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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1632 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

She also pointed out, however, particular questions that would need to be answered to determine whether positive discrimination was warranted. In this context, I would have thought that the relevant questions relate to the nature of the disadvantage that the police experience in comparison with the rest of the community, which would explain why they are not required to obtain assistance from the victims services scheme when mainstream groups are. Obviously, other professional groups, such as bank tellers, are also exposed to violence in their workplace.

The ongoing inequality or disadvantage suffered by the police would also have to be demonstrated. This inequality or disadvantage is redressed by making up to $50,000 available for compensation for pain and suffering, when that entitlement is not available to mainstream groups, when it is not available to victims of domestic violence or bank tellers caught up in an armed hold-up.

The third point he would have to explain is how this special entitlement brings the police to the same level of advantage as mainstream groups, and why this entitlement is needed to continue indefinitely.

I am interested to see how the government responds to these questions. I have asked Mr Humphries in writing for a response, but have not yet received a reply. In my view, the act does not provide special assistance to police, firefighters, ambulance officers and victims of sexual assault in order to address any matters of ongoing and historical disadvantage. In fact, rather than endowing the police and others with special considerations, what the 1999 act actually does is just strip entitlements away from all other classes of citizen.

The 1999 act discriminates against all other forms of victims of crime by limiting their entitlements, for no just purpose, to little more than half the amount to which this select class of citizens is entitled, and only on the condition that they are suffering from a permanently serious impairment, with no expectation of improvement. The 1999 Victims of Crime Act thus makes access to financial assistance virtually impossible for the bulk of all victims of serious violent crimes.

The Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 2000 simply aims to give all victims an equal entitlement. It offers the court some discretion in considering the impact and longevity of any criminal injury in making awards, and it presupposes compensation is payable only in serious, although not necessarily permanent, cases.

The 1999 act was touted as a solution to controlling the exploding costs to government. It is true that offering a level of entitlement to all, rather than select, classes of victims of violent crime does have financial implications, but it is important to identify those cost-cutting aspects of the 1999 act that will remain in force if this bill is passed. In the first instance, secondary victims of crime will still not be entitled to any financial assistance at all, while primary victims and responsible persons, even under this bill, would have to pass a threshold of serious injury for compensation for pain and suffering.

Furthermore, the set-offs introduced in the 1999 act remain largely unchanged, thereby limiting the territory's exposure under this act and putting some of the onus back on the victims of crime to pursue other remedies. The territory itself has right of appearance in,

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