Page 838 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 13 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that will add one aspect to this matter. I also think it is fair for me to say - I am sure my Cabinet colleagues would agree - that the Government has recently agreed to increase the criminal injuries compensation level from $20,000 to $50,000, and to make a number of amendments to the legislation to better reflect the needs and demands in this area of the victims of crime.
One issue that I trust will be examined in the future - and I say this by way of personal observation and comment - is the decision in one of the United States jurisdictions to give court ordered therapy awards ab initio - at the beginning of proceedings - so that a victim does not have to wait a lengthy period for a positive finding of guilt and so that there is a recognition by the court that there is a victim and that the injury is not self-inflicted, for example. In some circumstances in California - particularly in sexual abuse cases but also cases in other categories - rather than award money two or three years down the line, the court has awarded against an applicant a number of hours of government paid therapy or other intervention. That is an innovative idea - one which I am sure the committee will look at - and it exemplifies to us that there is still room for improvement in our response to compensation to the victims of crime.
My view as a practitioner was - and I say it very frankly - that compensation often came through, under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance as it then was, too long after the event to have assisted the victim in the immediacy of the devastating impact of that offence, particularly in a personal assault situation where there had been physical and/or psychological injuries. I very much prefer a situation where we can have an immediate allocation of the resources that are required, sometimes in addition to those available under Medicare and other publicly funded programs.
That is an issue that I will bring back to the Assembly in due course. With Mr Connolly and certainly with Mr Stefaniak, I share a great eagerness to get on with the task and to improve the area of victims' rights. But we need to move prudently. I am sure the Law Reform Committee will bring up some further ideas and, hopefully, we will be able to go a little further in the overall national jurisdiction in respect of issues such as immediate response without requiring a finding of guilt in relation to an assailant. I assure the house that as soon as the Law Reform Committee's issues paper is released I will make it available in the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .