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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2931 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

But I think the community would say those payments were not legitimate. People who went into nightclubs and bars, got seriously intoxicated, got into fights or were preyed upon ended up making claims for injuries which you could only describe as being substantially self-inflicted.

Indeed, only last week in this place we passed legislation, supported by the opposition, which said that we would not allow self-intoxication as an excuse in charges of criminal misconduct. A person could not escape the responsibility for their actions by virtue of the fact that they were intoxicated. And yet, if this legislation passes, we will again have a situation where a person is able to become heavily intoxicated and obtain access to substantial funds at public expense for their pain and suffering. That is not appropriate.

Ms Tucker has not explained to this house why the issues that were on the table when the original legislation was debated last December were not properly considered by this place. She has not explained why people in this place did not consider those issues adequately or with proper consideration. I think an excellent case can be made for considering change when change is required. But in this instance no case whatsoever has been made.

Mr Quinlan: Oh, I see-where it suits you.

MR HUMPHRIES: All we have heard is the bleatings of lawyers, vicariously through their clients, who are seeing thousands of dollars of payments of fees going out the door.

Mr Quinlan: You did a deal at the last moment on this bill.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I would ask for some protection from you.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, they see thousands of dollars in payments-

Opposition members interjecting-

MR SPEAKER: Order! You will have your opportunity to speak, gentlemen, providing you behave yourselves.

MR HUMPHRIES: So, Mr Speaker, what we have here is a serious regression from an arrangement which the ACT community is going to be able to sustain. Other states have already moved down the path that we have adopted the ACT and I do not believe any state is going to retain provisions of the kind the were previously on the statute books in the ACT. Nobody is doing that. I have heard it alleged that the Victorian government, which said it was dissatisfied with the victims of crime legislation in that state, was going to wind back its legislation. I have seen no evidence of that whatsoever and I remain to be convinced that that is actually going to be the case.

I believe that we will end up with a very unworkable arrangement if this legislation is reinstated to the form it took before it was substantially repealed last year. Of most concern perhaps are the enormous financial implications of passing the bill today. I ask members to consider very seriously what that would mean. If the Tucker bill were passed

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