Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4297 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
The Government has consistently stated that one of the main incentives behind the amendments is economic efficiency and cost cutting. However, to view the proposed changes as purely a budgetary measure ignores the fact that what the Bill effectively does is to alter the legislative rights of victims of crime. There is an undeniable social aspect to the amendments.
Whilst it is true that victims do not have a common law right to criminal injuries compensation, it is arguable that the welfare role which Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme fulfils arises from the responsibility of the government to members of the community. The money which is paid to victims may be viewed as compensation for the Territory's failure to protect individuals from the consequences of criminal activity. The Government itself justifies the changes which it is making in terms of the needs of victims and the role of the Government to provide the most wide ranging and effective service to these victims as is possible.
The overwhelming consensus from submitters was that the retrospective aspect of the proposed legislation is unfair -
Mr Osborne, you said it was unfair and unjust -
unjust and should be removed. Those objecting to the retrospectivity included the ACT Bar Association, Legal Aid (ACT), the Australian Federal Police Association (ACT Branch), the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association, the Australian Society of Labor Lawyers, the Law Society of the ACT, the Women's Legal Centre, Canberra Rape Crisis and VOCAL.
The committee concurs with this majority community view and strongly supports the removal of the retrospective provision.
I think that is quite well expressed really.
Mr Speaker, with this Bill the Government has addressed the costs of the victims of crime scheme on a number of levels. It has stripped away entitlements of victims of crime, at both the high end and the low end of the scale, strengthened the obligation for applicants to pursue workers compensation before applying for victims of crime assistance, and capped the fees of the legal practitioners. The Government has further options, such as raising the criminal injuries levy, demonstrating more diligence in recovering funds from the perpetrators of crime, and establishing a new scheme designed for police to negotiate a commitment from the AFP to accept their responsibility. Furthermore, there is considerable scope in the upcoming reformed workers compensation in the ACT to incorporate psychological injury into the definitions of injury and disease. It is not simply an issue of money. It is an issue of government will.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .