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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1633 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

and so can become a party to, any application before the court. The requirements for applicants to obtain counselling and other support, under or by arrangement with the victims services scheme, takes further pressure off the court to award compensation for pain and suffering.

Yes, this bill has some financial implications but, in the context of the social and economic cost of crime generally, in that it addresses fundamental issues of discrimination and hence injustice and inequity and in the context of a system of law which purports to serve all citizens fairly, it is not an unreasonable burden.

This bill also amends the transition arrangements in the 1999 act and takes out the retrospective provisions. Under this bill, the new arrangements will come into force for all injuries sustained after 24 December 1999, and applications regarding criminal incidents before 24 December 1999 will be heard under the legislation as it existed prior to the passage of the 1999 act.

Opposition to this retrospective legislation is very wide. In submissions to Mr Osborne's inquiry last year, the ACT Bar Association, ACT Legal Aid, the ACT branch of the Australian Federal Police Association, the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association, the Law Society of the ACT, the Women's Legal Centre, Canberra Rape Crisis and VOCAL all describe this retrospective application as unfair and unjust.

They were not arguing that case simply because they wanted a piece of the action. Many of those bodies are organisations that are fully extended as it is: they just do not need more of the action. They formed the view, however, that this 1999 act was unfair and unjust because it applies retrospectively to any applications made after an arbitrary date, no matter when the criminal conduct may have occurred, if for whatever reason it had not been settled by Christmas eve 1999. Retrospective legislation, when it strips people of their entitlements, as the 1999 act does, is unjust.

There are also a number of smaller amendments in this bill that take out some of the coercion implied under the act. They do not change the intent but, added together, can make quite a difference to how the act operates and how it will affect victims of violent crime. These amendments reflect an approach that acknowledges the importance of empowering victims, and not further disempowering them by restricting the choices available to them.

The literature is clear that victims need to feel empowered in order to heal. A feature of much of the research that purports to inform the creation of the new victims services scheme, and the 1999 Victims of Crime Act, points directly to the significance of independence and control over their rehabilitation for many victims of violent crime.

It is not enough simply to provide services and support. Indeed, this can be quite counterproductive if handled poorly. It is most important that some flexibility and understanding be built into the legislation and that, where feasible, such victims who may require some assistance be entitled to make some choice whenever practicable.

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