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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2935 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

It is intolerable to suggest through legislation that that person is less entitled to the consideration of this legislature for compensation under the victims of crime scheme. It is a suggestion that simply cannot be sustained. We are talking about a woman staffing a bank being subjected to a terrifying armed robbery. She was faced with a loaded gun which was discharged for the purpose of terrorising her to make a point about the perpetrator's seriousness. Is this legislature to advise that person, "We are sorry, your pain and suffering really is not of as much importance to us as the injury that a policeman might suffer as he does his duty. You know that is a risky occupation and that they are often injured. They can claim compensation if they are injured when dealing with break and enter cases or as they chase a drunken perpetrator through the streets. But you, having suffered that most appalling trauma, can go home and try to work it out of your system as best you can"?

I do not think this distinction is sustainable by any legislature. I do not think we can legislate for a hierarchy that provides that a police officer can claim compensation and be compensated for an injury suffered in circumstances which might not have involved any trauma or any threat to the police officer's wellbeing, and a range of other citizens are simply advised, "Look, we can offer you some counselling but we cannot compensate you in any way because we have made a judgement that your pain and suffering just simply does not feature in terms of the hierarchy of need that we as the legislature have identified." I cannot possibly support that. I think it is unsustainable and unprincipled and it should be repealed. It is simply not acceptable that we should have singled out this group for special treatment.

There are a number of other provisions in the bill that demand support. I think it is appropriate and sensible that we require workers to exhaust their workers compensations rights before they apply under this act. In view of the Attorney's and the Assembly's determination to curtail the costs of this scheme, which we all do admit were spiralling, this is an appropriate initiative to support. It is actually one way of controlling the costs of the scheme.

I think it is only appropriate that we ensure that the scheme is extended to provide assistance to victims engaged in unpaid domestic work or child care. An issue of significant discrimination over the years in a whole range of areas is the extent to which we as a community have rendered women in the unpaid work force in particular invisible. The needs of that group, that particularly vital part of the community, are not measured when we come to determine our policies.

I do not fully understand the need for us to legislate in this area but I support the notion that we should legislate to ensure that victims can access a victims support scheme other than the one that is currently provided by the government. My understanding is that that is how the current scheme operates.

Ms Tucker: It is the first point of contact.

MR STANHOPE : Ms Tuckers says that is the first point of contact. That is fine. But as I understand the amendment, under this legislation the victims support scheme service will act as a monitoring organisation. The other providers will be required to be approved. That is the case as I understand it.

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