdraw funding had nothing to do with those investigations. I do not accept that answer. I reject it first because it is inconsistent with the fact that Dr Cornwall's reason on 11 August 1987 for withdrawing funding as expressed in his letter to the Shelter was the recommendation in the Report and that was based in part on the unsubstantiated allegations. Secondly, if in fact the decision to withdraw funding was unrelated to the allegations and their investigations, why were the allegations included in the Report?

Criticism of Dr Cornwall's decision to withdraw funding before the allegations had been investigated was voiced from time to time both in the Parliament and in the press. On 28 November 1987, a report appeared in The Advertiser of a resolution in the Legislative Council reported as condemning "Dr Cornwall for his peremptory and destructive action" in withdrawing funding from the Christies Beach Shelter. The article reported comments by Mr Elliott MLC and Ms Laidlaw MLC which were critical of Dr Cornwall. That report prompted letters to The Advertiser from Dr Cornwall and Mrs Roberts in reply. The letters were published on 5 December. The criticism continued to be voiced. It is apparent that staff in the Shelter had approached Mr Elliott seeking his assistance. On 6 April 1988, Mr Elliott moved that a Select Committee of the Legislative Council be established "to consider and report on the circumstances and the validity of claims made against the staff of the Christies Beach Women's Shelter which resulted in the withdrawal of funding from the Shelter". Dr Cornwall spoke in opposition to the motion. The motion was carried on 13 April.

There was a good deal of documentary evidence and some oral evidence concerning requests by the Select Committee for documents from the Department and the Attorney-General, including reports by the CAC and the police of their enquiries. I shall refer to that evidence later.

Written submissions were made by the plaintiff to the Select Committee, as well as by the staff and the management committee of the Shelter, by the Department, and by Ms Anderson. Oral submissions were made by the plaintiff and other members of the staff at Christies Beach, by Mrs Roberts and Ms Anderson, and by Ms Vardon on behalf of the Department. Evidence on behalf of the Department was also given by Ms Wighton, Mr Bicknell, and Ms Heath. Former members of the staff and management committee of the Christies Beach Shelter opposed to the plaintiff also gave evidence. They included Ms Oxenham and Ms Neverauskas.

The submission by the Department betrayed an unwillingness to accept the police report concerning their investigation of the unsubstantiated allegations. The submission sets out the allegations at some length. It does not indicate that there were few complainants. Although it refers to the police finding that no sufficient evidence existed, it does not set out the summaries of the state of the evidence quoted earlier in these reasons, which give quite a different picture.

The Select Committee reported on 11 April 1989. Its report is a helpful review of the events leading to the publication of the Report and of the nature of the unsubstantiated allegations and the background to them. The Committee expressed its concern that the unsubstantiated allegations were included in the Report and were used as a basis for recommending the withdrawal of funding. It concluded, after its investigation, that many of the allegations on pages 65 - 66 remained unsubstantiated. It condemned "in the strongest possible terms" the use of the unsubstantiated allegations in the Report. The Committee made a number of recommendations including recommendations to avoid the recurrence of such use of unsubstantiated allegations. It is unnecessary to set out the terms of the recommendations.

The publication of the report of the Select Committee prompted further protestation about the publication of the allegations and the withdrawal of funding. The former staff of the Shelter pressed claims for compensation. They included requests by the former staff of the Shelter, other than the plaintiff, for reinstatement. They wrote to the then Minister, the Deputy Premier and other Members of Parliament, both State and Federal. Other members of the public wrote enquiring as to the outcome and suggesting that the staff be compensated. The Department recommended that compensation be refused. In April 1989 Cabinet decided that compensation should not be paid.

Some of the staff of the Shelter then sought the assistance of the Ombudsman. Their complaint was that the Department had failed to give the Shelter and its staff adequate opportunity to respond to the unsubstantiated allegations. On 9 June 1989, the Ombudsman wrote to Ms Vardon, as the chief executive of the Department, listing the individual complaints and seeking an explanation from the Department. Ms Vardon replied on 11 July. It is unnecessary to comment on the letter except to note two things. The first is that it is one of a number of documents which stated that the reason for the decision to withdraw funding was not the unsubstantiated allegations but the Shelter's failure to sign the Agreement and its accumulation of deficits. The second is that, although the letter informed the Ombudsman that the Shelter had failed to sign the Financial Agreement, it failed to tell him that the Shelter had on 23 July 1987 written to the Minister with a signed copy of the undertaking with the proviso deleted. The Departmental statement that the Shelter failed to sign the Agreement was, strictly speaking, correct but the full facts would have been more fairly presented by referring to the Shelter's letter of 23 July.

On 15 November 1990, the Ombudsman sent his draft report on this matter to the Department for its comments pursuant to s 18(4) of the Ombudsman Act 1972. The report was critical of the Department in not recommending to the Minister that he give the Shelter an opportunity to respond before deciding to withdraw funding. However, he relied on the information in the Department's letter and concluded that, even if it had been heard, the Shelter would have had its funding withdrawn. As all of the staff other than the plaintiff had obtained other employment, he did not recommend payment of compensation.

The Ombudsman's conclusion that, even if the Shelter had been heard, the decision to withdraw funding would still have been made, is open to question. I am not satisfied the Ombudsman had all of the facts before him. I have already referred to the fact that the Department's letter did not present all facts. Furthermore, if the Shelter had been heard, the issues relating to the signing of the Financial Agreement may have been resolved, particularly given the degree of capitulation expressed in the Shelter's letter dated 23 July. Furthermore, as Ms McSkimming said, the Shelter was then minded to sign the Financial Agreement, given that North Adelaide had also decided to do so. However, it is unnecessary to determine this question. The issue for decision in this action is, not whether the Minister was correct in withdrawing funding from the Shelter, but concerns the use made of the unsubstantiated allegations, both in the Report and by the Minister.

The Department responded to the draft report by letter dated 21 November 1989. The response included a clear indication that the Departmental decision not to give the Shelter an opportunity to be heard resulted from Dr Cornwall's instruction and the fear of a political response by the Shelter described in the Department's letter as a "political outburst".

Ultimately, the Ombudsman decided not to proceed because he could not identify any practical remedy. He did, however, inform Ms Vardon that he believed that the Department had failed to act in two ways which were unreasonable and unjust, namely,

"(1) The Department's failure to advise formally and fully the management committee of the Christies Beach Women's Shelter of the concerns which the Department held about the operations of the Shelter. Because of this the Shelter was denied the opportunity to respond to those concerns.

(2) The Department's failure to advise the management committee of the Shelter that a likely or possible consequence of the concerns held by the Department and of the Shelter's failure to sign the financial agreement was that the Shelter would have its funding withdrawn."

He informed Ms McSkimming of his decision by letter written on the same day. His annual report for the year ending 30 June 1990, restated the views he had expressed in his letters of 1 May.

I have referred to the reports of the Select Committee and the Ombudsman as events which occurred prior to the institution of this action. They are part of the history and I refer to them simply as part of that history. I do not rely on the conclusions stated in the respective reports.

Reference has already been made to a meeting on 4 October 1983 between officers of the Department and the Christies Beach Shelter. It is necessary to note the issues discussed at that meeting as the events of that meeting and its outcome bear upon the issues in this action.

On 16 August 1983, the Department had received an audit of the Shelter's financial return for the quarter ended 30 June 1983 which was qualified in these terms:

"I was unable to verify the nature of 25 payments due to the absence of supporting vouchers, receipts or other documentary evidence."

In that same month, the Department received complaints about other defects of the administration of the Shelter. In addition, on 25 August 1983, Crisis Care, a unit of the Department of Community Welfare to which women went for urgent help and which referred women to shelters, had stated that Christies Beach had been refusing referrals since 11 July 1983, when it had moved premises. On 25 August, Ms Heath, who was then acting Adviser on Women and Welfare, referred these matters to her superior officer.

In consequence, the Department decided to meet the management committee of the Christies Beach Shelter to discuss three issues. On 15 September 1983 it wrote seeking a meeting and identifying the three issues in these terms:

"1. Queries regarding the current admission practices to the shelter, specifically as this Department's Crisis Care Unit has advised that no referrals have been accepted from that Unit since 11 July 1983.

2. The failure of the shelter's administration to provide a satisfactory audit statement detailing expenditure procedures.

The Shelter agreed to the meeting which was held on 4 October 1983. The Department was represented at the meeting by Mr Lewis, the Director, Community and Planning Services, of the Department who was obviously a senior officer in the Department, Mr Graham Billett, a senior finance officer, and Ms Heath. Ten members of the management committee of the Shelter were present. Four of the management committee were also staff and included the plaintiff. The Shelter responded to the Department's concerns. Other action was taken after the meeting. The Department's concerns and the Shelter's response are set out in minutes of the meeting which were signed on behalf of both the Department and the Shelter. Those minutes are Exhibit P4 and they are annexed as Appendix 2 to these reasons.

By December 1983 all three issues had been resolved to the satisfaction of the Department so that, on 14 December 1983, Mr Cox, the then Director-General of the Department, wrote to the Shelter stating that the issues had been clarified and that the objectives of the meeting on 4 October 1983 had been achieved. The letter included the minutes of the meeting which were described in the letter as "the report" of the meeting. The relevant part of the letter reads:

"It is clear from the report that the objectives of the meeting were achieved:

1. The queries regarding admission practices were satisfactorily resolved.

2. The issues regarding the audited statement were clarified and an audited statement was subsequently received by the Department.

3. The issue concerning study leave provisions was clarified.

I wish to thank the Management Committee for its assistance in this matter."

Clearly, the issues were resolved to the Department's satisfaction.

The Christies Beach Shelter complained at a meeting of WSAC and, through it to the Minister, that the meeting on 4 October had been held, calling it "an intimidatory investigation". It expressed the view that the three issues were trivial and could have been resolved "by other less intimidatory means". Ms Heath was present at the meeting of WSAC on 28 October. The response of the Shelter does appear to be overstated, since the only means by which the Department could ascertain the facts was to meet representatives of the Shelter. Perhaps it could have been done more informally through Shelter staff in the first place. It is unnecessary to decide what was the most appropriate means. My only purpose is to point to this matter as one of the instances of hostility which the Christies Beach Shelter perceived Ms Heath held towards it.

The minutes of the meeting of 4 October are quite detailed. They were seen by Mrs Roberts and Ms Anderson in the course of their work. I find that Ms Wighton had seen them and knew of them at the time of the review. Obviously, Ms Heath had seen them, and I find she also knew of them at the time of the review.

I deal with each of the three issues discussed at the meeting.

As already mentioned, the Shelter had moved to new premises at Damian Court, Christies Beach on 11 July 1983. It did not report the actual date of the move to the Department until 2 September. It should have done so more quickly. However, since at least November 1982, the Department was aware of the intended move and had been reminded of it in May 1983. Ms Heath, herself, had seen a minute from the Department of Housing in May 1983 referring to the move.

On 11 July 1983, the Shelter had informed Crisis Care that it would not take referrals because of the move for the period 11 July to 17 August. On 25 August, Crisis Care informed Ms Heath that the Shelter was still not taking referrals. On 6 September, Crisis Care informed Ms Heath that the Shelter had advised on 25 August that the Shelter was available for referrals but was fully occupied at that time and that it was still fully occupied as at 9 September. The Department raised these issues with the Shelter. Another issue concerned an allegation that the Shelter was being discriminatory in accepting referrals.

At the meeting on 4 October, the Shelter informed the Department that it had been operating throughout the move and had housed residents. It added that it had been fully occupied from 17 August. The Shelter also stated that the only women who were refused admission were women who were drunk or psychiatrically disturbed. It added that the Shelter did not discriminate against those without children. All of this is noted in the minutes of 4 October and, as mentioned already, the Department was satisfied with the explanation.

It seems that in 1983 the Shelter submitted to the Department audited accounts for each quarter as well as audited annual accounts. The Christies Beach Shelter had submitted its audited accounts for the quarter ending 30 June 1983. The auditor reported that the accounts represented a true and fair view of the transactions for that period subject to the following qualification:

"I was unable to verify the nature of 25 payments due to the absence of supporting vouchers, receipts or other documentary evidence."

The Department expressed its concern with the qualified audit and with the fact that the audit of the Shelter's annual return had not been received, despite two written requests in August and September 1983. The Department already had the qualified audit of the Shelter's return for the quarter ending 30 June 1983.

At the meeting, the Shelter explained that it could account for the 25 payments. Of those, 23 were payments to the Housing Trust for rent by the Shelter for housing accommodation for which it had receipts. The remaining two payments were for stamps ($13.00 each). The Shelter had sought a meeting with the auditor but he had declined. The Shelter informed the Department that it intended to change its auditor.

After the meeting, the Shelter explained the position to the auditor. Ms Heath, herself, spoke to auditor's secretary who informed her that the auditor had made a mistake. Ultimately, an unqualified audit was issued. At its annual general meeting on 25 October 1983, the Shelter resolved to change its auditor. Ms Heath was present by invitation at that meeting. Thus, the issues were resolved to the Department's satisfaction. What had initially appeared to be a serious matter was satisfactorily explained.

In 1982 and 1983 the plaintiff had been granted study leave by the management committee of the Christies Beach Shelter. She then undertook a course of study for the Bachelor's Degree in Social Administration at Flinders University. The Department believed that the plaintiff was a full-time student to the detriment of her work at the Shelter and while being paid as Administrator. At the meeting on 4 October 1983, the Shelter explained that the study involved two subjects each of two to three hours in each week with two and a half days per week on placement. Flinders University had approved her placement at the Shelter. The plaintiff had worked as Administrator while not at the University and was available for 24 hours in each day. The minutes of the meeting of 4 October record that the management committee of the Shelter was satisfied that the plaintiff was performing her duties as Administrator "satisfactorily and that there was no conflict between her study and work requirements". In his letter dated 14 December 1983, Mr Cox stated, "the issue concerning the study leave provisions was clarified". The statement that the issues had been clarified is not, of course, a statement that the Department was satisfied, but it is clear that the Department did not think that there was cause to intervene. It must be added that staffing of the Shelter was, strictly speaking, an issue for the management committee, not the Department.

The Minister, then Mr Crafter, was informed of the outcome of the Department's enquiries. A minute to him from Mr Cox dated 15 December says, "the issues were clarified and resolved to the satisfaction of the Department". The minute from Mr Cox attached three letters addressed to the three women who had raised these matters with the Department. The letters were in the same terms and informed them that "the issues had been raised with the management committee and all issues fully considered".

Before examining whether the plaintiff has proved the various causes of action, it is necessary to examine some aspects of the decision to withdraw funding, the use made of the allegations against the Christies Beach Shelter - both unsubstantiated and other allegations - and the reasons for the decision to use them. Aspects of the decision to withdraw funding are examined first. They are

the denial of natural justice, which refers also to warnings to Dr Cornwall about whether the allegations could be substantiated.

That is followed by comments on the allegations against the Shelter. It deals with

the fact that they were used to single out the Christies Beach Shelter;

the failure of the Review Committee to state the whole truth when charging misconduct at the Shelter;

the fact that nothing exculpatory of the Shelter was stated;

the failure of the Review Committee to assess the allegations;

the fact that the failure of Christies Beach to sign the Financial Agreement was not given as a reason for recommending the withdrawal of funding; and

The next section notes that the Review Committee had not originally intended to include the criticisms of Christies Beach in its Report and examines why it decided to include the criticisms. That requires a comparison to be made between the Christies Beach Shelter and other shelters, not because it is intended to examine whether the decision to withdraw funding was justified, but because it assists in understanding why the allegations were include in the Report. The section concludes by examining the reasons of Dr Cornwall and the Review Committee for including the unsubstantiated allegations.

The decision to withdraw funding was made by Dr Cornwall in consultation with Senator Ryan. Despite some remarks in Dr Cornwall's evidence, it was not a Cabinet decision but a Ministerial decision made under the SAAP Agreement. The only decision made by Cabinet was to approve two recommendations made by Dr Cornwall, namely,

(1) that the Report of the review of the administration of women's shelters be noted; and

(2) that the Report be approved for tabling in the Legislative Council in August.

That decision was made by Cabinet on 10 August 1987. The minute does not mention the proposal to withdraw funds. There was no evidence that the question of withdrawing funds was discussed at Cabinet. The recommendation to withdraw funding is, of course, on page 76 of the Report but Dr Cornwall does not refer to it in his minute. In other words, he did not seek Cabinet approval for his decision to withdraw funding.

The Christies Beach Shelter was denied natural justice. It is a fundamental rule of law that, generally speaking, when an order or decision is to be made which will deprive a person of some right or interest or the legitimate expectation of a benefit, he is entitled to know the case to be made against him and to be given an opportunity of replying to it. The reference to "right or interest" in that rule must be understood as relating to personal liberty, status, preservation of livelihood and reputation, as well as proprietary rights and interests. These principles were restated in Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; (1985) 159 CLR 550 per Mason J at 582. The principles have been consistently applied since and it has been suggested that it is more appropriate to call them rules of procedural fairness. The principles are subject to a contrary statutory intention but there is no statutory provision which qualifies the operation of the rule in the circumstances of this case.

The Christies Beach Shelter was operated by an incorporated association. Its funding depended entirely on government grants. For more than eight or nine years it had received annual grants supplemented when necessary to offset deficits. The grants had been received from the South Australian Government through the Department of Community Welfare and the State Government had also received funds for this purpose from the Commonwealth Government. Although it is clear that all shelters had been informed that future funding of deficits would not be made until the Financial Agreement had been signed, both the Christies Beach and North Adelaide shelters continued to receive fortnightly payments. Given the recurrent nature of its funding, the Christies Beach Shelter was entitled to be heard before its funding was withdrawn. It had a legitimate expectation that it would at least continue to receive ordinary funding. Although the Shelter knew that future funding depended on the signing of the Financial Agreement, it had continued to be funded on a fortnightly basis since November 1986 notwithstanding that it was refusing to sign the Agreement. The fact that fortnightly payments had continued for more than six months gave it a legitimate expectation that it would be heard before any decision was made to withdraw funding completely. The very existence of the Shelter depended on government funding and the continued receipt of the fortnightly payments. The withdrawal of funding would cause the Shelter to close. It was, therefore, entitled to be heard before its funding was withdrawn: see Banks v Transport Regulation Board (Vic) [1968] HCA 23; (1968) 119 CLR 222; FAI Insurances Ltd v Winneke (1982) 151 CLR 342. Any doubt about the entitlement to be heard was removed by the express promise made on behalf of Dr Cornwall on 20 February 1987 and repeated on 15 May that he would meet representatives of the Christies Beach Shelter and the North Adelaide Shelter to discuss funding: R v Liverpool Corporation; ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators' Association [1972] 2 QB 299; Attorney-General (Hong Kong) v Ng Yuen Shiu [1983] 2 AC 629 and Cole v Cunningham [1942] ArgusLawRp 77; (1983) 49 ALR 123. In other words, by reason of Dr Cornwall's promise, the Christies Beach Shelter had an actual expectation, as well as the legitimate expectation provided by the common law rule, that it would be heard before funding would be withdrawn. Without relying on it, I simply note, in passing, that denying the Shelter a hearing was contrary to cl 10 of the Financial Agreement. As the Christies Beach Shelter had not signed that Agreement, it could not expect to get the benefits of it.

Apart from the common law rules as to natural justice, ordinary principles of fairness required that the Shelter, its management committee and staff, be heard before allegations, as serious and as grave as these allegations of personal and professional misconduct, were made available to the public. They were allegations which had the capacity to tarnish severely, if not entirely destroy, reputations and make it extremely difficult to find employment. This was certainly the experience of the plaintiff. There was nothing in the funding programme which required that they not have that opportunity. Given that it had been decided to instruct the police and CAC to enquire into the allegations, the publication of that part of the Report concerning Christies Beach could have been delayed. The funding to Christies Beach could have continued on a fortnightly basis until the results of the investigation were known. I do not accept Dr Cornwall's evidence to the contrary.

In cross-examination, Dr Cornwall was asked why, before he published the Report, he did not keep his promise to meet representatives of the Christies Beach Shelter to discuss funding. He could not give a satisfactory answer. One reason he gave was that he had run out of time. As the timing was his own, this explanation was particularly unsatisfactory. His timing also gave him little opportunity to make enquiries as to the progress of the investigations by the police and CAC. As noted already, had he made enquiries, Dr Cornwall would, in all likelihood, have learned that there was very little, if any, substance to the allegations that he was about to table in Parliament.

As mentioned earlier, the decision to publish the allegations was made notwithstanding clear warnings that it might be difficult to substantiate them. The first was on 11 May 1987 when Ms Wighton informed Dr Cornwall in a minute that "some of the details of strange financial behaviour may not be able to be substantiated in a court of law". She then suggested that they be handled differently from the body of the Report. That advice was given before the police and CAC had been requested to conduct enquiries on 29 May. This advice is significant in that it is given by a very senior officer in the Department and it shows that she then had misgivings as to the quality of some of the unsubstantiated allegations. That fear was restated after a preliminary meeting with the police and CAC on 2 June, when Mr Bicknell informed Dr Cornwall in an undated minute, but seen by Dr Cornwall on 10 June, that "at this stage, it is not believed that criminal offences may have been committed, although investigation of the shelter records may later provide this information". In another minute dated 12 June 1987 and seen by Dr Cornwall on the same day, Mr Bicknell informed Dr Cornwall that the police had said that, on the information then to hand, they would not be able to proceed further but would reconsider it in the light of further examination of materials and further evidence becoming available. The minutes also stated that officers of the CAC had concerns whether a prosecution would be successful. Dr Cornwall's response was to request the Commissioner of Police "to reconsider information/allegations re behaviour of the Administrator, Christies Beach". It was, of course, legitimate for Dr Cornwall to ask the police to make further enquiries. But it is clear that, on the basis of the preliminary information then available to them, the police had said that the evidence was weak. In addition to these warnings, Ms Vardon had expressed a degree of caution in her minute to Dr Cornwall of 19 June in which she reported that the Commissioner of Police had said that "he would have difficulty trying to determine what sort of charges could be laid" but would proceed to conduct the enquiries.

Notwithstanding the warning from Ms Wighton on 11 May, Dr Cornwall, nevertheless, instructed that the allegations be included in the Report. Notwithstanding the later warnings, he decided to publish them before the investigations had been completed. This was plainly a shocking breach of ordinary principles of fairness. It was also an extraordinary abuse of parliamentary privilege to publish the allegations under the cloak of that privilege knowing that they were being investigated and before the results of the investigation were known. But it is for the Parliament, not the court, to discipline such breaches. The Shelter, its staff and the management committee were condemned not only without any trial but before the investigations had been completed.

I turn to examine some aspects of all of the allegations made in the Report against the Christies Beach Shelter, both the unsubstantiated allegations and those asserted to be fact.

The recommendation to withdraw funding in the final paragraph of this section of the Report contains several grounds. It falls into two parts. The first is maladministration, both historic and current, of the Shelter. The second is uncertainty as to whether services to clients are both fully available and appropriate. The maladministration refers to the alleged instances of financial mismanagement and mismanagement of personnel. The reference to the uncertainty of services being available is a reference to the allegation that, in July to September 1983, the Shelter had not been open, a fact confirmed by Ms Anderson. In her evidence, Ms Anderson asserted that it also referred to the amount of TOIL taken by staff at the Shelter. She suggested in her evidence that, because TOIL was used by staff to cope with the stress of their employment, there was an uncertainty as to whether staff were available at the Shelter to give service to clients of the Shelter. But it is apparent from her answers that Ms Anderson had no real knowledge that the Shelter had not been adequately staffed at any time and was relying on assumptions and on unsubstantiated allegations. Instead of questioning staff at the Shelter, she was prepared to rely on the assumptions and unsubstantiated allegations. I do not accept her evidence that she asked the staff at the Shelter on 19 January 1987 detailed questions about these issues. The questions on that day were only asked in a general way and did not descend to specifics, a fact confirmed by Ms Lachlan's notes of that meeting. The reference to the uncertainty as to whether services were appropriate can only refer to the unsubstantiated allegations concerning personal and professional misconduct listed earlier in the Report on pages 65 and 66. Furthermore, the absence of TOIL records hardly constitutes sufficient ground to withdraw funding.

It will have been noticed that there is no express reference in the last paragraph to the Shelter's refusal to sign the Financial Agreement. If the refusal is mentioned at all, it can only be in the expression "maladministration, both historic and current", presumably as an instance of current maladministration. Some members of the Review Committee gave evidence that one important reason for the recommendation to withdraw funding was the refusal of the Christies Beach Shelter to sign the Financial Agreement. If that evidence is correct, it is an extraordinarily oblique way in which to refer to a matter as significant in the administration of women's shelters, as the signing of the Financial Agreement undoubtedly was in 1986 and 1987.

The Review Committee was at pains in the introductory paragraphs on page 64 to single out the Christies Beach Shelter as a shelter quite unlike other shelters. The third and fourth paragraphs emphasise that what follows in the Report is "peculiar" to the Christies Beach Shelter and does not reflect the position in other shelters. From the outset, the Christies Beach Shelter was put in a class of its own.

The litany of allegations against this Shelter is so long that the reader would quickly form the impression that the staff at the Shelter were not fulfilling their proper role. The unsubstantiated allegations on pages 65 and 66 of the Report covered many, if not most, of the aspects of the work at a women's shelter. It was a long list of grave charges. The litany of allegations suggested that there may have been many complainants. However, an examination of the documents recording these allegations which were tendered in the trial shows that the actual complainants were relatively few in number. The Department had kept a file of complaints marked "DCW 42/001/10-Complaints". It is not clear whether that was a file of complaints about all shelters or only about the Christies Beach Shelter. That file was not tendered. However, I believe that all the documents concerning allegations about the Christies Beach Shelter were tendered. An examination of those documents shows:

• that there were no allegations made after February 1985;

• that there were eight letters containing allegations;

• that of those eight letters, two letters refer again to earlier allegations by the same person so that there are effectively six sets of written allegations;

• that one of the eight letters is anonymous, although it does mention a person who could be contacted;

• that the remaining allegations are contained in notes made by Ms Heath. As Ms Heath was not called, it is not possible to know how many persons made allegations to her. It seems to be about 12 but, of those, two are following up complaints already made in letters;

• that some did not wish to present a formal complaint; and

• that few of the allegations were mentioned or drawn to the attention of the plaintiff or any other person at the Christies Beach Shelter.

The Department's submission to the Select Committee suggests that the Committee had the Department's file of complaints. The Select Committee's analysis of the complaints is, broadly speaking, consistent with the above analysis. I mention this only for the purpose of finding that I am satisfied that I have seen all of the complaints.

The Department had investigated some of the allegations. The meeting on 4 October 1983, which has already been mentioned, was one such investigation and the issues were resolved to the satisfaction of the Department. On another occasion, Ms Heath, on behalf of the Department, investigated two complaints made in 1983 by persons who I will call "H" and "O". Ms Heath's notes of her investigations and other documents prepared by her concerning them, show that the allegations made by O were unfounded as to the main thrust of the complaint, although some things might have been better managed. The views of the Shelter were corroborated by persons at independent agencies. The documents then show that Ms Heath informed O that the Shelter had acted reasonably. Ms Heath's notes show that the allegations made by H, which in substance concerned the provision of housing, were denied by all of the staff at the Shelter as well as by a volunteer worker. It is quite apparent that the fault did not all lie with the Shelter or its staff. The fact that both allegations were essentially unjustified is clear on the papers. The Review Committee knew or ought to have known of all of the matters mentioned in this paragraph but failed to mention them in its Report. What is surprising is that Ms Heath referred them to Ms Anderson notwithstanding that some issues had been resolved.

An examination of the letters of complaint and Ms Heath's notes also shows that in some cases the allegations came from people who had had disagreements or differences of opinion with the plaintiff. In some cases, the plaintiff may well have been at fault. In one instance she appears to have turned on a former colleague with unjustified vigour because of a difference of opinion. But, even if it is assumed that the plaintiff was at fault in her personal conduct vis-à-vis those who disagreed with her or complained of her management style, an examination of the documents shows that in some instances the allegations represented little more than differences of opinion on management issues or on the philosophy of running a shelter. Others voiced disapproval of the plaintiff's counselling techniques, an area where there may well be reason for reasonable differences of opinion. The Review Committee ought to have reached those conclusions or at least sounded a warning about relying on unsubstantiated allegations.

In addition, the Review Committee did not examine the quality of service provided at the Shelter, nor did it report on it. To the extent that the Report contains allegations of financial, sexual and professional misconduct, it is a collection of allegations made of relatively few complainants which were at least three years old in 1987. No effort was made by the Review Committee to assess whether others held the same view about the Shelter. The evidence shows that the Shelter operated in premises which were furnished and well regarded. The quality of its services was well regarded. The evidence shows that the Shelter and the plaintiff enjoyed a good reputation with other agencies such as the South Australian Housing Trust, the Department's Office at Noarlunga, Mr Aulthuizen, who had been the manager of the southern metropolitan region of the Department, and the Department of Social Security. Mr Aulthuizen was quite impressed with the quality of the services provided. The inquiries made by the police show that the overwhelming majority of clients of the Shelter were satisfied with the services offered at the Shelter. All this reinforces the conclusion that the Review Committee and Ms Anderson in particular were not discerning in the way they dealt with the unsubstantiated allegations. Ms Anderson admitted that her investigations of the unsubstantial allegations were cursory. It is apparent that a few enquiries by Ms Anderson outside the Department and those who had made a complaint would have caused some questioning of the force of the allegations. The Review Committee was content to take the allegations at face value.

The evidence in this trial showed that the Review Committee knew more about some of the allegations contained in the Report, allegations which they asserted to be fact, than is stated in the Report. Put simply, the Review Committee failed to tell all it knew. It failed to tell the whole story. In the result quite a misleading picture is given of some of the allegations. There is a remarkable indifference to truth in the Report, the more remarkable because the Review Committee examined the files of all shelters, including those relating to the Christies Beach Shelter. It is also remarkable because, in the case of some of the allegations included in the Report, Mrs Roberts and Ms Anderson had seen documents, such as the minutes of the meeting on 4 October 1983 which is Appendix 2 to these reasons, which outlined a Departmental investigation of the allegations and which stated that the matters had been resolved to the satisfaction of the Department. However, the fact that those matters had been resolved is not stated.

I list the instances of misstatements of the truth. The passage in the Report containing a misstatement is quoted in bold typeface and the true position then noted.

The first misstatement appears on p 64 of the Report. It reads:

"It is evident that the Christies Beach Shelter has frequently come to the attention of senior management in the Department and to the responsible Ministers - State and Federal - over a period of about five years because of deficiencies in financial management, unacceptable management practices and because of unsubstantiated allegations of professional and personal misbehaviour."

There was some evidence that the Christies Beach Shelter had, on occasions, come to the notice of senior management in the Department over the period of five years preceding the Report. But that did not place Christies Beach in a position different from some other shelters such as North Adelaide, Port Augusta, Hope Haven and Para Districts. Christies Beach was one of a number of shelters which had come to the notice of senior management. However, there was little evidence that it had frequently come to the notice of the State Minister. If it had, so had some other shelters. That inaccuracy may be an instance of carelessness. However, the evidence clearly shows that it was not frequently before the Federal Minister as to any of the issues itemised in the concluding words of that paragraph. The Shelter came before the Federal Minister as a shelter identified by name only in August 1987 and this would have been known to the Review Committee. It is hardly surprising that no attempt was made at the trial to justify the allegations in this paragraph.

The next misstatement occurs in the unsubstantiated allegations listed on page 65:

"Operating costs used to augment salaries without the authorisation of the Department."

There was simply no evidence to support this allegation, a fact confirmed by Mr Holmes, a chartered accountant called on behalf of the State defendants. The sting of this allegation is the greater because of the reference on page 68 to the fact that the Administrator of the Shelter was paid at AO-1 level, which includes the comment that "it is not clear ... whether the shortfall is made up in some other way, e.g. from operating costs or from other income". The true position was that the Christies Beach Shelter remained within its budget for salaries and did not supplement salary payments from funds from operating costs. This too was an allegation which could have been easily checked by the Committee, which had the services of finance officers of the Department available to it. One document which should have put the Committee on enquiry was pages 139 and 140 of Exhibit P117 which mentions the source of funding of salaries. If the check did not establish the truth of the allegation, the Committee should not have made it.

I turn to the allegations on pages 66 and 67 of the Report.

"Auditors have been changed often and on one occasion an auditor was obliged to qualify his report with a statement that twenty-five (25) payments could not be accounted for as no vouchers, receipts or other documentation was presented."

It would have been more correct to say that auditors were changed in all but one year from 1981 to 1986. But I have no desire to be pedantic on that issue. The misstatement of truth is far more fundamental. The rest of the sentence is accurate as far as it goes but it tells a good deal less than the full story, a story which, I find, was known to Mrs Roberts, Ms Wighton and Ms Anderson. The latter part of the sentence misrepresents the overall position. When standing alone and without further examination, the bald fact that auditors were often changed is likely to give rise to concern. However, when all the facts are examined, that concern dissipates. The history of the auditors at the Christies Beach Shelter is as follows. In 1981, Mr Neverauskas was the Shelter's auditor. His daughter was a member of the management committee. At the meeting of the management committee of the Shelter on 5 May 1982, his letter of resignation was received. The letter was not proved. It may have been lost. At the meeting of the management committee of the Shelter on 7 July 1982, his daughter resigned. She had had differences of opinion with the plaintiff. The resignations of Mr Neverauskas and his daughter were, I find, related. A new auditor was appointed. He was Mr Esdale, who completed the audits for the 1982 and 1983 financial years. Because of his mismanagement of the 1983 audit which has already been mentioned, Mr Esdale was replaced as auditor by a Mr Evans. Given the mishaps in relation to the 1983 audit, the decision to replace him was quite understandable. Mr Evans audited the accounts for the financial years ending 1984 and 1985. At the annual general meeting of the Shelter in October 1985, it was suggested that a woman should be appointed as auditor. It was resolved to appoint Ms Helen Maunder if she was willing to do so and was acceptable to the Department. The resolution also stated that if she was not able to conduct the audit, Mr Evans would be reappointed. Ms Maunder was willing. There seems to have been no objection from the Department. She completed the 1986 audit. In October 1986, the Shelter resolved at its annual general meeting to reappoint her as auditor for the ensuing year but, as already noted, the CAC determined that she was unqualified to conduct the audit. Thus, there were four auditors appointed in respect of six financial years. There were reasons for replacing auditors and those reasons were entirely understandable. The fact that auditors were changed was not indicative of either financial mismanagement or a desire to avoid auditing scrutiny. However, the true facts were not disclosed in the Report. The mere statement "auditors have been changed often", when stated in the context of financial mismanagement, carries the clear innuendo that the Shelter changed auditors either to avoid auditing scrutiny or criticism, or because the auditor refused to comply with requests of the Shelter, or because there was something to conceal, or because the management of the Shelter was corrupt. In truth, none of those were the reasons for the change of auditors. The Review Committee knew the true facts but, instead, chose to make a statement which concealed the true position and so presented a more sinister picture.

The misstatement concerning the 25 receipts is even more reprehensible. There was material before the Review Committee which disclosed that the Department had investigated this question in October 1983. That material is the document which is reproduced as Appendix 2. Mrs Roberts and Ms Anderson had seen it. I find that Ms Wighton had also seen it and knew of it. Similarly, they would have also been aware that on 14 December 1983 Mr Cox, the then Director-General of the Department, had written to the Shelter to advise that the issue had been "clarified" and noting that the Shelter had received an unqualified audit. The failure to recount the full position indicates at least a reckless indifference to the truth and, at worst, a deliberate intent to paint the Shelter in the worst possible light. Mrs Roberts and Ms Anderson asserted in their evidence that this statement about auditors was included because the Committee disagreed with the Department's conclusion. Their assertion does not withstand the slightest scrutiny. When all facts are known the picture appears to be quite different. They could have disagreed with the Department and given reasons but they did not do so. They did not adduce evidence at the trial to justify the statement in the Report because, I find, they could not.

"Difficulty and delays in obtaining adequate financial statements at times."

This statement is quite unspecific as to the number of occasions in which difficulty or delay was experienced by the Department in relation to adequate financial statements. However, the use of the expression "at times" suggests that there were quite a number of occasions. As will be seen, that was not the true position. The particulars supplied by the defendant members of the Review Committee demonstrate that only two occasions were identified. Further and better particulars of this assertion were given as part of the plea of justification. They are in these terms:

"(a) as at 15 August and 14 September 1983 no audited statement for the financial year 1982/83 was received by the department;

(b) on 16 August 1983 the department received a financial return for the quarter ended 30 June 1983, which was qualified by the auditor. The shelter was advised on 13 and 15 September 1983 that that statement was unsatisfactory and that an audited statement for the financial year ended 1982/83 had not been received;

(c) a meeting was held on 4 October 1983 between representatives of the department and the shelter, at which time the matter of the qualified audit was discussed between them and the shelter undertook to take steps to obtain another audited statement;

(d) the department communicated with the shelter on 30 September 1983, 12 October, 14 October and 17 October 1983 seeking a properly audited statement for the quarter ended 30 June 1983 and for the financial year 1982/83. An audited financial statement for the financial year 1982/83 was received by the department on 20 October 1983;

(e) the department contacted the shelter on 14 February and 22 February 1985 about not having received a financial return for the period ending 31 December 1984;

(f) on 27 February 1985 the department confirmed with the shelter that it had not yet received the quarterly return for the period ending 31 December 1984;

(g) on other dates which are now unable to be specified due to the effluxion of time, departmental officer(s) were obliged to request that the shelter forward properly completed outstanding quarterly and annual financial statements to the department."

Paragraphs (a) to (d) deal with the same issues as were the subject of the qualified audit report for the year ending 30 June 1983 and were dealt with by the Department at the meeting on 4 October 1983 and were then resolved.

It is apparent that pars (e) and (f) refer to the same set of financial returns. It should be noted that the uncontroverted evidence is that in a series of telephone calls Ms McSkimming told an officer from the Department that the statement had been sent on 23 or 24 February 1985. There is no evidence that the statement had not been received in the Department in late February. I find that it was. There is no dispute that the Shelter may have been late.

There is no evidence as to the matters alleged in particular (g), a fact confirmed by the final submissions of counsel for the State defendants.

The position then is that the Shelter might not have cleared matters up as quickly as it should have in 1983 but the matter was ultimately cleared up to the satisfaction of the Department and, in 1985, was late in supplying its return. Thus, it has been proved that there were only two financial statements which were late. The Shelter was required to provide quarterly financial statements as well as annual financial statements, a total of at least four in each year. Thus, for the years 1981 to 1987, the Christies Beach Shelter would have supplied at least 28 statements and only two of those have been proved to be late. These facts were capable of being readily checked by the Review Committee. They are not compelling evidence of continuing financial mismanagement. Thus, the statement "difficulty and delay in obtaining adequate financial statements at times" is misleading as to the frequency of such occurrences.

The next misstatement occurs on page 67 of the Report:

"In February 1986 Christies Beach received an additional $17,271 (through SAAP) backdated and paid to the end of the third quarter. Despite these additional funds, the shelter still required an advance of $20,000 at the end of the financial year. At the beginning of the Review, Christies Beach had a deficit of $19,150."

This is one of a number of statements made about the Shelter which the report states are "clearly peculiar" to the Christies Beach Shelter. To the extent that this passage states that the payment of $17,271 in February 1986 was peculiar to this Shelter, it is manifestly wrong. The clear innuendo is that this was a payment made to Christies Beach alone and that no other shelter received a like payment. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Committee knew the true position. It was that the payment was made by letter dated 3 March 1986 and was as part of the grants to all shelters under the SAAP Program. Other shelters received grants at about the same time. The balance of the paragraph is correct.

The next misstatement is to be found on page 68 of the Report. It reads:

"At the time the shelter shifted premises, the shelter was inoperative for a protracted period. Crisis Care had received advice from the shelter that they would not be accepting referrals from 11/7/83 to 25/8/83. This came to the attention of the Department through Crisis Care which was unable to make referrals there from 11/7/83 to 4/10/83 (the date of one of the visits to the shelter by departmental personnel)."

The clear meaning of this paragraph is that the Shelter was closed from 11 July 1983 to 25 August 1983, a period of about six weeks. The innuendo of the third sentence, when read with the first sentence which introduces the topic, is that the Shelter was not operating until 4 October 1983 when officers of the Department visited the premises. I have already found that the Shelter continued to operate throughout the time when it moved from its old premises to the new premises at Damian Court. Soon after the move to Damian Court, the Shelter was fully occupied. For that reason, it was unable to take any referrals in the period 9 July 1983 to 16 September 1983 and remained full thereafter until 4 October 1983. These issues had been discussed at the meeting with the Department on 4 October 1983 and had been noted in Exhibit P4. The Department was satisfied that the Shelter had been fully occupied. In his letter dated 14 December 1983 to the Shelter, Mr Cox said that the questions regarding admission practices had been "satisfactorily resolved". There was clear evidence before the Review Committee that the Shelter had not been inoperative and sound reasons why Crisis Care had been unable to make referrals to it. Thus, in this paragraph the Review Committee not only failed to state the true facts which were known to it, but also failed to state that the matter had been satisfactorily resolved with the Department. Here again, the Review Committee knew the true position which was set out in Exhibit P4 and other documents, including Mr Cox's letter of 14 December 1983, stating that the matter had been "satisfactorily resolved". In other words, the Review Committee knew the true facts but chose to make a statement which concealed the true position. The full facts show a position quite different from that stated in the paragraph. I find that the Review Committee was again reckless with the truth. It was, of course, open to the Review Committee to reach a different conclusion from that reached by the Department. However, it could only do so if evidence existed. The members of the Committee could not point to any other evidence. In truth, there was simply no evidence to support the conclusion that the Shelter had been inoperative for the stated period. In other words, it was simply not possible for the Committee to reach a different conclusion from that which had been reached by the Department. What this paragraph in the Report shows is that the Review Committee was simply not prepared to face the objective facts in relation to the Christies Beach Shelter. Those objective facts got in the way of the picture they wished to present and so they were not stated.

The following misstatement is found on page 72 of the Report:

"Finance Officers then visited the shelter on 11/3/85. No detailed audit was carried out then or on any other visit to the shelter, despite instruction to do so. However, certain financial and accounting practices were noted. For example, not all paid staff appear on the wages schedule submitted to the Department; no entries had been made in the March cashbook. No satisfactory explanations of excessive expenditure were put forward."

The finance officers who visited the Christies Beach Shelter on 11 March 1985 made a written report of their visit. It was followed by a minute prepared by a senior finance officer to the Director-General. The visit had been made because the Shelter had sought $10,000 by way of additional funding having used all its existing funding. The minute to the Director-General stated

"The visit did not reveal any major reasons for the shelter's current financial problems. The shelter staff stated that the problem is simply that this Department does not give them sufficient funding to cover their expenses. (The total allocation for 1984/85 is $133,350.) There were some concerns regarding the number of staff paid which were not shown on the wages schedule submitted to the Department and also the fact that no entries had been made in the shelter's cash-book for March. No attempt was made to conduct a detailed audit of the shelter's books."

In the minute, as well as in the written report, it is clearly stated that, in the Shelter's view, the Department was not providing adequate funding. The statement "no satisfactory explanations of excessive expenditure were put forward" means either that the Shelter could not explain the excessive expenditure or that the explanation given by the Shelter was not satisfactory to the Review Committee. In view of this ambiguity, I am not prepared to find that the Committee had misstated the position. However, while the bald statement "no entries have been made in the March cashbook" is a correct transcription of what had been reported to the Department by its finance officers, it conveys an inaccurate picture of the true position. The Shelter then employed a bookkeeper, Ms Jan Underdown. She did not work full-time. She wrote up the cashbook on a weekly or fortnightly basis. The evidence is not clear which of the two it was. It is quite apparent that the visit made by the DCW officers on 11 March 1985 was made before Ms Underdown next wrote up the cashbook. This was the only instance when it was reported that the cashbook had not been written up. There is no evidence that the cashbook for March 1985 had not eventually been written up. This was an incidence of the Review Committee simply restating an allegation concerning the Christies Beach Shelter without making any independent assessment of the force of the allegation or conducting any independent investigation. The true facts could have been readily ascertained. A simple examination of the cashbook would have sufficed. It is an incidence of the willingness of the Review Committee to state anything to the detriment of the Shelter.

What is striking about the manner in which the Review Committee has dealt with the Christies Beach Shelter in this Report is that anything in the Departmental records which might be at all exculpatory of the Shelter or which might present a balanced picture concerning the Shelter has not been included. The Committee did not include in the Report material of which it was aware which might contradict or qualify an allegation. On several occasions the full story has not been told with a consequence that an entirely misleading statement is made about the Shelter. The Report displays a remarkable indifference to the truth. It unfairly states the facts. There was no reason why the Committee could not state all relevant facts where it knew them. Misstatements of truth occur too often to be the result of mere carelessness.

The willingness of the Review Committee to include, without any kind of critical examination, any allegation to the detriment of the Christies Beach Shelter, is positively demonstrated by some unsubstantiated allegations which were deleted from the Report on the advice of Mr Selway given on 29 June 1987. His advice is set out in the above narrative. Those allegations included the following:

"Examples of alleged harassment of ex-residents included:

- rubbish thrown through a child's bedroom window,

A moment or two's reflection would cause even a jaundiced observer of the Christies Beach Shelter to conclude that the allegations are quite extreme and wonder whether the allegations might refer to persons other than the management or staff of the Christies Beach Shelter. One of the possible groups of persons who might have caused that harassment would have been former partners of the former residents. The fact that the Review Committee was prepared, after receiving Mr Selway's advice, to exclude these extreme allegations does not affect the conclusion that the fact that they were originally included indicates a willingness to publish anything detrimental to the Shelter. It also indicates a failure to assess the allegations, a topic to which I now turn.

The Review Committee and, in particular, Ms Anderson as its consultant, was in a position to make some judgement as to the reliability of some of the allegations. The effect of the evidence of Mrs Roberts and Ms Anderson was that they lacked the resources to make any kind of investigation or even assessment of the allegations. This echoed a statement on page 69 of the Report that "the Review Committee was unable to assess the accuracy of all allegations received by the Department" and that it was not its mandate to investigate them. This evidence was unconvincing. The Review Committee had been established to review, among other things, the administrative practices and management structures of women's shelters. Its task required it to analyse information brought to it or other information it ascertained. It had to weigh the material placed before it, determine what action should be taken, and make recommendations to the Minister. If it did not, it was simply collating information. Clearly, its task required more than that. Indeed, the evidence of both Mrs Roberts and Ms Anderson belied this somewhat disingenuous excuse. They recognised that the Review Committee's task was to assess the information. They asserted in their evidence that they believed that the Review Committee could disagree with conclusions reached by the Department. For example, they asserted that they had disagreed with the Department's conclusions that it was satisfied that the complaints had been satisfactorily resolved after its meeting with the Shelter on 4 October, 1983. In this way, they admitted their task required them to assess material. When asked why the Review Committee referred to the qualified auditor's report, Mrs Roberts said that the Review Committee "was not comfortable with the comments and responses" by the Department on that matter. The Committee had investigated the matter, she said. But her answer shows that the investigation was superficial. Neither she nor Ms Anderson nor any other member of the Committee had spoken to the auditor involved. There was, therefore, no reason for the Committee to disagree with the Department's conclusion. There was no reason why it should not state all the relevant facts and assess the allegations which had been made.

Ms Anderson's evidence also belies the excuse of inability to assess the allegations. A few questions to her demonstrated that she knew that the number of complaints were few. Not even that fact was stated in the Report.

The complaint of a lack of resources is also inconsistent with the fact that the resources of the Department were made available to the Review Committee. Many of the allegations as to financial matters could have been examined for the purpose of testing whether the allegations had substance. The Committee had the Department's files available to it. Those files contained a good deal of financial information. What information was not included could have been supplemented by inquiry of the Department's accounting officers, whose services were also available to the Review Committee.

In relation to the allegations as to personal misconduct, it was clearly difficult for Ms Anderson or the Committee to verify some of the unsubstantiated allegations because, in some cases they required a degree of investigation more appropriately conducted by the police or other like authority. Nevertheless, it behoved the Committee at least to make some assessment of the force of all of the allegations. The brief review I have made of the allegations under the heading "Few Complainants" demonstrates that it was possible to assess the force of most of them. Furthermore, no weight seems to have been given to the fact that the greater number of allegations had been concerning conduct which occurred some four years before the Report was published. The Committee could at the very least have subjected the unsubstantiated allegations to the kind of scrutiny conducted by the Select Committee. It could have mentioned dates. It could also have made enquiries of others such as officers in agencies with whom the Shelter frequently dealt. The evidence suggests they would not have been critical of the Shelter. The Housing Trust, for example, held a high opinion of the Shelter and its staff. The Committee not only failed to subject the allegations to any kind of scrutiny but also repeated a number of them in a way which did not state the full facts.

There are too many instances of facts being incorrectly stated to enable the conclusion that they are the result of carelessness. I reject the evidence that the allegations concerning the auditors and the Shelter being closed for a long period in 1983 were included because the Review Committee had reached a different view. The facts which would have been known to the Review Committee do not allow such a conclusion. At the very least the full facts should have been stated. What was stated gave an entirely misleading and inaccurate picture. The failure to include many dates does not inform the reader that most of the allegations related to matters which by July 1987 were more than four years old. This must have been known at least to Mrs Roberts, Ms Wighton and Ms Anderson. Ms Wighton had informed Dr Baum at the meeting on 11 June that the allegations referred to matters "several years ago". Ms Anderson had seen the documents. As Ms Vardon said, the Minister and the Review Committee knew they were old allegations. I find that the Review Committee was entirely reckless with the truth and, on occasions, deliberately failed to set out all the facts. I find it was decided to include everything that could tell against the Shelter. Nothing exculpatory was to be mentioned. I find that the allegations were collated by Ms Anderson with the assistance of Ms Heath and that Ms Wighton made Ms Heath available for that task. I also find that Mrs Roberts, Ms Wighton and Ms Anderson knew what material was available. It is clear from the evidence that Ms Blake, Ms Johnson and Ms King relied on Ms Anderson to acquaint them with all facts relating to the allegations and that neither Ms Anderson nor Mrs Roberts nor Ms Wighton informed them of all of the facts and, in particular, did not show them either Exhibit P4, the minutes of the meeting of 4 October 1983, or the letter from Mr Cox stating the matters discussed at the meeting had been satisfactorily resolved. I find that Mrs Roberts, Ms Wighton and Ms Anderson deliberately misstated the true position concerning the Christies Beach Shelter.

The Unsubstantiated Allegations Not Originally Included

The Review Committee's Terms of Reference had been drafted in a way which pointed to a general review of management and administrative practices. There was nothing which required the Committee to report on individual shelters. The evidence shows that the initial work of the Committee was directed only to management and administrative practices of shelters. The kinds of questions which were asked of shelters were quite general in nature, dealing with such matters as the nature of the records kept, management structure, relationship with other agencies such as police, local community service organizations and the Department, staff development and their response to and views upon the Financial Agreement. The kinds of questions which were asked are listed in Appendix V of the Report. It is manifestly clear that the Committee was not descending to specific details of day-to-day management. The list in Appendix V contains 28 pages of questions or topics for discussion. Some of those paragraphs have more than one question. If the experience at Christies Beach is any guide, Ms Anderson did not stay particularly long at any one shelter. Her visit to Christies Beach on 19 January 1987 lasted about two to three hours. That time would not have permitted anything more than a rather superficial examination of each topic. Certainly, no one topic could have been investigated in any detail. The evidence of Ms McSkimming and Ms Lachlan, which I accept, confirms that. All other shelters were visited once. The evidence is not clear but it seems that Christies Beach was the only shelter visited twice. However, that visit was in response to a request from the Shelter that all members of the Review Committee visit the Shelter. That visit was shorter than the initial visit by Ms Anderson. Again, it gave no opportunity to examine issues in detail. All this points to the Committee intending to report in a general way on management and administrative practice.

The fact that the original intention was to deal with administration and management in a general way is confirmed by Ms King's notes of the meeting on 2 December 1986. It is also confirmed by Ms Anderson's reports to the Review Committee at its early meetings. Those reports pointed to a general review of administration and management issues without any shelter being especially mentioned. In addition, her written report of her first visit to the Christies Beach Shelter did not raise any concerns about the Shelter. I find that, had there been any, she would have mentioned them, even if in a very summary way.

Positive evidence of the fact that the Review Committee had originally approached its task in a general way is contained in Ms Wighton's description of what she called "the final draft" of the Report in her minute to Dr Cornwall dated 22 April 1987. It is quite apparent from her description of the contents of the Report, and in particular its recommendations, that the Report dealt broadly with administration and management and did not descend to criticism of individual shelters. She described the recommendations in these terms:

"The recommendations contained within the report proposed guidelines for government administrators, management committees and shelter staff which should resolve the deficit problem and allow the shelters to be administered more efficiently, have greater control of their resources and be more accountable."

The fact that this was the draft of the intended report in mid-April is confirmed by Exhibit P644. I have already found that Exhibit P644 is either the draft to which Ms Wighton referred in her minute or a draft which is very close in time to it and accords with the general tenor of what was regarded in April 1987 as the final draft.

However, at some time between mid-April and 11 May, at least Mrs Roberts, Ms Wighton and Ms Anderson had decided to discuss with Dr Cornwall the manner in which the allegations against Christies Beach should be handled. This was to result in the inclusion of the section in the Report which dealt with Christies Beach. It is apparent from Ms Wighton's minute to Dr Cornwall dated 11 May 1987 that some kind of document containing the allegations against Christies Beach had been prepared. That was the document prepared by Ms Anderson which was seen by Dr Cornwall on 4 May. Ms Wighton's minute of 11 May, when combined with Mrs Roberts' note to Ms Wighton of 11 May 1987, indicates quite clearly that one matter to be discussed with Dr Cornwall was not whether a report about Christies Beach should be prepared but whether that report was to be included in a report prepared in response to the Terms of Reference or in a separate report. In other words, the issue which was to be discussed with Dr Cornwall on 12 May was, not whether a report should be written about the allegations concerning Christies Beach, but whether that report should be included in the main report or in an additional report. I find that at the meeting on 12 May, Dr Cornwall directed the Review Committee to include the allegations against the Christies Beach Shelter in the main Report.

It is clear that it was decided at the meeting on 12 May to include the unsubstantiated allegations in the Report as well as the other criticisms of the Christies Beach Shelter. In this section of the reasons I will refer to both the unsubstantiated allegations and the other criticisms as "the allegations". I have already found that at this meeting it was decided to withdraw funding from the Shelter, the timing of the announcement to depend on the completion of the Report, its tabling in Cabinet, and the obtaining of the concurrence of the Commonwealth Minister as required by the guidelines for the SAAP Program. I set out further reasons for these conclusions.

Dr Cornwall's evidence was that he directed that the allegations be included in the main Report and not in a separate report because, as a matter of practical politics, no other course was open. I do not accept Dr Cornwall's evidence that the allegations could not have been the subject of a separate report. The effect of his evidence was that the political reality was that the content of the separate report would have been leaked and there would have been questions in the Legislative Council about the Report. I reject this explanation. If, as he suggested, the existence of a separate report became known and questions were asked about it, the obvious answer would be that he had withdrawn funding because of the failure to sign the Financial Agreement, the continued incurring of deficits, and the refusal to be accountable. In doing so, he could have referred to his earlier statements in October 1986 and at other times of the need for accountability. He could then have added that in the interest of fairness it had been necessary to refer the matters contained in the other report to the police for investigation. He could then have added that he would inform the House of the outcome of those investigations. I find that Dr Cornwall's reasons for saying that it was not practical for a separate report to be prepared were not held by him at the time and they are an attempt at an ex post facto justification for his actions. I add that Mr Sumner said that the allegations as to misappropriation of funds, and sexual and personal misconduct should not have been included in the Report. He added that it was not politically impracticable to exclude them from the Report.

When one stands back and compares the position of both the North Adelaide and Christies Beach Shelters in May 1987, compares the position of Christies Beach with both the Hope Haven Shelter and the shelter at Port Augusta at that time, reviews the events of May to August 1987, and examines the asserted reasons for the decision to withdraw funding, it becomes apparent that Dr Cornwall had decided to withdraw funding at the meeting on 12 May and that the allegations were used in order to single out the Christies Beach Shelter as being different from the other shelters and to silence any political opposition to the decision. The evidence allows no other reasonable explanation for the manner in which the Christies Beach Shelter was treated differently from the other shelters I have just mentioned. I set out the reasons for that conclusion below, first comparing the Christies Beach and North Adelaide Shelters and then comparing the Christies Beach Shelter with other shelters. It is also necessary to examine what occurred on 12 May and to examine the justification Dr Cornwall gave at various times for the decision to withdraw funding.

At 1 May and until the latter part of July 1987, the position of the shelters at Christies Beach and North Adelaide vis à vis the Department was, broadly speaking, the same. The following have already been identified.

• Both had not signed the Financial Agreement and both were still refusing to sign it. Their conduct was plainly political and was perceived as such by both the Department and Dr Cornwall. Dr Cornwall was aware that the Christies Beach Shelter incurred deficits as a political statement.

• Both shelters had been accumulating deficits for a number of years.

• Both shelters were being funded on a fortnightly basis.

• Both shelters, and in particular their respective administrators, Ms Rowan and Ms Balendran, had been very active in the political process, especially when voicing opposition to the SAAP Program and the requirement to sign the Financial Agreement.

• Dr Cornwall had informed both shelters that he would meet Ms McSkimming, who was acting Administrator of Christies Beach, and Ms Balendran to discuss their financial position and demands once the Report had been published.

Notwithstanding these similarities, the Department and Dr Cornwall were willing to accept the Financial Agreement signed by North Adelaide but not the undertaking signed by Christies Beach. The reasons which were given by Dr Cornwall and Ms Vardon were that the Christies Beach Shelter had not signed the Financial Agreement but had signed the undertaking and in addition had deleted the proviso. Both added that the tenor of the letter which enclosed the signed undertaking indicated that the shelter would continue to incur deficits. Their evidence does not withstand scrutiny. I do not accept it for the following reasons.

First, I have already mentioned my general dissatisfaction with their evidence.

Secondly, a reading of the letter from 23 July from Christies Beach Shelter to Dr Cornwall shows that it is capitulatory in tone. The text of the letter is set out above in the recital of the facts leading to the decision to withdraw funding from the Shelter. It must be remembered that the Shelter, with North Adelaide, had been holding out against signing either the undertaking or the Financial Agreement for almost 12 months. The whole tenor of the letter indicates a defeated shelter compelled to make overtures for compromise because it needed funds to enable it to survive. It could not even wait until the promised meeting with Dr Cornwall. In this context, it is relevant also to remember that the deletion of the proviso from the undertaking strengthened the terms of the undertaking.

Thirdly, Christies Beach did not want to be left out in the cold. Its main ally in opposition to the signing of the Financial Agreement had been the North Adelaide Shelter but it had decided to sign. It would have been plain to the Christies Beach Shelter that it could not maintain the political campaign alone and unassisted by any other shelter. Its political position had been undermined by the fact that all other shelters had signed the Financial Agreement.

Fourthly, as both Mr Bicknell and Ms Vardon emphasised in their evidence, the Department was anxious that all shelters should sign the Agreement. As is apparent from the letter of 23 July, the Christies Beach Shelter believed it was signing the Agreement. In several places, the letter refers to the Agreement and in the closing paragraph states, "the signed agreement is enclosed". At the very least, the Department could have pointed out that the incorrect document had been signed and invited the Shelter to sign the correct document. Ms Vardon's note of her telephone conversation with Mr McSkimming shows that she knew that the Christies Beach Shelter wished to signed the Financial Agreement. The capitulatory tenor of the letter dated 23 July suggested that the Shelter would have signed the Agreement. To express this reason another way, if the evidence of Mr Bicknell and Ms Vardon is correct, that the Department was anxious to have all shelters sign the Financial Agreement, the Department would have pointed out to the Christies Beach Shelter that it had signed the wrong document and invited it to sign the correct document. Alternatively, their evidence is not correct and the decision to withdraw funding had already been made and was irreversible. I find that the latter is the true position. The offer to sign had been withdrawn so that, even if the Christies Beach Shelter had proffered an unamended form of the Financial Agreement signed on behalf of its management committee, it would have been rejected. At that stage, there was simply no intent or desire in either Dr Cornwall or the Department to treat with the Christies Beach Shelter. That is confirmed by the fact that Ms Vardon cancelled her meeting with the Shelter which was to have been held on 13 July 1987. It is for these reasons that I also reject Dr Cornwall's evidence that he was hoping that Christies Beach would sign the Agreement.

Another factor to consider is that the promised meeting with the shelters would have provided an opportunity for Ms Vardon or some other senior officer in the Department or even Dr Cornwall to put to the Christies Beach Shelter in some more particularised way the allegations against it. It would have provided an opportunity for the Shelter to be given some kind of hearing. It is clear that it was decided not to hold the meeting because the decision had already been made to withdraw funding.

It is apparent also that by 29 May 1987, it had been decided that Christies Beach would be treated differently from North Adelaide despite the fact that both were then still refusing to sign the Financial Agreement. As Mr Bicknell said Christies Beach was the only shelter from which the Review Committee in mid-May was seriously considering recommending that funding be withdrawn.

The difference in treatment is evidenced by the fact that, despite the fact that both shelters had refused to sign the Financial Agreement and despite all the other similarities between the shelters, it was decided in May to withdraw funding from the Christies Beach Shelter only. There is nothing in the minute of 29 May which even hints at withdrawing funding from the North Adelaide Shelter. This was different from recommendations in earlier minutes, which dealt with both shelters , for example, Ms Wighton's minute of 8 May. In addition, North Adelaide had neither signed the Financial Agreement nor told the Department that it wished to sign it before 1 July when the Report was delivered to Dr Cornwall. As far as the Review Committee was concerned, if the failure to sign the Financial Agreement was the main reason for withdrawing funding from Christies Beach, why was there not also a recommendation to withdraw funding from North Adelaide?

There is also a noticeable difference in the reaction of Ms Vardon to information she received from both shelters that they wished to sign the Agreement. It is apparent from Ms Vardon's minute to Dr Cornwall of 6 August that when, on 6 July, Ms Balendran informed the Department that North Adelaide wished to sign the Financial Agreement, the request was received sympathetically. Ms Vardon's response to Ms McSkimming when she rang on 14 July to say the Christies Beach Shelter needed money and wanted to sign the Agreement was quite different. Ms Vardon told Ms McSkimming that the Shelter should write to Dr Cornwall. While that might have been consistent with Mr Bicknell's letter of 15 May, it nevertheless is quite a different response to that given to North Adelaide from whom the offer to sign had also been withdrawn. This not only shows that Ms Vardon's evidence that the Department wished Christies Beach to sign the Agreement cannot be relied on but it also demonstrates that Christies Beach was being treated quite differently. The difference in treatment resulted from the concluded decision to withdraw funding from the Shelter.

It is clear that the Christies Beach Shelter was not the only shelter with which the Department had been experiencing difficulties. That is evident from the terms of the Report. It is also established by the evidence. What is to be remarked upon is that the asserted problems at Christies Beach were akin to those existing at at least two other shelters, Port Augusta and Hope Haven, and that the financial mismanagement at Port Augusta appears to have been worse than that at Christies Beach. I deal first with the financial mismanagement at Port Augusta.

As at 27 November 1986, Port Augusta had a deficit of $34,595, the highest deficit among all shelters. It was almost twice the deficit at Christies Beach which at that time was $19,150. The reasons for the deficit at Port Augusta, as explained in the Report, were over-extension of services and inefficient administration. Management had been unsuccessful in exerting adequate financial controls. The Department rendered assistance to the shelter. A new Administrator had commenced duties in July 1986 and a new bookkeeper had been appointed. The Review Committee concluded that the organization had addressed the problems and was in "a good position to manage well".

The description of the causes of the deficit at Port Augusta reads very much like those which had caused the deficit at Christies Beach. The incurring of a deficit at Port Augusta was no recent event. Like Christies Beach, it had been increasing over a period of four years. In addition, Port Augusta had received a recent adverse auditor's report. It was a sufficiently serious report to be drawn to the attention of Dr Cornwall.

Putting the unsubstantiated allegations to one side, there is no evidence of anything which justifies why Christies Beach was treated differently from Port Augusta other than the fact that it had refused to sign the Financial Agreement. Yet, North Adelaide had also refused to sign the Financial Agreement and its funding was not withdrawn.

The problems at Hope Haven are only briefly summarised in the Report. They were administration and management of personnel and resources, service delivery, staffing, and the physical condition of the building. Since August 1984 the Department had been concerned with the standard of the premises, described as sub-standard and depressing, and the level of services provided to clients. It had concerns about its management structure. Management was perceived to be a closed shop and potential conflicts of interest existed. In May 1986, Mr Bicknell and Meredyth Taylor met the Board of the shelter and listed the problems to be rectified. The shelter was informed that its funding would be terminated if it did not remedy the position to the Department's satisfaction. The position was so poor that women were referred to other shelters and only to Hope Haven as a shelter of last resort. The residents at the shelter boycotted the child care facility and at one stage wrote to the Department listing their grievances.

The Department dealt with these problems quite directly in August and September 1986. The shelter was given an opportunity to redress the problems. The shelter entered into negotiations expressing willingness to undertake most of the requests, but also seeking funding to improve its premises. The shelter complained of being harassed. In September, the Department was obtaining legal advice as to how it could withdraw funding. The Report indicated that the issues were still being addressed in June 1987. In short, there were serious problems at Hope Haven and, although it was taking a long time to resolve them, the shelter was given a reasonable opportunity to address them. The shelter did not have a deficit and it had signed the Financial Agreement. However, those facts do not sufficiently distinguish the position to deny Christies Beach the same opportunity as was given the Hope Haven Shelter to put its own house in order. In this context, it should be noted that there was no complaint about the quality of the premises at the Christies Beach Shelter.

Dr Cornwall could not explain why such an opportunity was not given to Christies Beach. When asked why Christies Beach had been treated differently, Dr Cornwall replied that it had had at least six months to sign the Agreement and had failed to do so. There is no merit in this somewhat facile reply. It is true that the Shelter had not signed in 1986. However, it will be recalled that in February 1987, Dr Cornwall had promised to meet representatives of the Christies Beach and North Adelaide Shelters. That promise was made in response to a request from Ms Balendran at North Adelaide to discuss funding and the Financial Agreement. The promise had been reiterated in Mr Bicknell's letter of 15 May when the offer to sign the Financial Agreement had been withdrawn from both shelters. Thus, Dr Cornwall sought to rely on the failure to sign the Financial Agreement when he himself had withdrawn the capacity of the shelters to sign it. Furthermore, the reiteration of the promise to meet would cause the shelters to have no concern about funding. Plainly, both Christies Beach and North Adelaide were entitled to take the view that there was no need to sign the Financial Agreement until at least this meeting had been held.

In its report, the Review Committee gave an explanation for the shelter at Hope Haven being treated differently. It said:

"The reasons for this different response include:

• more specific and more formally authenticated complaints over a shorter period,

• strong support by the other shelters for intervention."

These reasons also do not withstand scrutiny. The political climate was no different. The difference in personnel explains nothing. It was plainly different. In any event the management at Hope Haven, like that at Christies Beach, sought extra funding. If anything, the reference to a different management appears to be an attempt at indirect criticism of the plaintiff. The complaints concerned the matters identified above. Ms Anderson said in her evidence they were more specific and authenticated than those relating to Christies Beach. If that is so, it was a reason to exercise care before relying on the complaints about Christies Beach. It was also a reason to give Christies Beach the benefit of an opportunity to either put its house in order or to answer the allegations. The reference to support from some other shelters would suggest that there was no such support for intervention at Christies Beach. In truth, the Christies Beach Shelter had strong support from some other shelters. Ms Anderson was asked to justify the asserted differences but her evidence was entirely unconvincing and I do not accept it.

These threads come together in this way. In relation to deficits, Christies Beach was no different from at least four other shelters. It did not have the highest deficit. In relation to the failure to sign the Financial Agreement, Christies Beach was no different from the North Adelaide Shelter. In relation to financial mismanagement, Christies Beach was, it seems, no worse if not better than the Port Augusta Shelter which had recently had an adverse auditor's report sufficiently serious to be drawn to the attention of the Minister and which also had the highest deficit.

Thus, contrary to what is stated in the Report, and contrary to what Ms Roberts was to say in the course of a television programme on TVB on 12 August, the Christies Beach Shelter did not single itself out from other shelters. What distinguished the Christies Beach Shelter from other shelters was the unsubstantiated allegations only and that was no doubt why the Review Committee relied on them. But as they were unsubstantiated, they provided no basis to withdraw funding - at least not until they had been investigated and it had been established that sufficient evidence existed.

The meeting on 12 May between Dr Cornwall, Mrs Roberts, Ms Anderson and Ms Wighton, marked a turning point in the preparation of the Report and in the Department's dealings with the Christies Beach Shelter. It was a crucial meeting. As already mentioned, it was decided at that meeting that the criticisms of Christies Beach should be included in the Report. I have already found that Dr Cornwall also decided at that meeting that he intended to withdraw funding from the Shelter at some future time when the Report was ready for publication and he had secured the concurrence of the Commonwealth Minister. This was confirmed at the meeting between Dr Cornwall and the senior officers of his Department on 26 May.

It is convenient to refer again to the events which followed the meeting on 12 May. It will be noticed that no similar step was being taken in relation to any other Shelter, not even North Adelaide which had not then signed the Financial Agreement. They are:

1. The allegations against the Christies Beach Shelter were included in the Report and the Report recommended that funding be withdrawn from the Shelter.

2. On 12 May, Ms Wighton sent a handwritten minute to Mr Bicknell which instructed him that the Minister wanted the Department to obtain an advice from the Crown Solicitor as to whether there was sufficient evidence to initiate legal proceedings against Christies Beach Shelter. She informed Mr Bicknell that the Minister wanted "to get this moving without delay".

3. The Department contacted the South Australian Housing Trust on 12 May 1987 asking it to find alternative accommodation for a shelter in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. On 27 May the Department informed the Trust that Dr Cornwall was going to move later that week. Although that comment was probably related to the minute of 29 May, the fact that someone from the Department provided that information indicates an intention to act.

4. The Departmental file contained two notes written by Ms Summers, a SAAP project officer in the Department. They are plainly notes of steps to be taken before funding is withdrawn. It was part of a plan for proceeding to defund the Shelter, albeit that the notes may well be notes of advice given by Mr Jackson in the Crown Solicitor's Office on steps to be taken to deal with Christies Beach.

In this context it is necessary also to refer back to the memorandum dated 11 May prepared by Mrs Roberts (in conjunction with Ms Anderson) and sent to Ms Wighton. The memorandum noted issues to be discussed with Dr Cornwall the next day. The first paragraph reads:

"1. Long-standing allegations about administrative malpractice and professional abuses at the Christies Beach Women's Shelter.

- implications for the report. (i.e. what action the Department might be prepared to take and, therefore, how best the report could suit the purpose.)

* Memo regarding the allegations has been prepared."

The reference to the memorandum in the last line is to the memorandum which had been prepared by Ms Anderson and which had been seen by Dr Cornwall on 4 May. The intention was for the Report to suit the purpose of the Department and that purpose was to close the Christies Beach Shelter and open another shelter in the southern suburbs of Adelaide with a different administration. It is not necessary to find why that decision had been made. The plaintiff suggested it resulted from a number of factors, including Ms Wighton's antagonism towards her. It might have been because the Christies Beach Shelter, and the plaintiff in particular, had for a long time been a thorn in the side of the Department. Whatever the reason, it is clear that the intention was to close the Christies Beach Shelter and open another in its place. All of these events point to a decision by Dr Cornwall that he would, in due time, withdraw funding from the Christies Beach Shelter.

It is also apparent that, although it had been decided to withdraw funding from the Christies Beach Shelter, funding was not to be withdrawn from the North Adelaide Shelter. That is apparent from the terms of the minute dated 29 May from Ms Vardon (drafted by Ms Wighton) to Dr Cornwall which contained six recommendations. That minute is set out in full in the recital of the facts. Shortly stated, the six recommendations were:

(1) that the police be asked to initiate inquiries;

(3) that funding for Christies Beach be suspended from 30 June, 1987 and the concurrence of the Commonwealth Minister be sought for that decision;

(4) that the Department make interim arrangements to establish an alternative service in the area;

(6) that an interim management committee be established for the new shelter.

Dr Cornwall approved recommendations 1 and 2. He directed that fortnightly funding continue pending final recommendations of the Review Committee, or further information. He instructed the officers of his Department to brief the officers in the Commonwealth Department of Community Services.

Unlike earlier minutes as to funding for Christies Beach and North Adelaide, this minute dealt only with Christies Beach. There was no recommendation to withdraw funding from North Adelaide. It is apparent that Christies Beach was being treated differently. The fact that Dr Cornwall required fortnightly funding to continue to Christies Beach was no more than an acceptance of the political reality. Christies Beach had been funded by fortnightly payments since mid-November 1986. It had a substantial deficit. Without its fortnightly payments, it had to close. The failure of Dr Cornwall to approve the recommendation that funding cease from 30 June 1987 is again a recognition of political reality. Before he could announce the decision, the Report had to be ready for publication, Cabinet approval to table the Report had to be obtained, and the concurrence of the Commonwealth Minister had to be obtained. He did not know when the Report would be ready and the Report was plainly an essential prerequisite to seeking Cabinet approval and the concurrence of the Commonwealth Minister. For those reasons, the recommendation could not then be approved. However, Dr Cornwall did take a step towards seeking the concurrence of the Commonwealth Minister by directing that his Department brief the Commonwealth Department.

Recommendations 4 and 6 deal with the same topic. Recommendation 4 was already being effected because the Department had since 12 May been negotiating with the Housing Trust for alternative accommodation for a new shelter. Recommendation 6 had to wait until the decision to withdraw funding could be announced or was about to be announced.

This minute is curious because, in addition to Dr Cornwall's endorsements, it is endorsed by Ms Vardon as follows: "Approved by MCW 29.5.87". "MCW" is an abbreviation for the Minister for Community Welfare. Ms Vardon could not explain the endorsement. I find that the endorsement signified that Ms Vardon believed that Dr Cornwall gave a general approval for the proposed course of action while at the same time not giving approval of the specific recommendations for the reasons mentioned above.

In other words, by 29 May, there was little which would cause the intention to withdraw funding from Christies Beach to be reversed. The only event which might possibly achieve that result would be if Christies Beach Shelter signed the Financial Agreement without amendment. But as Dr Cornwall and Ms Vardon knew, that was an extremely unlikely event because the offer to sign had already been withdrawn. In addition, Dr Cornwall had promised to meet with the Shelter after the Report had been completed for the purpose of discussing funding and, plainly, the Christies Beach Shelter was waiting for that meeting to occur.

It is apparent that, by 29 May, Dr Cornwall and those advising him had either overlooked the fact that he had promised to meet Ms McSkimming and Joan Balendran to discuss funding of their shelters once the Review Committee had reported to him or had decided not to hold the meeting. I find that it had been decided not to hold it. The fact that by 29 May it had been decided to withdraw funding from Christies Beach and not from North Adelaide suggests that it had been decided not to hold the meeting. Plainly, there would have been little to discuss with North Adelaide and, if funding had been withdrawn from Christies Beach, there was an obvious difficulty in seeing representatives from both shelters at the same time.

It will be recalled that on 5 August 1987 Dr Crafter, as acting Minister of Community Welfare, signed a minute recommending that funding be withdrawn from the Christies Beach Shelter. The terms of the minute are set out in the narrative above. Earlier in these reasons I pointed to the fact that there is no minute recommending funding be withdrawn between the minute of 29 May and the minute of 5 August as being a fact which shows the decision to withdraw funding had been made in May. The fact the minute of 5 August was the formal recommendation to withdraw funding does not call into question the conclusion that the decision to withdraw funding at some future time was made in May. It is necessary to see the minute of 5 August in its true context. Dr Cornwall had a very clear interest in the outcome of the review and any decision to withdraw funding. He had established the Review Committee and he was aware of the recommendation the Committee intended to make. I find that he wished to be involved in the process of tabling the Report and announcing the decision to withdraw funding. He was going overseas on 8 July and was not to return to parliamentary duties until 10 August. Dr Cornwall had intended to have the matter completed before he left on 8 July. It will be recalled that he had unsuccessfully sought waiver of the 10 day rule so that the matter might be dealt with before he left. Had the rule been waived, it is likely that all arrangements would have been made to enable him to announce the decision to withdraw funding before he left. As he was unable to achieve that goal, he decided that the matter should wait until he returned.

Furthermore, the decision to withdraw funding was important, it was politically sensitive, and it was likely to provoke a hostile reaction. Both the Department and Dr Cornwall were clearly aware of all three aspects of the decision. It was plainly a very critical decision. For all of those reasons, Dr Cornwall would not have delegated the decision to another Minister. I find that before he left to go overseas, he put in place the arrangements to enable the matter to be considered at the Cabinet meeting on Monday, 10 August, the first Cabinet meeting after his return. Those arrangements included the preparation of the formal recommendation dated 5 August to withdraw funding (another instance of what is, in effect, a minute after the event) and the letter to the Commonwealth Minister to acquaint the Minister with the facts and to seek concurrence with his intention to withdraw funding. To summarise. The decision to withdraw funding at some future time was formed in May. The only decision then outstanding was when the actual decision would be made and the date from which it would operate. Dr Cornwall was unable to announce his decision to withdraw funding before he left on his overseas trip. He put in place arrangements for the matter to be before Cabinet on his return and to enable him to announce their decision very shortly after the Cabinet meeting. There was, in effect, nothing for Mr Crafter to do on 5 August but to sign the minute.

There is a curious diversity of reasons given at different times by those involved in the decision to withdraw funding. An examination of those reasons assists in understanding why the unsubstantiated allegations were included in the Report. It is, therefore, helpful in determining the issues involved in some of the plaintiff's causes of action.

It is appropriate to begin by recalling the terms of the recommendation of the Review Committee:

"In view of the maladministration, both historic and current, of this shelter and in view of uncertainty as to whether services to clients are both fully available and appropriate, the Review Committee recommends that funding be withdrawn."

As already stated, there was no express mention of the failure to sign the Financial Agreement as one of the reasons for the recommendation. Given the importance of that Agreement, that is at least curious. Since at least August 1986 there had been a great deal of controversy about signing the Financial Agreement. The Department had continually pressed the shelters at both Christies Beach and North Adelaide to sign it. I find that, if it was a reason for recommending the withdrawal of funding, it would have been expressly included in the recommendations. It was too important a reason to be mentioned in some oblique way only. Plainly, the reason for not relying on the failure of the Christies Beach Shelter to sign was the fact that, when the Review Committee completed the Report, the North Adelaide Shelter had not signed the Financial Agreement. The Review Committee could not include the failure of the Christies Beach Shelter to sign the Agreement because it would hand the Shelter a political card to play in any agitation to seek to reverse the recommendation.

The only part of the recommendation which might possibly refer to the failure to sign the Financial Agreement was "maladministration". But a failure to sign the Agreement is not maladministration. It might be a poor political decision, but it is not maladministration. As her evidence to the Select Committee shows, Ms Wighton knew that the Shelter's decision not to sign the Financial Agreement was a political decision. She knew the Shelter was trying to make a political statement. I find that the Review Committee would have been aware of Ms Wighton's views. Thus, the stated reasons for the recommendation were simply maladministration and uncertainty whether the services to clients were fully available and appropriate. Maladministration did not include failure to sign the Financial Agreement. For the reasons given later, the uncertainty as to the appropriateness of services could refer only to the unsubstantiated allegations.

I acknowledge that the final paragraph on page 76, which contains the recommendation, is in one sense a summary of what is contained in the preceding pages and the failure to sign the Financial Agreement is mentioned on page 67 but that is in a paragraph which simply noted that both the Christies Beach and North Adelaide Shelters had not signed the Agreement. If a matter as significant as the refusal of the Christies Beach Shelter to sign the Financial Agreement was being relied upon as a reason for recommending the withdrawal of funding, it would have been expressly stated.

It will be recalled that in his letter dated 11 August 1987 to the Shelter Dr Cornwall expressly relied on the terms of the recommendation as the reason for his decision to withdraw funding. In the months and years which followed, he retreated from those reasons and relied to a large extent on the failure of the Shelter to sign the Financial Agreement. An examination of the Department's reasons for the decision also shows a reliance on the failure to sign the Financial Agreement. In addition, the evidence of some members of the Review Committee was that the failure to sign the Financial Agreement was a major reason for the recommendation. The absence from the Review Committee's recommendation of an express reference to the failure to sign the Financial Agreement and the later reliance on that failure causes one to ask what was in truth the real reason for the decision to withdraw funding and why the unsubstantiated allegations were include in the Report. I turn to examine Dr Cornwall's reasons and the reasons of the Review Committee.

Before doing so, it is necessary to deal with that part of Ms Vardon's evidence which was to the effect that the Review Committee and the Department were travelling along similar but parallel paths, each independent of the other. The evidence was unconvincing when given, the more so on further reflection. It entirely overlooks the fact that Ms Wighton was a Deputy Director-General in the Department responsible for the non-government welfare unit, which was responsible for shelters, as well as a critical member of the Review Committee. It overlooks the fact that Mr Bicknell was assisting the Review Committee and that he was head of the non-government welfare unit. It overlooks the fact that Mr Bicknell had rung the Christies Beach Shelter on 6 May to say that, if it signed the Financial Agreement, criticism of the Shelter would not be included in the Report. It overlooks the fact that Ms Anderson was working in the Department and receiving assistance from other officers in the Department. It overlooks documents such as Ms Wighton's memorandum of 8 May (which referred to a recommendation of the Review Committee when making a recommendation concerning payments to Christies Beach and North Adelaide) and Mrs Roberts' memorandum to Ms Wighton of 11 May (which asked how the Report could serve the purposes of the Department). It is inconsistent with Ms Vardon's evidence that Ms Wighton was the bridge between the Department and the Review Committee. I entirely reject this aspect of Ms Vardon's evidence.

I do not rely on Dr Cornwall's statement in the Parliament because of the principle of parliamentary privilege. There is abundant other evidence of his reasons.

It will be recalled that in his letter dated 11 August 1987 to the Christies Beach Shelter informing it of the decision to withdraw funding, Dr Cornwall restated the recommendation and said, "I concur with this recommendation". In another letter dated 10 October 1987 to a representative of another shelter who had written expressing concern at the decision, he effectively said that he relied on the recommendation in the Report.

However, by 23 November 1987, Dr Cornwall was adding other reasons for his decision. In a minute to the Premier attaching a draft of a letter in response to a complaint made by Ms McSkimming, Dr Cornwall gives a different set of reasons for the decision and emphasises the failure to sign the Financial Agreement. He said:

"As mentioned above, the Department has for some time been seriously concerned about the lack of accountability and poor management practices of the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc. [An example of the use made in 1987 of an incorrect name of the Shelter.] They had continuously overspent their budget and were not prepared to undertake proper budgetary and accounting procedures so as to ensure proper care was taken of government funds. The shelter continually refused to sign a financial undertaking, which undertaking would have bound the shelter to spend government funds for the purposes for which they were granted. Their failure to sign the financial undertaking was a serious breach of the Commonwealth/State Guidelines and, together with their failure to respond adequately to the department's request for proper accounting practices and their long-standing deficits, were the basis for the department recommending that funds be withdrawn from the Christies Beach Women's and Children's Emergency Shelter Inc. as of 4/9/87."

The minute had obviously been drafted by the Department but it was signed by Dr Cornwall and he must accept responsibility for the stated reasons. Thus, the stated reasons have now become the failure to sign the Financial Agreement, the failure to respond adequately to requests for proper accounting practices, and the long-standing deficits. There was no mention of the unsubstantiated allegations. It might be added that there was no evidence that the Department had made requests for proper accounting practices and that the Shelter had failed to comply with those requests.

By November 1987 the police had reported that there was insufficient evidence to warrant prosecution, but the CAC had commenced its prosecution. Because the police investigations had not produced any evidence, Dr Cornwall might have been wanting to distance himself from the unsubstantiated allegations. But, I find that in this minute, he is expressing the actual reasons for his decision. Furthermore, by this time, the Christies Beach Shelter had closed and a replacement shelter had been established. There was no possibility that any political action by the plaintiff, or any other person at Christies Beach Shelter, could re-open that shelter. By this time, Dr Cornwall was in a political position which enabled him to state the true reasons for his decision.

In a letter to The Advertiser on 5 December 1987 responding to an article in that paper, Dr Cornwall again stated that one of the reasons for the decision to withdraw funding was the refusal to sign the Financial Agreement. Mrs Roberts had also written to The Advertiser in response to the same article. Both letters were published on the same day. I do not comment on the coincidence of both Dr Cornwall and Mrs Roberts responding on the same day. In his letter, Dr Cornwall had said that there was cause to justify the decision. The part of his letter dealing with the reasons for his decision was in these terms:

". The decision to defund, taken in concert with the Commonwealth, followed a review of the management and administration of women's shelters by a committee of five women, headed by Ms Judith Roberts.

. One of the principal grounds the committee recommended the defunding of Christies Beach Women's Shelter was 'the maladministration, both historic and current, of this shelter'.

. The management and administration of the shelter wilfully and persistently refused to sign an agreement - which the Commonwealth stipulated as a condition of funding and with which the SA Government agreed - ensuring the shelter would be accountable for public funds.

. I have clearly stated in Parliament and outside that there was ample justification for defunding the shelter, quite apart from unsubstantiated allegations made against persons connected with the shelter which were referred to the police and the Corporation Affairs Commission for investigation."

I find that he was asserting that the primary reasons for withdrawing funding were the refusal to sign the Agreement and financial maladministration. The unsubstantiated allegations were being relegated to the background and reduced in importance.

By 1988, Dr Cornwall's stated reasons for his decision completely excluded the unsubstantiated allegations. Because of parliamentary privilege, I do not rely on remarks he made on 13 April 1988 in the course of a speech in the Legislative Council in opposition to the motion to establish the Select Committee.

The refusal to sign the Financial Agreement was included by Dr Cornwall in his reasons for withdrawing funding in a letter to Senator Schacht dated 21 May 1988. The reasons stated in that letter were "the poor financial administration of this service and the persistent refusal to sign the financial agreement". Similar reasons were given in a press release by him on 3 June 1988 and in a letter to The Advertiser on 20 June 1988, although the latter does refer to the allegations. It is apparent from both documents that Dr Cornwall was primarily relying on the refusal to sign the Financial Agreement.

Dr Cornwall recorded his political recollections in an autobiography published in August 1989 entitled Just For The Record - The Political Recollections of John Cornwall. He referred to Judith Roberts in that book in glowing terms. He mentioned the work of the Review Committee in the following passage, again disavowing any reliance on the allegations in the Report:

"She also chaired a committee which reviewed the administration, financial management and general conduct of women's shelters in South Australia. Their report Shelters in the Storm was subsequently pilloried by a Select Committee of the Legislative Council which was established in a highly political atmosphere following the cutting of funds to the Christies Beach Women's Shelter. There were numerous allegations about the Christies Beach Women's Shelter made to the original Roberts Committee which were reported. However, they were never the basis for withdrawing funding. The money was transferred to a new management committee and a new Director was appointed because the original Christies Beach Women's Shelter Committee persistently refused to sign the agreement to meet Commonwealth and State Government requirements for financial accountability."

The comment that the allegations were not the basis for the decision to withdraw funding reiterates the effect of his remarks in 1987 and 1988 to which I have referred.

In his evidence, Dr Cornwall repeated the assertion that the decision had not been made because of the unsubstantiated allegations. When asked in cross-examination why the allegations had been included in the Report, he was unable to give a satisfactory reply. He admitted that, before publishing the Report, he realised that the publication would damage the reputation of the plaintiff and others at the Christies Beach Shelter.

It is reasonable to allow a degree of flexibility in identifying reasons for a decision. However, even allowing such a flexibility, I find that Dr Cornwall's true reasons for withdrawing funding from the Christies Beach Shelter were the failure of the Shelter to sign the Financial Agreement and the fact it had been incurring deficits. Thus, although the reasons for withdrawing funding given on 11 August 1987 in his letter to the Christies Beach Shelter were said to include the unsubstantiated allegations, they were not in Dr Cornwall's mind the true reasons. I find that Dr Cornwall's reasons for the decision to withdraw funding were the alleged financial mismanagement, the continued incurring of deficits and requests for advances, and the refusal to sign the Financial Agreement, but above all the refusal to sign the Financial Agreement. Indeed, the refusal to sign the Agreement effectively embraces all of the other reasons. Why then were the unsubstantiated allegations included in the Report and why did Dr Cornwall rely on them?

Dr Cornwall was not prepared to rely publicly on the failure to sign the Financial Agreement and the alleged financial mismanagement because he feared an intense political response from the Christies Beach Shelter, if not also from other shelters. The Department also feared the same political response. It believed the plaintiff was skilled at utilising the media. The fears of political agitation were justified. In 1986 there had been considerable controversy among the shelters concerning the SAAP Agreement and its consequences for shelters. Events in the political campaign have already been noted. Ms King described it as "a heated debate". Mr Bicknell called it "a tense time". There were, however, more compelling political reasons why Dr Cornwall and the Committee could not rely only on the alleged financial mismanagement, the continued incurring of deficits and requests for advances, and the refusal to sign the Financial Agreement as reasons to withdraw funding from the Christies Beach Shelter.

First, Port Augusta also had been accused of financial mismanagement. The allegations are summarised on page 63 of the Report. The alleged financial mismanagement at Christies Beach was clearly not as serious or at least no more serious than the mismanagement of Port Augusta, which had led to an auditor's report so adverse that it had been drawn to the Minister's attention. At the very least, the alleged financial mismanagement was no reason why Christies Beach should not be given the same opportunity as was given to Port Augusta to put its house in order.

Secondly, Christies Beach was not the only shelter which had incurred deficits. The shelters at both North Adelaide and Port Augusta had been incurring deficits for about the same length of time as the Christies Beach Shelter. Furthermore, the Port Augusta Shelter had a substantially higher deficit. Thus, there were obvious political difficulties when relying on the incurring of deficits as a reason for withdrawing funds.

Thirdly, when the Report was signed, North Adelaide was still refusing to sign the Financial Agreement. In addition, North Adelaide, like Christies Beach, was continuing to receive fortnightly funding. More particularly, Dr Cornwall had a further problem because of the promise to meet representatives from Christies Beach and North Adelaide to discuss funding when the Report had been published. There was, therefore, no compulsion for Christies Beach and North Adelaide to sign the Financial Agreement before that meeting. Plainly, there were political difficulties in withdrawing funds from Christies Beach on the grounds of its refusal to sign the Financial Agreement while not withdrawing them from North Adelaide. Each of these reasons would have given political ammunition to the Christies Beach Shelter. Viewed collectively, those reasons would have enabled it to mount a powerful case against its being singled out. The fact that North Adelaide did ultimately sign the Financial Agreement is not relevant since Dr Cornwall's decision to withdraw funding had been made before it had done so and before it had communicated its intention to do so.

Thus, briefly stated, Dr Cornwall's reasons for not simply relying on the failure of Christies Beach to sign the Financial Agreement and the associated factors and for including the unsubstantiated allegations were

1. That he and the Department were concerned about the political response to the decision to withdraw funding. They knew that the plaintiff could be politically very active and would be likely to have support from at least some of the shelters.

2. The inclusion of the unsubstantiated allegations would deflect criticism of the decision to withdraw funding. That would certainly make it very hard for the Christies Beach Shelter to protest about the withdrawal of funding, particularly as the allegations indicated that personally and professionally the staff of the shelter were not fit and proper persons to do the work.

3. No shelter could afford to defend the Christies Beach Shelter given the kind of conduct which had been alleged against it.

4. It enabled Dr Cornwall and the Department to justify different treatment of the Christies Beach Shelter from other shelters which were guilty of similar failings to those of the Christies Beach Shelter.

If the failure to sign the Financial Agreement and the associated reasons were to be the stated grounds for the decision to withdraw funding, obvious political difficulties existed. I find that the unsubstantiated allegations were included to avoid those difficulties by singling out Christies Beach. Expressed another way, if as Dr Cornwall repeatedly stated, the unsubstantiated allegations were not the reasons for withdrawing funds, there could be no other reason for including them in the Report except to distinguish Christies Beach from other shelters. In short, the Review Committee and Dr Cornwall had identified something which singled out Christies Beach as being different from other shelters. The difference was the unsubstantiated allegations, a fact which the Review Committee emphasised in the early paragraphs of that part of the Report which deals with the Christies Beach Shelter.

The inclusion of the allegations also meant that it would be extremely difficult for any member of the Shelter to mount any vigorous political campaign with the goal of reversing the decision. The difficulties in the path of such a campaign are manifest. The list of allegations was long and varied. It included at least one allegation of criminal conduct (the misappropriation of funds) and other allegations of serious personal misconduct. For those reasons, the public would be likely to view any political campaign as well as any denial of the allegations with scepticism. For these reasons, I find that the allegations were also included to silence any political dissent.

While it is true that on 12 May, Dr Cornwall directed the Review Committee to include the allegations against Christies Beach in the Report, that does not explain the tenor of the allegations or the manner in which they were expressed or the terms of the recommendation to withdraw funding. For reasons to be given later, I find that the allegations evidenced malice on the part of the Review Committee and that the persons who were actuated by malice were Mrs Roberts, Ms Anderson and Ms Wighton.

A direction to include the allegations did not require that the full facts should not be stated. In a review of this kind, all relevant facts should be fairly placed before the Minister. The direction by Dr Cornwall did not excuse the tenor of the Report nor the manner in which the allegations were expressed.

I turn to the terms of the recommendation. In their evidence the Review Committee and Ms Anderson said that the recommendation to withdraw funding was not grounded on the unsubstantiated allegations. Mrs Roberts said that the unsubstantiated allegations were not relevant to the decision to withdraw funding. Although Ms Anderson had drafted the Report, the recommendation on page 76 was drafted in committee. The decision to withdraw funding was, of course, a decision to be made by the members of the Review Committee, not her. Although she said that she agreed with the recommendation, she later said there was no need to rely on the unsubstantiated allegations. Ms Johnson's reasons for including the unsubstantiated allegations were that she believed there was an obligation to report them to the Minister. In her view, maladministration was the primary issue. Ms Blake said that the decision to withdraw funding was based on the failure to sign the Financial Agreement. Her evidence was that she had believed that the allegations had been put to the Shelter. She was clearly under a false impression. In her view, the Committee could not rely on the unsubstantiated allegations. Ms King's evidence was that there were substantial matters on which the criticisms of the Department remained valid other than the unsubstantiated allegations. Thus, it is apparent the reasons for the recommendation of the Review Committee were not based on the unsubstantiated allegations.

Thus, although the members of the Review Committee may have had separate reasons for the decision to withdraw funding, it is clear that it was not necessary for the unsubstantiated allegations to be included in the Report. Some, like Ms Johnson, said that the reasons were included for the purpose of reporting them to the Minister. For the reasons which follow, I do not accept that explanation. That was not the only way they could have been drawn to his attention. The evidence shows that Dr Cornwall had been supplied with a list of allegations on 4 May and they were discussed at the meeting of 12 May. If the intent had been merely to inform Dr Cornwall, that list would have sufficed and Dr Cornwall could have referred the allegations to the police and CAC for investigation. It was entirely unnecessary to include them in the Report or to create a separate report. The fact that the Committee recommended in the Report that the allegations be investigated and commended Dr Cornwall for arranging the investigation indicated not that the allegations should be investigated, but a desire to emphasise the reliance of the Review Committee on them.

In my view, this evidence betrays a desire by the members of the Review Committee to distance themselves now from the unsubstantiated allegations. Each admitted in her evidence that she did not know whether the unsubstantiated allegations were true or not. Some admitted that they knew that publication of them would be likely to cause loss and damage to the plaintiff and to the other members of the staff and management of the Shelter. But accepting that evidence, why were the unsubstantiated allegations included?

When the Report was being drafted, Ms Wighton would have been very much aware of the political concerns held by both Dr Cornwall and the Department. I find that she would have informed at least Mrs Roberts and Ms Anderson of those concerns. I find that the unsubstantiated allegations were included because of those political concerns. In other words, at the end of the day, both those drafting the Report and Dr Cornwall held the same concerns. The reasons for including the allegations were to single out the Christies Beach Shelter. In this context, it is relevant to recall that the Report was intended to suit the purposes of the Department and those purposes were to close the Christies Beach Shelter and open another in its stead.

There is another way of considering this question. The evidence given by members of the Review Committee and Ms Anderson as to their individual reasons for the recommendation was either true or it was false. If it was true, the conclusions I have reached are correct. If the reason for the decision was the refusal of Christies Beach to sign the Financial Agreement and its financial mismanagement, there was no need to include the unsubstantiated allegations in the Report. They had been drawn to the attention of Dr Cornwall before 12 May and he could then have had them investigated and taken whatever action was recommended by the investigating authority. Their evidence demonstrates that political reasons caused the recommendation to be framed as it was. If their evidence was false, it still provides no justification for the malicious way in which the allegations were stated in the Report. Nor was there any justification for including the unsubstantiated allegations in the recommendation to withdraw funding, particularly as the members of the Review Committee did not know whether the allegations were true or not.

I will now examine whether the plaintiff has proved each cause of action. In the case of the causes of action in negligence and defamation, the same cause of action is pleaded against more than one defendant and different issues exist in relation to each. It is convenient to begin with defamation. I will then examine in turn misfeasance in a public office, negligence and conspiracy. Before doing so, it is necessary to examine two issues concerning the Review Committee. The first examines the legal position of the Committee. The second examines the manner in which the Committee prepared its Report.

The legal position of the Review Committee affects two questions. The first is whether each individual member of the Review Committee and Ms Anderson are personally liable to the plaintiff. In one sense, little hangs on the determination of this question since the State of South Australia has agreed to indemnify each member of the Review Committee and Ms Anderson. The second issue concerns the vicarious liability of the State and of the Commonwealth. The determination of the legal position of the Committee will depend upon the reason why the Committee was appointed and its statutory basis. It will require an examination of both the SAAP Program and provisions of the Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA).

As already mentioned, the SAAP Program was constituted by the SAAP Act and the SAAP Agreement. Pursuant to the Act and the Agreement, the Commonwealth funded the program and the State was required to contribute to that funding: see cls 10 and 12. The Agreement contained a number of provisions relating to reviews of the program. Clause 8(7) provided for a joint review by the Commonwealth of the State's program.

"The Commonwealth and each State shall jointly review the State's program at such times and in such manner as are agreed upon by the Commonwealth Minister and the State Minister."

By cl 9, it was agreed that "the Commonwealth and the States shall commence a joint evaluation of the States' programs not later than 30 June 1987". A comparison of cl 8(7) and cl 9 makes it quite apparent that cl 8(7) refers to a review of the program in each individual State, while cl 9 refers to an evaluation of the whole program as it operated nationally. This is made clear by the location of the apostrophe in each clause and especially by the definition of "evaluation" in cl 4 of the Agreement. This distinction is reinforced by the guidelines which, in par 11, refer to a national evaluation in these terms:

"A national evaluation of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program will be jointly undertaken by the Commonwealth-States/Territories. It will include:

· evaluation of administrative arrangements after the first year of operation; and

· evaluation of the Agreement to commence 2 years prior to its expiry."

It is apparent from the terms of the SAAP Agreement that the evaluation to which par 11 of the guidelines refers is not the kind of review contemplated by cl 8(7).

Clause 10 of the Agreement provided for approved services under the Agreement and, in addition, cl 11 stated that the Commonwealth would provide funding for other purposes. The effect of cl 11(a)(ii) is that funding is provided on condition that it be applied by the State for the purpose of meeting expenditure incurred by "participating in reviews and evaluations". Like provisions are in cls 10(6) and 13(3)(b)(iii). It must be remembered that each State also had to contribute to the SAAP Program in the manner provided in cl 12. The State's funding would be applied to approved services and other services which plainly would include a review. Thus, contributions of the Commonwealth and the States were applied to all aspects of the program including reviews.

To summarise, the SAAP Agreement required reviews of State programs and of the national program and, in the case of a review of a State's program, those reviews were funded by both the Commonwealth and the State.

Although the SAAP Agreement provided for reviews, the genesis for this review was the condition imposed by Senator Grimes for the funding of deficits incurred by shelters in South Australia as at June, 1986. His approval of funding to pay the deficits was given on four conditions. They are set out in the letter to Dr Cornwall dated 2 July, 1986 which has already been quoted. It will be recalled that one condition was in these terms:

"The administrative and accounting practices of the services involved being jointly reviewed by officers of our departments."

As the letter approved funding for women's shelters, it is apparent that the expression "the services involved" to which that condition refers are women's shelters. The context of the letter reinforces that conclusion. Thus, it was a condition of the funding of the deficits that a review of the administrative and accounting practices of women's shelters in South Australia would be conducted jointly by officers of the Commonwealth and State departments.

The question of a review was not mentioned in any of the later correspondence between Senator Grimes and Dr Cornwall which was proved until a letter written early in November 1986 which was received in Dr Cornwall's Office on 14 November, 1986. In that letter, Senator Grimes commended Dr Cornwall for his decision to review the administration of women's shelters. It will be recalled that that decision had been announced on 22 October but the constitution of the Committee had not then been decided. Senator Grimes asked that an officer of his department be included in the review. That part of Senator Grimes' letter read:

"In view of the joint funding nature of SAAP might I suggest that an officer of my Department be involved in the process, if not already included, whether by membership of any steering review committee established or by participating in drafting the terms of reference for the consultant. This would accord with one of the specific conditions placed upon the provision of funds for the elimination of the WESP deficits in my letter of 2 July 1986, namely that, 'the administrative and accounting practices of the services involved being jointly reviewed by officers of our departments'."

Dr Cornwall acceded to the request and Ms King was appointed to the Review Committee. The Review Committee therefore comprised one officer of the State department (at first Ms Lowe and later Ms Wighton), one officer of the Commonwealth department, and three other members who were not officers of either department.

The fact that the membership of the Review Committee extended beyond officers of the two departments did not, I think, cause it to be a review outside the bounds of the SAAP Agreement. That Agreement did not prescribe how a review should be conducted or the constitution of the reviewing authority. Mr Stanley, who appeared for the Commonwealth, nevertheless contended that this review was outside the bounds of the Agreement because it did not fall within cl 8(7) in that it was not a review of the whole of the State's program. I do not accept that submission. In my view, Mr Stanley reads cl 8(7) in an unduly restrictive manner. Clause 8(7) authorises joint reviews of "the State's program at such times and in such manner as are agreed" by the respective Ministers. It is clear that the Ministers are authorised to agree how extensive or restricted the review may be. That is the plain intent of that clause. To put it another way, it would be absurd to suggest that a joint review could examine the whole of the State's program but not one part of it. The power to undertake the larger review implies a power to undertake the lesser, particularly given the use of the expression "at such times and in such manner as are agreed".

Mr Stanley also relied on the fact that the Review Committee formally addressed its Report to Dr Cornwall and not to the Commonwealth. That submission too carries no force. It overlooks the fact that the State was responsible for the day to day administration of the program (see cl 8(9) of the SAAP Agreement) and the fact that the joint review could be conducted in such manner as the Ministers agreed (see cl 8(7) of the SAAP Agreement). Senator Grimes had approved the manner of the review and it included Ms King as a member. It was in every respect a joint review.

For all of these reasons, the Review Committee conducted the review pursuant to the provisions of the SAAP Agreement and was a committee established under that Agreement and the SAAP Act.

Mr Stanley also contended that the Review Committee was instead an advisory committee established pursuant to the Community Welfare Act 1972. In 1986 and 1987, s 11 of that Act authorised the Minister to appoint what the Act calls "community welfare advisory committees" and, in ss 12 and 13, the Act prescribed terms of office and procedures for such committees. It is necessary to note the provisions of all of those sections:

"11. (1) The Minister may appoint community welfare advisory committees to advise him upon matters pertaining to community welfare.

(2) A committee so appointed shall consist of a chairman and such other members as the Minister thinks fit.

(3) A community welfare advisory committee must consist of persons with special knowledge of or experience in the matters to be referred to the committee for advice.

(4) At least one of the members of a community welfare advisory committee must be an officer of the Department.

(5) The Director-General shall provide such secretarial and other services and facilities as may be reasonably required for the purposes of the committee."

12. (1) A member of a community welfare advisory committee shall, subject to subsection (2), hold office upon terms and conditions fixed by the Minister.

(2) The term of office of any such member shall not exceed two years.

(3) Upon the expiration of his first term of office, a member shall be eligible for re-appointment for one further term.

(4) The Minister may pay to the members of such a committee such allowances and expenses as he thinks fit.

13. (1) Subject to this Act, and any direction of the Minister, the procedure of a community welfare advisory committee shall be such as is determined by the committee.

(2) The chairman shall make such reports to the Minister on the deliberations of and conclusions reached by the committee as the Minister may require."

To complete the review of relevant statutory provisions, it is necessary to note s 235a:

"235a. (1) A person shall not incur any civil liability for any act or omission done by him in good faith in the exercise or discharge of his powers, functions, duties or responsibilities under this Act.

(2) A liability that would, but for subsection (1), lie against a person shall lie against the Crown."

The effect of s 235a is to shift any civil liability for any act or omission from the individual to the Crown. Thus, if s 235a applied, each member of the Review Committee and Ms Anderson were entitled to be indemnified by the Crown in right of South Australia pursuant to s 235a provided they had acted in good faith. Relying on all of these provisions, Mr Stanley contended that the members of the Review Committee were acting as an advisory committee and, as such, were indemnified from liability under s 235a. For the reasons which follow, I do not accept that contention.

If the exercise is undertaken of comparing the membership and procedures of the Review Committee with the provisions of ss 11, 12 and 13, it can be readily seen that most of those provisions are satisfied. Each provision in s 11 is satisfied in that the Review Committee was appointed by the Minister, it had a chairman, the members of the Review Committee had special knowledge of the matters referred to the Committee, at least one member was an officer of the Department, and the Director-General provided secretarial and other assistance. The provisions of s 12(2) and s 12(4) were satisfied. The provisions of s 13 were also satisfied in that the Committee did determine its own procedures, except to the extent they were directed by the Minister in May and June, 1987, and the Committee reported to the Minister. In addition, I think that the Review Committee was advising the Minister. In provisions such as this, the verb "to advise" in s 11(1) should not be given an unduly restrictive meaning. In ordinary usage, "advise" primarily means to give counsel, to give advice, or to recommend. It also means to inform or notify. See generally Macquarie Dictionary and Oxford English Dictionary. The meaning of "advise" and hence "advisory" is wide enough to include the process of examining and reporting upon an issue. There is, therefore, no reason why the expression "advisory committee" should not extend to a committee appointed to examine and report on a particular aspect of the operations of the Community Welfare Department or community welfare generally. A review of the administration of women's shelters in 1986 and 1987 was a review of an important part of the provision of welfare to the community: see s 10 of the Community Welfare Act. It was, therefore, an aspect pertaining to community welfare upon which it advised the Minister.

However, the status of the Review Committee is not to be determined by assessing whether the Committee happens to satisfy the provisions of ss 11-13. A committee such as this could be constituted pursuant to a number of different provisions. It is essential, therefore, to have regard to the manner in which it came into being and the purpose of the Committee. The events leading to the establishment of the Committee have already been mentioned. Those events show that it was intended to be a review of women's shelters and was to be conducted pursuant to the SAAP Program. The SAAP Program envisaged reviews of this kind. This Committee was appointed because the two Ministers responsible for administering the SAAP Program desired it. It was appointed under the SAAP Program to review an important aspect of that program in South Australia. Its genesis was the condition imposed by Senator Grimes on 2 July 1986 and the immediate catalyst was the perceived need for shelters to be accountable, the perception receiving a special stimulus from the political agitation in October 1986 concerning the requirement to sign the Financial Agreement. Its recommendation to withdraw funding could only be implemented by the two Ministers, Commonwealth and State, responsible for the program. The Committee reported, not under the Community Welfare Act, but under the SAAP Act and SAAP Agreement. The review was funded by the Commonwealth and the State under the SAAP Program. In every respect, the Review Committee was a committee appointed under the SAAP Program to do a task envisaged by that program, its costs were paid by both the Commonwealth and the State, and it reported to a Minister responsible for the program, and only the two Ministers responsible for the SAAP Program could recommend withdrawal of funding.

Some reliance was placed by Mr Stanley on the fact that the Review Committee was described by the Department in submissions to the Select Committee as a ministerial advisory committee and was so described by the Ombudsman in his report for the year ending 30 June 1990. No weight can be placed on either document as the status of the Committee was not a material issue in either instance. More to the point, are the annual reports of the Department for the years ending 30 June, 1987 and 1988. Both reports list advisory committees constituted under s 11 of the Community Welfare Act but the Review Committee is not included. Furthermore, Dr Cornwall did not perceive the Review Committee to be an advisory committee under the Community Welfare Act. In any event, the issue is to be determined as a matter of law and not by how the Department regarded it.

For all of these reasons, the Review Committee was not an advisory committee constituted under the Community Welfare Act.

The members of the Review Committee and Ms Anderson were, therefore, functioning on behalf of both the State and the Commonwealth on this review which was funded by both the State and the Commonwealth. If the members of the Committee or Ms Anderson have committed any tort they are each individually liable. In the case of Ms King, she is liable to the plaintiff by virtue of the combined effect of s 56 and s 64 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth): Groves v Commonwealth [1982] HCA 21; (1982) 150 CLR 113 at 121. Section 64 provides:

"In any suit to which the Commonwealth or a State is a party, the rights of parties shall as nearly as possible be the same, and judgment may be given and costs awarded on either side, as in a suit between subject and subject."

As Ms King was an employee of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is vicariously liable for her acts or omissions. In the case of the other members of the Review Committee and Ms Anderson, their individual liability becomes a liability of the Crown in right of South Australia by reason of s 10(1) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1972, the legislation in force in 1986 and 1987. Section 10(1) provided:

" 10. (1) Subject to this Act and any other Act -

(a) the Crown shall be liable in respect of any contract made on its behalf if the same manner and to the same extend as a private person of full age and capacity is liable in respect of his contracts;

(b) the Crown shall be liable in tort in the same manner and to the same extent as a private person of full age and capacity -

(i) for any tort committed by a servant, agent or other person acting in the employment, or on behalf, of the Crown;

(ii) in respect of any breach of duty that would, as between subjects, give rise to liability in tort."

The other members of the Review Committee and Ms Anderson were all acting on behalf of the Crown. To put it shortly, if the members of the Review Committee and Ms Anderson are each individually liable, the Commonwealth and the State of South Australia are vicariously liable for their acts and omissions and are properly joined by reason of the Judiciary Act and the Crown Proceedings Act respectively,

I turn to examine the manner in which the Review Committee worked, at least so far as it was described in the evidence. The lack of most of the Committee's documents, agenda papers and minutes hampers a proper analysis. Minutes were kept of meetings of the Review Committee but, it will be recalled, they were destroyed. Copies of minutes of only two or three meetings have been obtained from other sources.

The Department provided secretarial and other assistance to the Committee. The minutes were kept by an officer of the Department. On most occasions, that officer was Ms Meredyth Taylor. In addition, the staff of the Department was available for consultation by the Committee and Ms Anderson consulted them. Ms Anderson worked in the offices of the Department. Her work area was part of what is often called an open plan office in the non-government welfare unit, which was responsible for shelters. Her work area was close to the work area of other officers of the Department, two of whom were Ms Taylor and Ms Adrienne Summers. They were both involved in administering the SAAP Program. Ms Anderson received assistance from those officers as well as from Ms Wighton, Ms Heath, Mr Bicknell, and Mr Foran and Mr Billett, finance officers in the Department. On occasions, assistance was provided by other officers of the Department in addition to those I have named. Plainly, Ms Anderson was in a position to obtain whatever help she required from the Department. As she said she had ample opportunity to speak to other officers of the Department. Ms Anderson was close to the Department in both a physical and operational sense.

Ms Anderson met Dr Cornwall before the first meeting of the Review Committee which was held on 2 December, 1986. Mrs Roberts and Ms Wighton were also present. I accept Ms Anderson's evidence that the meeting was held for the purpose of briefing her as to the work of the Review Committee and why the review was being held.

Ms Anderson undertook some preliminary work in late 1986 but, as she said, work did not start in earnest until January 1987. The Committee met from time to time but not on a regular basis. Meetings were held at the offices of the Department. Not all members attended every meeting of the Committee. However, the evidence suggests that Mrs Roberts, Ms Wighton and Ms Anderson did attend all meetings. No member of the Committee or Ms Anderson had any clear recollection of how long meetings lasted. The evidence of Ms Blake and Ms Johnson indicates, and I find, that, with one exception, they lasted two to three hours. The exception seems to be the meeting of the Committee on 22 June.

Ms Blake's role in the Committee was to provide input from the point of view of shelters. Ms Johnson played a relatively minor role concerning the operation of the SAAP Program, but was a major contributor on administrative issues. Ms King represented the interests of the Commonwealth as a partner in the SAAP Program and as a provider of funding for it. Ms Wighton obviously represented the Department's interests.

Mrs Roberts worked in close consultation with Ms Anderson. With her she drafted the agenda. She led but did not direct the discussion. I accept Ms Anderson's evidence that she spent a lot of time examining documents. It is clear that Ms Anderson also worked in close consultation with Ms Wighton and Ms Heath. It was Ms Wighton who had asked Ms Anderson to assist the Review Committee as its consultant. Ms Wighton also arranged for Departmental files to be delivered to Ms Anderson to assist her in her work. Ms Wighton arranged for the Department to provide other assistance to Ms Anderson. I find that Ms Wighton gave information to Ms Anderson concerning the various allegations against the Christies Beach Shelter. Ms Heath also had a close knowledge of the allegations against Christies Beach. She had been a person to whom many complaints had been made and she had been involved in the investigation of a number of them. Ms Anderson's evidence was that she extracted the allegations against the Christies Beach Shelter from the Department's files. Many of those allegations had been seen or noted by Ms Heath. I find that Ms Heath also assisted Ms Anderson in collating the allegations. Ms Anderson said that one person she consulted was Ms Heath. It follows from the above that I do not accept Ms Anderson's evidence that she came across the allegations by chance.

According to Ms Anderson, the members of the Review Committee brought their own skills to the work of the Committee. For example, Ms Johnson prepared a document called "Administrative Guidelines" which is Appendix I to the Report. Ms Anderson described the Committee as a working committee. That is not an expression which correctly describes the work of the Committee. Although some members clearly assisted with their individual skills, the Committee relied on Ms Anderson primarily for the information which was contained in the Report. It was Ms Anderson who gathered information from the Department's files and other sources and presented it to the Committee. Ms Anderson said that documents which she had examined were copied and presented in a folder which was tabled at meetings for inspection by the Committee. The evidence of Ms Blake, Ms Johnson and Ms King does not bear that out. I prefer their evidence to that of Ms Anderson on this issue. It is clear from the evidence of Ms Blake, Ms Johnson and Ms King that the Committee received little by way of primary documents and relied on summaries presented to them by Ms Anderson. I find that the original documents were not made available to the Review Committee. To the extent that any documents were tabled, few were inspected and such inspection as did occur would have been rather desultory and of little assistance. There is no suggestion that all of the documents which she had inspected were available for the Committee's inspection. It is also plain, even on Ms Anderson's evidence, that all members of the Committee did not read all of the documents. Furthermore, the utility of tabling a bundle of documents without some kind of explanatory document is questionable. To summarise, the evidence clearly shows that Ms Blake, Ms Johnson and Ms King relied heavily on what was provided by Ms Anderson. As Ms Johnson said, she absolutely relied on Ms Anderson. The evidence also clearly shows that it was Ms Anderson who informed the Committee of the allegations against Christies Beach and that that occurred late in the course of the review. I find that it was in May 1987.

Ms Anderson prepared drafts of the Report which were circulated before and discussed at meetings of the Committee. The Committee would amend the drafts, relying on their own knowledge and understanding of issues. It appears that most of the meetings were spent discussing the form of the drafts. This, too, would have left little time for examination of any documents which had been tabled. The recommendation to withdraw funding from the Christies Beach Shelter was drafted in committee.

I also find that Mrs Roberts, Ms Wighton and Ms Anderson were, in effect, an executive committee of the Review Committee particularly in May and June 1987. The evidence of Ms Blake and Ms King was that those three met separately from time to time. Other evidence also shows that they met each other at times other than meetings of the Committee, although all three of them would not necessarily be present at the same time. They were the members of the Committee who had met Dr Cornwall for a briefing session late in 1986. They were the members of the Committee who met Dr Cornwall on 12 May. They were the members of the Committee who met Mr Selway on 1 July to discuss the advice he had provided. They were the members of the Committee who prepared the final draft after Mr Selway had given his advice. They had ample opportunities to meet each other. Ms Anderson and Ms Wighton would easily be able to meet at the Department's office. Mrs Roberts met Ms Anderson quite frequently. Ms Wighton's minute to Dr Cornwall dated 11 May, 1987 shows that the three of them met to discuss the format of the Report. I find that Mrs Roberts, Ms Wighton and Ms Anderson together shaped the form and content of the Report, Mrs Roberts through her position as chairperson, Ms Wighton as the second highest officer in the Department responsible for women's shelters, and Ms Anderson as its consultant.

The plaintiff prosecutes four claims for defamation. The first is against the members of the Review Committee and Ms Anderson claiming that she was defamed in the Report. In this section of the reasons, I will refer to the members of the Review Committee and Ms Anderson collectively as "the Review Committee defendants". The remaining three claims are against Mrs Roberts, the ABC and TVB in respect of the television broadcasts on 12 August 1987. I will deal later with those three claims.

It is not entirely clear from their defence whether the Review Committee defendants joined issue on the plaintiff's claim that the remarks of which she complained were defamatory and that she was identifiable as one of those who were the subject of the remarks. In their closing submissions they admitted that, although the plaintiff is not named in the Report, she is identifiable as a member of the staff and the management committee of the Christies Beach Shelter and that parts of the Report could lead persons who were acquainted with her to believe that she is one of the persons to which the statements refer. They also admitted that, broadly speaking, the statements of which the plaintiff complains are defamatory in the sense that the words would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society. That is tantamount to an admission that the statements are defamatory: see, for example, Mirror Newspapers Ltd v World Hosts Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 3; (1979) 141 CLR 632 per Mason and Jacobs JJ at 638.

The Review Committee defendants, however, deny that the statements are actionable. They rely on the following defence:

• that the Report was published by Dr Cornwall in the Legislative Council and was thus published on an occasion of absolute privilege, and

• that the publication to Dr Cornwall occurred on an occasion of qualified privilege in that they had a duty to report to him and he had a corresponding interest or duty to receive the report.

It is common ground that the Report was published in the Legislative Council by Dr Cornwall under parliamentary privilege and, therefore, on an occasion of absolute privilege. That fact is relevant because it explains the circumstances in which the Review Committee reported to Dr Cornwall. All of the Review Committee defendants other than Ms King also relied on the defence of justification, pleading that the statements complained of were true in substance and in fact.

The statements in the Report which the plaintiff claims are defamatory are the following. The page references are to the pages in the Report where the statements appear. Those pages have been reproduced in Appendix 1 of these reasons where the page numbering reproduces that in the Report.

'It is evident that the Christies Beach Shelter has frequently come to the attention of senior management in the Department and to the responsible Ministers - State and Federal - over a period of about five years because of deficiencies in financial management, unacceptable management practices and because of unsubstantiated allegations of professional and personal misbehaviour'.