Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2942 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
"We have the entitlement to pain and suffering payments and we will not have to prove as much hardship as other members of the community because we are policemen."
I was interested in what Mr Osborne just said. In regard to the healing process, he does not know whether a victim of crime should receive a payment for compensation or receive counselling. I do not have a particular position on that either. But is he saying that he knows that the police, emergency servicemen and victims of sexual assault will be more likely to heal better if they are paid compensation for pain and suffering? If that is the case, I would like to see the research on that.
I would also like the research which I understand Mr Osborne or Mr Rugendyke has suggested exists which would support the argument that victims of sexual assault-who also are included in Mr Rugendyke's amendment-are more likely to sustain damage of a kind which requires this special treatment. I have looked for this research and I have talked to professionals but I cannot find it. I would be very interested to hear from Mr Rugendyke on this matter. I am sure we could give him leave to speak again in this debate. Perhaps at the detail stage he could justify his argument and refer us to the research which shows why it is appropriate that victims of sexual assault should have these special entitlements as well.
The issue of cost, of course, has been raised by the government and by Mr Rugendyke. I guess the question you have to ask is: what price justice? Mr Humphries, who is speaking as the Treasurer here today, is also the Attorney-General. I might just read a statement from a person who is not a practising lawyer making a buck out of this. The Hon Justice Gallop said in this year's Sir Richard Blackburn lecture:
It is the essentially political character of the office and portfolio of Attorney-General as it has developed in this country which paradoxically makes it necessary to restate and re-emphasise the characteristics of the office which give rise to a distinction in kind between the role within government of the Attorney-General and the roles of other ministers. The distinction essentially is that the Attorney-General as Law Minister has, beyond the political responsibilities of the ministerial portfolio of the same nature as the responsibilities of other ministers, a special responsibility for the rule of law and the integrity of the legal system which transcends and may at times be in conflict with political exigencies.
The Attorney-General has the unique role in government of being the political guardian of the administration of justice. It is the special role of the Attorney-General to be the voice within government and to the public which articulates and insists upon observance of the enduring principles of legal justice and upon respect for the judicial and other legal institutions through which they are applied.
And further on:
Nevertheless, there remains unimpaired the Attorney-General's function as political guardian of the integrity of the administration of justice, which gives rise to the unique role and responsibility of the Law Minister. The importance of this role is our constitutional system, although not as pervasive as it once was, remains undiminished in importance. The faithful discharge by the Attorney-General of this role of political guardian of the integrity of the administration of justice is an indispensable ingredient of the political and constitutional foundation of our system of independent and impartial justice.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .