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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4233 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

When the Minister presented this Bill in November last year, he described the proposal as addressing the real needs of victims. I am not convinced that it does so, and I will move a number of amendments based on the considerable work that has been done on the issue to remedy some of the problems.

Reform of the criminal injuries compensation scheme was first raised in 1997 through a discussion paper issued by the Attorney-General. Community groups representing victims of crime and well placed to comment on the impact of the proposal were very disturbed by the direction of the paper. The chief intent appeared to be to cut down the costs of the scheme to the territory Government without appropriate consideration of the needs of victims and equity issues. Without a doubt, this legislation achieves that primary goal but at too high a cost to the very people it purports to assist. Since then a working party has been convened by the Victims of Crime Coordinator and the Assembly Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety has had an inquiry into the Bill.

It is ironic that in many instances this legislation will leave victims of crime worse off than they would have been under the original proposals canvassed in the Minister's discussion paper. I note, for example, that the paper recommended that assistance to secondary victims should be limited. Except in the case of death, this legislation now limits that assistance to zero. The 1997 discussion paper recommended that assistance to applicants be refused if they fail without reasonable excuse to report the event to police. Under this legislation no excuse is reasonable. The 1997 discussion paper also recommended that financial assistance for pain and suffering be assessed by the proportionate scaling method. Under this legislation there is no financial assistance for pain and suffering.

Such an outcome raises very real questions as to the value of inquiries and reports embraced by this Government. I cannot find any instances in this legislation where the Government has changed its course - although there are some amendments now - in response to the submissions and contributions made by committee members or representatives of the community. Such an imperious approach is alienating and demoralising the erstwhile contributors. It is politically and socially destructive.

The cost of the current scheme does warrant attention. In his press release of November last the Attorney-General announced a $9m expected payout for 1998-99. We did not get to that point. Indeed, the much smaller blow-out in payments last year was a problem of his own making. After foreshadowing a more limited scheme in 1997, the Attorney-General created a rush of applications. In announcing that the more limited entitlements would apply retrospectively from June 1998, he compounded the problem.

Not surprisingly, under the considerable pressure of applicants desperate to have their cases heard before this Bill was implemented, a 48 per cent surge in applications in 1997-98 saw awards in 1998-99 rise by 44 per cent. If retrospectivity were not a feature of this Bill, we would have a much more realistic view of the costs of the existing scheme.

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