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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4237 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

Domestic violence and disputes between neighbours accounted for 10 per cent of cases; unprovoked assault, for 16 per cent; provoked assault where the perpetrator got criminal injuries compensation, for nearly 2 per cent. The remaining 11 per cent were miscellaneous. I could not split them up without having a chart a mile long, so I lumped them all together.

By my count, 161 cases out of 528 were for injury in the course of unemployment and 34 were for indecent or sexual assaults. These are significant figures. I think the amendment about workers compensation may very well go a long way towards fixing the problem. Cost has blown out from $6m to $10m. A wild projection by the Minister on the radio today was that they could go as high as $12m. I would suggest that that is because there has been a rush following publicity about the scheme and the retrospectivity of the legislation. We are seeing the retrospectivity already being taken care of, I suspect.

A close look at the statistics reveals a bit of inconsistency in the size of awards. Maybe the scheme is not at fault. Maybe guidelines should be provided for the magistracy, the Master of the Supreme Court and the Registrar. Let us take a look at some examples of awards of between $6,000 and $10,000. A young boy bashed by another young fellow was awarded $6,000. A person who was stabbed and hit with an iron bar was awarded $8,000, only 2,000 more. The two awards are hardly consistent.

A boy whose parents died in a house fire that was deliberately lit by an arsonist was awarded $10,000. A person who was bashed while walking through the mall in Civic was awarded $5,000. I might say as an aside that I was clobbered in Civic at one time. I did not apply for compensation, but I am tempted to apply now after seeing an award of $5,000. I see the smile on the retrospective tiger's face. I am not going to do it.

Mr Humphries: Who bashed you?

MR HARGREAVES: I am not going to dob. It was a Liberal Party member. An AFP officer was given $7,000 for a soft tissue injury sustained in the Parliament House demonstrations. I am sure that was a significant injury. Only $8,000 was given to another AFP officer who received serious injuries at the same demonstration. The guy who suffered just soft tissue injury got $7,000 and the policeman who suffered significantly serious injuries got only another $1,000. That is a bit wonky. Nine thousand dollars was awarded to a student who was punched out during a school rugby match. He got $1,000 more than the policeman who was significantly injured in a demonstration at Parliament House. Eight thousand dollars went to a policeman who was seriously injured in the Parliament House demonstration. Eight thousand dollars was also awarded to the husband of the woman who had manure thrown on her during her wedding. He was so stressed out by seeing his bride and her wedding dress covered in manure that he got $8,000. There is something a bit odd there.

In the $10,000 to $15,000 bracket, there was an award to an AFP officer who suffered spinal injuries when he was on duty. Another AFP officer got $15,000 for a serious injury in the Parliament House demonstration. But a bloke got $11,000 because he was attacked at a hockey field and somebody kicked him in the groin. He suffered excruciating pain, no doubt. It would bring water to your eyes very quickly, no doubt.

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