The refuge in Moruya is being handed over to SEWACS (from Bega), which now lives and works two hours from the community it is now going to be supporting. 

This may seem okay if MWACS was not doing a good job, but there is no evidence of that in any performance reporting processes or accreditation processes. 

In fact the opposite would be true. 

The reform process was based on the concept that funding would be given based on evidence not history. 

One would think previous performance constituted evidence however this was not taken into account.

Ideas on a piece of paper constituted "evidence". 

I am left wondering if SEWACS would return the refuge to Moruya community if it had its refuge returned to it.

Winsome Willow

Watson, ACT

I attended a rally to save the Bega Women's Refuge on August 4 and was heartened by the large turnout, all concerned about the refuge's future and hopeful that common sense would prevail over the fiasco that was the tendering process. 

So of course I was incredulous when I learnt that SEWACS (South East Women's and Children's Services) had been ''accidentally'' undercut by Mission Australia's tender. 

I understand that Mission Australia, which won the tender to run homelessness services in the Bega Valley under the new “Going Home Staying Home” rollout of the NSW Government, has now been given additional funding to take over the women's refuge, which it apparently had not realised was part of the package until after the tender was approved. 

This despite the fact SEWACS has been running the refuge and attendant specialist services for women escaping domestic violence in the Bega Valley for 30 years. 

In my view, the decision to grant Mission Australia this service is unfair and procedurally dubious; there was a lack of transparency and honesty in the process that effectively sidelined SEWACS due to an administrative oversight. 

In my view, if the Bega Women's Refuge must be put up for tender then it should at least be done in a fair and proper manner. 

I fear that with corporate religious organisation Mission Australia in charge, the refuge will no longer be a place of sanctuary where women fleeing domestic violence feel safe and supported. 

I would take the side of any Aboriginal woman choosing not to pass through the refuge door, filled with mistrust after the legacy of the Stolen Generation. 

I, too, would be filled with mistrust. 

I have no idea the narrative or the procedures that Mission Australia would seek to impose on women fleeing violence, but I do know that the one provided by SEWACS empowers women. 

Dr Isobel Blackthorn

Quaama