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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3127 ..

e) The status of children who are claimants under the current Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 and the necessity for the re-evaluation and/or appointment by the court of the child’s next friend under the legislation;

f) The time limit for applications under the Victims of Crime Act 1994;

currently I think it is 12 months—

g) The establishment of a two-tiered financial compensation scheme:

1. one scheme administered by the Justice and Community Services Department [i.e. an administrative scheme] for small payments under $1000;

I think that would be eminently fair in terms of the out-of-pocket expenses a victim might need; currently I think it is about $100—

2. the scheme as envisaged under the current Financial Assistance Act where the Magistrates Court determines the application, but where the threshold amount claimable under this scheme is greater than $1000.

The committee also made a recommendation on the issue of police officers. It was noted that federal awards—police officers are under workers compensation—included money for injuries received on the job and in the role of constable. We understand that that is no longer the case. The committee felt that there was a real need for police officers to be compensated in some way and thought that that might well be best done under federal workers compensation. The committee also had concerns with the availability of legal advice to claimants and potential claimants and wanted the matter investigated. Legal assistance goes up from $650 to $800, but that amount is still very low, and comes out of the general moneys available to a victim as well. There are a number of issues there. The committee also felt the Victims Services Scheme needs to be more visible to users and potential users—for example, by listing in the health and help section of the phone book and a more visible Victims Support Scheme web site.

We note in the current act that for the last financial year 2002-03 about $675,000 was dished out to victims of sexual assault for pain and suffering and $100,000 to the police—about three quarters of a million dollars. The government indicated that if definitions such as “extremely serious injury” were broadened there is a capacity for the Victims Support Scheme to really blow out. I know that one of the problems with the pre-1999 scheme was that it had grown to about $6 million a year and was forecast to grow within a few years to $14 million—hence the new thrust of the 1999 act and the thrust of a lot of what the government’s bill has included here. This matter did concern all of us in the community. With some additional research, a number of problems may well be sorted out. It is very important that we end up with good workable legislation that does not cost the government a heap of money and gives due recognition to compensating victims.

The government’s bill takes away the current provision whereby a victim has to report the crime to the police. My colleagues thought that this could be done in another way. I think the provision in the 1999 act should be included in any new act. If this act were to proceed that provision should be put back into this act because it is a very important checking mechanism, an important accountability measure. The majority of victims are

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