Page 1329 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 16 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Moving from that, I want to broaden my comments in support of Mr Stefaniak's comments. I also draw to members' attention the back part of the last few annual reports by the Supreme Court on the administration of this scheme. I have chosen the year before last, in case anything is on appeal that I am not aware of. I want to draw members' attention to pages 27 and 33 of the 1989-90 report. At page 27, there is mention of the facts of an assault outside JD's Tavern in Civic. I feel free to mention this one because this establishment is no longer operational as such. This was an assault, in fact, by the doorman. There may have been others involved. The award given, from taxpayers' money, was $19,654, for an assault where the person sustained a broken nose, a broken shoulder, and multiple bruises on the head, face, arm, chest and back.
At page 32, again there is mention of an assault where the applicant was injured in relation to an incident outside JD's Tavern in Civic. A leather studded belt was used, and so on. The applicant was awarded $6,098. If you go through all of the awards listed in this 1989-90 report you will notice a significant number associated with, to put it loosely, drinking establishments.
If we are going to talk about levies - and I say this with respect to Mr Stefaniak - you are talking about taxing the community, when there may be arguments that there is a case for some form of recovery, not necessarily under the subrogation principles of this Bill, from the assailant - where we can now recover it. We may need to consider whether this community is not justified in creating a levy to cover the extra costs of policing, and the extra costs under this legislation that accrue to the community by virtue of the very profitable operations of these types of establishments.
That is an issue that I would like to nudge along, in the public's eye, at this stage. I am not referring, of course, to reputable and well-organised establishments; and, I hasten to say, nor was I referring in that context to prohibition discos. I am referring to those very quick-buck disco-type establishments. Members will know all too clearly what I am referring to. We need to question whether there should not be some further infrastructure contribution from those establishments.
Members will also note in those reports the fair number of applications by policemen. That is an issue we need to look at in the context of their support package, and in the context of interaction with other awards and compensation rights. We are conscious of that matter, and will be looking at it in due course. I thank the house. I believe that this measure advances the cause of victims' rights a step further. But I accept the suggestions made across the floor that there is still more work to be done in the area.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .