Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 11 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 3293 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Deputy Speaker, the other point I want to make is in response to what Ms Tucker has said about consultation on this Bill. I have to refute very strongly the suggestion that consultation on this Bill has been inadequate. The Government, in fact, has gone through a very long process to bring this legislation forward to the house. In the middle, I think, of last year - or even earlier - the Government put on the table a discussion paper on reform to the criminal injuries compensation system which outlined virtually all of reforms which now appear in this Bill. It followed through with a working party chaired by the Victims of Crime Coordinator, which reported on victims services earlier this year, I think, and which recommended, again, some modification of the scheme but supported the scheme which has now come before the Assembly. That party consisted of all the peak groups involved in providing services to victims and assisting them. I think that it was a fair and comprehensive review of the situation.

Ms Tucker: Did you talk to the lawyers?

MR HUMPHRIES: Lawyers were involved with that process, yes. As far as the lawyers were concerned, I, at the request of the Law Society, gave them a copy of the legislation. Certainly, they saw the previous papers and were invited to comment on those papers. Some groups of lawyers, such as the Bar Association, did not comment at all on the process, chose not to contribute at all to the debate that we generated by issuing the two previous documents. The Law Society in particular had a copy of the legislation a little while before it was introduced and remained opposed to the matter.

Ms Tucker: How long?

MR HUMPHRIES: Not very long, I concede, but the legislation was only available a short time before it was introduced, so it was not available for a long time before that. The fact of the matter is that it is very hard to construct an alternative course of action. If we decided to introduce the legislation and leave it on the table for six months, that six months' window in which people would be rushing the gate, as I said before, to put changes through before the gate came down would be extended and the uncertainty would be increased in that process.

Ms Tucker: Nothing much is getting pushed through the whole system, from what I hear, Mr Humphries.

MR HUMPHRIES: That is not true, Ms Tucker, I have to say. The court is processing criminal injuries compensation matters at about the same rate as it always has. There have been more claims lodged in the last five months because of the announcement of changes, but the court is still dealing with the changes at much the same rate as it was before. I would suggest to you that you should not believe everything that you hear about that from people who have a vested interest in stopping those changes from taking place.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to say that I am concerned about the process of delay with this Bill. I think that we have engaged in a very creditable consultation process throughout this matter. (Extension of time granted) This is a process which is going to be difficult to resolve. There will be lots of special pleading before the Justice and Community Safety Committee. I ask members to bear in mind when they listen to all that special pleading before that committee that it may appear that there are very good cases

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .