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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2936 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I guess that does beg one question in relation to the operation of the scheme, and that is whether the current provider will, pursuant to the tendering process that I imagine is being undertaken, be a successful tenderer. Perhaps that is an issue that needs to be taken into account in the context of this debate.

As I said, the Labor Party will support these amendments. We think they are appropriate. We regret that the scheme did not at the outset incorporate most of these initiatives. In any event, we think this bill goes some way to addressing what we regard as the completely unacceptable aspects of the law as it developed in relation to this issue last year.

Primarily, we believe that the scheme should not have been retrospective at the outset. Also, we believe that a separate hierarchy of victims should not have developed. We should not have a special group of people within the community entitled to full access to the scheme with the rest of the community basically being told that they do not deserve the same consideration of the legislature or the community for the pain and suffering that has resulted from being a victim of crime.

MR RUGENDYKE (3.54): I think it is accepted by all of us in this place that when we had this debate last time around the government argued its case on the basis of cost. The bill we have before us today proposes to reverse the resolution of last year, but to date there has been no indication of what the price tag will be.

The accompanying explanatory memorandum and presentation speech to the bill did not provide detail of financial implications. One of the organisations supporting Ms Tucker's bill is the Law Society. At my last meeting with the Law Society I requested that they provide and indication of projected costings but these have not been forwarded.

The only costings we have are from government. It certainly appears from what we have heard so far in the debate that this bill not only proposes to reverse last year's decision but would also result in a cost blow-out. Nothing new has emerged in the re-run of this debate except the point that the proposal will make the scheme more expensive than it was in the first place.

As was said at the start, this debate was argued on cost. In short, there has been nothing so far to convince me that I should change my position and I am therefore prepared to give the current scheme more time.

MR KAINE (3.56): I would have to totally disagree with Mr Rugendyke about what this debate is about. This debate is not about cost, it is about equity. The government originally brought down a bill which was a bit parsimonious. But I agreed in principle with that bill because at least it treated people equally. I thought that it was a bit harsh that it denied people certain compensation which they may well need in some circumstances, but by and large it was an equitable bill.

And then along comes Mr Rugendyke. I do not know quite what sway he holds over the government to cause them to change their view on this so drastically, but the next minute we have got the Rugendyke bill. This is the one that went through this place against considerable opposition, including mine. The bill that was introduced and became an act in this place only relatively recently is grossly inequitable.

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