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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2934 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The Labor Party does not think that is acceptable and we will most certainly support the repealing of the retrospective provision.

I have heard the Attorney's justification for the retrospectivity-that this is an economic justification and we simply need to save some money. People are being denied a lawful existing entitlement to pursue an action because of cost, because of an economic consideration. I believe that the lawful right as it existed at the time should be supported.

There has also been much comment and debate-and to some extent I have a feeling of deja vu in repeating these arguments and debating the issue here-about how simply unfair and unprincipled it is that we have through this scheme created a hierarchy of victims; that we have singled out three groups of people for special attention. I simply cannot accept that it is appropriate, fair or proper to stick at the apex of a compensation scheme a number of groups that it is felt, for one reason or another, deserve special consideration. This is not a principled way for a legislature to legislate in respect of all of its citizens-its entire constituency.

That is not to deride or to decry the particular circumstances of those people. It is simply to suggest that it is just inappropriate to decide that a particular group of people are more worthy, more demanding or more entitled to special consideration than a range of other people who, through no fault of their own, through their work and through a range of other circumstances, find themselves the victims of crime and are injured, traumatised or otherwise seriously affected by criminal activity.

There are plenty of other examples that we can all find of people who are affected in that way. I have no doubt that members have received some representations over the course of this last week from the Transport Workers Union about the difficulties, circumstances and trials that some of their members in different occupations face; the level of criminal behaviour, trauma and injury that those groups of workers suffer as they go about their day-to-day lawful occupations.

Of course, the same can be said of a range of other people. But why the police and not others? I think a very good and apt example in that context is the staff of service stations, particularly those who work a night in Canberra. If you were to look at the relevant crime statistics for last year you would find that there has been a burgeoning increase in armed robberies and that the group of people within this community that have faced armed robbers more often than anybody else and suffered considerable trauma and considerable other injury as a result of criminal activity are those people who staff service stations, particularly those who staff them overnight.

If we were to look at or review the armed robbery statistics in the ACT over the last year we would find that a significant number of service station attendants have had the particularly harrowing experience of facing robbers armed with knives, guns, syringes and a variety of other deadly weapons. I recall a recent case-I think it was in a bank-of a shotgun being put against a person's head and being discharged into the ceiling for the purpose of simply making a point. I cannot imagine a more horrific and frightening experience than having an armed robber's double-barrel shotgun discharge within the vicinity of one's face in order to make a point about the seriousness of the perpetrator's intent. The trauma that that person must have suffered is immeasurable.

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