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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2939 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

I do, however, believe that long-term help rather than a cash payout is probably a better way to go. Obviously, the legislation we have has only been in operation for about six or nine months, so I feel that we should allow time to see if the new regime has an impact.

I met today with a person who is still suffering as a result of a crime some 18 months ago and it was clear to me that this person was going to need to be cared for over a certain time. I really felt for this person, but at the end of the day all they wanted was to get their life back on track. I am not an expert but I am not of the opinion that a lump sum payment would help this person with their long-term rehabilitation.

Having spent an hour meeting with this person and their psychologist, I have to admit to being somewhat concerned about the misinformation being supplied by the legal fraternity in particular in this matter. Clearly they can see that the cash cow is gone and they want it back. I am amazed that people are not informed that their costs for counselling and medication and things like that will be reimbursed. Having informed a number of people who contacted my office over the last couple of months that no, they were not completely shut off from help, that there was a new regime in place, many of them have said to me, "My solicitor never told me that. The impression I got was that we were being dumped." I think the legal practitioners who have not fully informed their clients should hang their heads in shame. Sure, the cash lump sums are harder to access but there are many avenues open to victims of crime to assist in getting over their pain.

I have also suggested to Mr Humphries today that it may be sensible for him to inform workers who deal with victims of crime of what is actually now available and how the new scheme works, because it is clear that some of the rubbish out there has really clouded the issue. As I said earlier, I met with a psychologist who was not aware of how the new regime operated.

I have grappled even more with the issue of retrospectively. I have found this very difficult. I have looked at it over the last couple of weeks and I have listened quite intently to what people have had to say in here and also at meetings that I have had. However, the cost and the fact that Mr Humphries has made the point that it was a budget bill has caused me to side with the government. I have only once in my nearly six years in this place supported a motion which forced the government to spend money. That was in respect of the Downer Preschool, and I have said publicly that, on reflection, I made a mistake.

This legislation would require the government to outlay close to $10 million, and I am not prepared to support that. As I said, I found this issue to be very difficult but feel that this is the right way to go.

MS TUCKER (4.10), in reply: This is a disappointing result-I can see how the vote is going to go. I will respond, though, to some of the points that have been made in the debate here this afternoon.

I believe that Mr Humphries is rewriting history when he tells us that the legislation that I am trying to change has been absolutely fully canvassed. He well knows that he failed to acknowledge some of the rather interesting subtleties in the process that he outlined.

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