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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3129 ..

substantive understanding of equality as a response to economic, social and political disadvantage of women.

Linked to this is the question about definitions:

This definition has two essential elements—permanence and extremely serious. The Government submission explained that the provision is intended to provide assistance to those victims in the community most in need.

A contrary view to that is put well by the Victims of Crime Coordinator:

In essence, a person must be [either] extremely, seriously and permanently injured without any hope of treatment, or recovered.

53.53 The submission went on to say:

Setting the threshold so high may have a negative effect on all counts in that:

• It emphasises the disabling permanency of post traumatic stress in victims of sexual offences above their extraordinary capacity (in the main) to find a degree of functionality and spiritual and emotional survival.

• Withholds the expression of communal compassion from victims of sexual offences whether the person is a young child subjected to multiple incidents of abuse from a family member or an adult victim of a gang rape – unless the individual can prove a substantial and permanent reduction in their quality of life that cannot be alleviated by suitable medical or other treatment.

• Denies the individuality of circumstance and impact with the prospect of an award of a flat solatium of $30 000.

54.54 This view was supported by the joint submission from Women’s Legal Centre et al which suggested that the proposed amendments would create a system whereby victims of crime are implicitly encouraged to remain traumatised and harmed by the criminal victimisation in order to qualify for special assistance awards.

There is a comment about Freckelton. It states:

3.58 Freckelton also noted the problems with the restrictive nature of the definition of ‘extremely serious injury’. In commenting on the definition in the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 1983 he suggests that the definition is so restrictive so as to indemnify the Territory against compensation payments. He states:

The category of persons for whom, a psychiatrist would be prepared ethically to say that their post traumatic stress disorder, for instance, is extremely serious and will remain so permanently is so small as to guarantee the Australian Capital Territory Government almost complete indemnity against compensation payments for psychiatric injury applications. It would be a rare psychiatrist suffering from an existential source of pessimism and self-defeatedness who would abandon hope in respect of the efficacy of treatment for disorders such as depression, anxiety, adjustment and post-traumatic stress. Even in relation to physical injuries, it is only a small cross-section of victim’s injuries that will fall into the category of permanently extremely serious.

The committee has raised serious questions—I will not go on because I think people will read the report—about the definitions as well as the notion of putting everyone on an equal footing. As Mr Stefaniak said, it was quite concerning that quite a serious misrepresentation of evidence exists on these issues. We clarified in the report that the misrepresentation was coming from government offices. It became obvious to us all in

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