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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4283 ..

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (3.27 am): Mr Speaker, I ask for leave to move my amendment No. 6.

Leave granted.

MR STANHOPE: I move amendment No. 6 circulated in my name, which reads as follows:

This is an extension of the section that we just debated and was just amended to allow some choice of health professional. I will explain this briefly. Subsection (3), which we have just discussed, says that if the primary victim refuses to submit to a requirement made under subsection (1), which we just amended, to visit a health professional, the court shall not award any financial assistance pursuant to the application. I am proposing that we add the words "without reasonable excuse". The subsection will then say that if a primary victim refuses without reasonable excuse to submit to a requirement to attend a health professional, then the court can refuse an award. I think it is appropriate that it be a reasonable test.

Mr Humphries: What is a reasonable excuse?

MR STANHOPE: Well, the courts deal with reasonableness in lots of instances.

Mr Humphries: Give me an example.

MR STANHOPE: I will leave that to the courts. A reasonable test. If a person has a reasonable excuse for not attending, the courts will take that into account. They do it in a whole range of areas now. The police actually have significant and numerous powers in relation to reasonable cause. It is a concept well known to the law. The courts will have no difficulties in dealing with the notion of reasonable excuse.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (3.29 am): Mr Speaker, I have to argue against this very strongly. In effect, what Mr Stanhope is doing is arguing that it is not compulsory for a person who claims to have been injured in some way by the act of a criminal to submit to an examination to establish that in fact they were so injured. Mr Speaker, quite deliberately, this Bill provides that there should be a test, a medical examination, conducted on the person to ensure that they are in fact injured as they say they are for the purpose of making a claim. In personal injuries actions, say an action for damages for some tortious liability, it would be unheard of for the victim not to provide some kind of medical evidence. I think we should have no less a standard where an injury has been claimed for in respect of criminal injuries compensation. I have asked Mr Stanhope to tell me what is a reasonable excuse, and of course he cannot do that.

Mr Stanhope: Of course I could. I could, but it is not productive.

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