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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3126 ..

“There is no conclusive research to indicate that victims who receive lump sum payments, such as the awards for pain and suffering available to police officers and victims of sexual offences, had improved outcomes.” The Institute of Criminology examined sexual violence in Australia and noted, “There appears to be no empirical research undertaken into the relevant benefits of compensation, as opposed to counselling for victims of crime.” The Victims of Crime Coordinator confirmed that lack of research. She stated that she had not been able to locate any research that shows whether the presence or absence of a financial lump sum has a positive, negative or neutral effect on that person’s recovery.

The committee was concerned that government officials pursued a line of argument that was not supported by evidence; in fact, there does not appear to be evidence either way. The evidence and research are inconclusive and there appears to be no research in relation to the victims of crime and the outcome of any compensation strategy. It is of concern that officials from JACS make those claims. That is one area where there is simply not a lot of research being done. That was mirrored in a few other areas before the Standing Committee on Legal affairs. It was a fairly lengthy committee process. We spoke to a number of people at a number of hearings. It is fair to say that we became quite concerned about the general lack of empirical evidence to back up a lot of comments.

I can see what the government is getting at with this particular piece of legislation, but we do think that more work needs to be done. I note that New South Wales has commenced a review, which should be available very soon. Victoria has made changes to its legislation. It has gone back to some form of pain and suffering awards in 2000 from what it had in 1996. A lot more work needs to be done in this area. The committee made a number of recommendations. They are:

(1) That the Government undertake a comprehensive review of the Victims of Crime Act 1994, the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 and Regulations.

(2) That the review of the legislation includes but not be limited to:

a) The structure of the Act and Regulations, so that the appropriate definitions, statements of principle … are included in the Act, while the administrative detail is contained in the regulations;

b) The incorporation of the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 and the Victims of Crime Act 1994;

c) The definition of ‘criminal injury’ under the current Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983;

d) The definition of ‘extremely serious injury’ under the current Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983;

I understand some six people have received benefits for extremely serious injury. In the sexual assault area—one of the exemption areas at present that exists under the act—eight or nine payments have been made to persons who have received more than $30,000. So there are some issues there for the committee. The committee further recommended:

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