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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1634 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Consequently, while the draft victims of crime 2000 regulations include provision for approved service providers, that is not clear in the 1999 act. Specialist agencies, such as the Domestic Violence Crisis Centre, are often in a strong position to provide appropriate support and guidance, especially in the first instance. So it is absolutely necessary to make clear that such arrangements between the victims services scheme and such agencies are encouraged and expected. This bill amends the act to make that clear.

Furthermore, the set-offs in relation to intoxication under the act can be read to imply that, if you were drinking in a bar and you were attacked, then you asked for it. There becomes a presumption that an intoxicated person in the face of violent crime is less entitled to the protection of the law. There are, of course, questions of contribution to the incident, but this particular set-off is unnecessary as the court, under relevant conditions in this act, is already charged with taking the behaviour and condition of the victim into account in making an award.

The ACT Greens do support the government in pursuing workers compensation remedies when looking at redress and assistance for victims of crime. However, workers compensation cases can take years, whereas positive outcomes for victims of crime often turn on a timely resolution of the case. In the interests of consideration, flexibility and compassion for the people concerned, this bill provides for the court to hear criminal injury cases prior to the resolution of the workers compensation case as an application for workers compensation must be made nonetheless, as any subsequent workers compensation award can be recovered by the territory, and as the court can adjourn proceedings if it forms a view that the workers compensation action is not being pursued adequately. This is not a case of double dipping. We are simply introducing some flexibility.

The final amendment may be more in the wording than the effect. Many of the more serious cases of violent crime-sexual assault and domestic violence-afflict women with family responsibilities. While compensation for loss of income resulting from violent crime is provided for primary victims, related victims and responsible people, the concrete and legitimate costs of child care and the other domestic work that the primary victim cannot continue to perform are not identified in the act. By including an acknowledgment that such costs can be legitimately claimed in these situations, the act is made more woman-friendly and family-friendly.

The Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Amendment Act 1999 cuts back significantly on entitlements for victims of crime in the ACT. This bill does not attempt to return us to the previous regime. As I have previously argued, secondary victims have no access to financial assistance under this scheme, while related victims have access only to very limited support. The set-offs introduced in 1999 further limit the territory's obligations and, even under our amendments, financial assistance for primary victims is restricted to serious cases.

This bill, however, does address the very real issues of injustice and inequity. It is not acceptable to implement and accept legislation that treats people so poorly and in such an unequal and unreasonable manner. Victims of crime schemes and entitlements have developed over time as an acknowledgment of the failure of society to protect us from crime.

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