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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4238 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

But does $11,000 for that compare with $12,000 for the AFP officer who suffered spinal injuries? I do not think so. Twelve thousand dollars, $1000 more, was awarded to a woman who was indecently assaulted by two males in Civic, and only $2,000 more was given to the mother of a boy who was sexually assaulted by her de facto husband.

I have another classic. This one absolutely blew me away. Remember that $12,000 went to an AFP officer who suffered spinal injuries at the Parliament House demonstration. By comparison, $14,000 was awarded to a senior defence officer who was barrelled over at Government House during an award ceremony and broke his arm. He got $2,000 more. A woman got $2,000 less than that senior defence officer when she was held hostage in a bank hold-up. She had a knife held to her throat and suffered lacerations. You can imagine what that woman was like. She got $2,000 less. Perhaps we should be looking at the relativity rather than trying to knock the scheme out.

When you come to awards around the $20,000 mark, there appears to be a consistency. Twenty thousand dollars went to an AFP officer who was assaulted and stabbed in the course of his duty. I have no problem with that. A child assaulted by its stepfather got $20,000. Fine. An applicant whose parents were murdered and whose brother was maimed got $20,000. I have no problem with that. Twenty thousand dollars went to a sexual assault victim. I have no problem with that either. But the woman who had manure thrown on her wedding dress during her wedding got $19,000. There is a little bit of a problem here.

Perhaps we ought to think seriously about the way in which we are giving direction to the people making these awards - that is, the magistrates, the Master of the Supreme Court and the Registrar - rather than trying to wipe the scheme out. I have a real hassle with that.

I think I have addressed the retrospectivity. We cannot go forward with this retrospectivity. It is just not on. I suspect half the problem the Government seeks to solve with the retrospectivity has been addressed in the rush and the flood of claims so far. If you have spent $12m - you are $6m over budget already - I will bet you half of the claims are retrospective. (Extension of time granted) I will not say any more about the retrospectivity. I think other people will. I think the case against retrospectivity is well made. I do not think retrospectivity is on.

I would like to address the Government's response to the report on this Bill by the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety. There are some things in the response with which I have a problem. On page 1, under "General Comments", the Government says:

I do not think so. These are not handouts. They are reparations. They are a tangible way of saying, "Sorry, we let you down". They are not welfare. The response goes on to say:

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