Page 3706 - Week 12 - Thursday, 13 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The committee ultimately believed that the matters in respect of which compensation would not be payable, as proposed in the draft regulations of the Bill, could not be supported. There were three areas that the Government proposed that would be exempted under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. These were: Firstly, an injury sustained by a person while participating in sport as a result of an act or omission of another participant, whether or not the act or omission was within any applicable sports rules; secondly, an injury arising out the use of a bicycle, skateboard, rollerblades or similar recreational device; and, thirdly, an injury caused by an animal. Clause 17 of the Bill proposes to apply the provisions of the Bill retrospectively - a matter which was commented on by the Assembly's Scrutiny of Bills Committee in its report on this Bill. I refer members to that particular provision.
Madam Speaker, because I am running short of time, I have set out my remarks on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill 1993 in this way to illustrate why the committee felt that the majority of the provisions of the Bill could not be supported. In making my final point with respect to the Bill and the committee's inquiry, I would like to comment, in particular, on the premise that the original intention of the Act was to compensate only victims of serious or violent crime, which the committee concluded was not supported by the evidence. This is outlined on pages 6 and 7 of the Legal Affairs Committee's report. Madam Speaker, rather than dismiss the Government's Bill out of hand, the committee has recommended that a number of other measures be taken in relation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 and the criminal injuries compensation scheme. These recommendations are Nos 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the committee's report. As Mr Humphries has addressed those, I do not propose to address those further this evening.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I wish to refer briefly to the additional comments made by Mrs Grassby in relation to the committee's report. I, too, seriously question whether Mrs Grassby's comments can be considered additional. Certainly, Mrs Grassby's last statement in her additional comments indicates that, really, it is more in the nature of a dissenting report. The final sentence reads:
The Attorney-General's proposed bill will ensure that compensation will only be paid in situations where criminal conduct does occur and where it is just and equitable to do so.
I believe that the committee in its report argued very strenuously against those provisions. In fact, they are in marked contrast to recommendation No. 1 of the committee's report, which perhaps indicates that Mrs Grassby really does not support the committee's position. The table of figures which represents costs per household in the ACT for the years 1994 to 1998 assumes an increase of over 50 per cent in criminal injuries compensation paid in each of these years. These figures are obviously based on speculation and imply that compensation is being paid to people who are undeserving of receiving that compensation. This has not been substantiated through evidence presented to the committee.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .