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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4229 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Last week the Attorney told the annual report committee hearings that victims assistance bodies supported this Bill. He said the key interest group, the Victims of Crime Assistance League, or VOCAL, supported the Bill. Mr Speaker, that assertion was wrong. The Attorney simply misrepresented the views of VOCAL. VOCAL has subsequently said publicly that it was outraged to learn that the Attorney-General, Mr Humphries, had informed the committee that VOCAL supported this Bill. To the contrary, VOCAL is seriously concerned about the proposal in the Bill. How can the Government, says VOCAL, spend $30m more on the redevelopment of Bruce Stadium than originally proposed while running to an agenda in relation to victims of crime that is simply designed to save money?

There have been a number of reports on the criminal injuries compensation scheme and this Bill, principally report No. 2 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety chaired by Mr Osborne. Each of these reports made recommendations about how the scheme could be changed to achieve the aim of making the scheme efficient, economical and equitable. The Attorney and the Government have moved simply to make the scheme economical. There is no commitment to equity in this "caring" Government. We saw that two nights ago when the Government moved to allow its departments and agencies to discriminate against disabled people. There is no sense of caring here.

The Government has moved to meet its financial imperative by shutting out a large number of potential beneficiaries from financial payments under the scheme, eliminating payments for pain and suffering, making reporting of crimes to the police compulsory, and making participation in the victims services scheme compulsory. It is ridiculous to suggest that only those persons suffering from an extremely serious injury that is likely to remain so permanently need special assistance. The special assistance replaces the compensatory payment for pain and suffering. The lacerations received by the victim who has a glass smashed in his or her face will leave permanent scars, but they will not fall within the definition of "extremely serious and likely to remain so permanently". Should this person be shut out of the scheme of special assistance or pain and suffering compensation?

Many victims of crime do not report the crimes to the police, for a variety of reasons. Domestic violence and sexual assault victims are classic examples. These people do seek, and need, assistance that the criminal justice system is often not able to deliver, often from their families or friends. Why should they be shut out of the scheme simply because they do not wish to report the matter to the police and have to relive the trauma of the assault every time they tell their story?

The Government is rushing this legislation through. I assume their determination to proceed with it tonight indicates that they have support from the crossbench. Requests to have the debate of this legislation deferred have been refused by the Government, and Mr Osborne and Mr Rugendyke have supported that refusal. Only this morning Mr Osborne announced on radio he was engaged in confidential and sensitive negotiations with the Attorney-General to salvage the Bill. What was the basis of these negotiations? What concessions did Mr Osborne extract from the Government in return for his support?

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