Page 3433 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
achieves little more than simply a change of the title of the Victims of Crime Coordinator to the Victims of Crime Commissioner. They view the bill as coming from a long process resulting in changes that are at best cosmetic and at worst expensive. These are not my words; these are the words of the ACT Law Society.
The Law Society are uncertain why it was necessary or what it will cost and say that it has for a long time called for “better compensatory provisions for victims but to no avail”. They say, “If there is no increase in direct assistance to victims, the government may as well save our money for something that is worth while.” The Australian Federal Police Association concur with this view. They consider that the money, if it is going to be spent on victims of crime, should be spent on actual victims of crime—real people and not a bureaucracy.
The Victims of Crime Assistance League, or VOCAL, have serious concerns about the bill. Their first concern is—this is what I was told yesterday in my office’s second discussion with VOCAL—that they were not included in the distribution of the issues paper in June 2008. This is contrary to the advice given to my office in the briefing that my staff received a little earlier, but the Victims of Crime Assistance League are adamant that they were not involved in the original discussion paper consultation.
That aside, their main concern is about the potential conflict of interest that lies with the commissioner as contemplated in the bill, as I mentioned earlier, and I will address this matter in more detail when I move my proposed amendments. VOCAL also wonder why we seem to be having an empire-building process around the victims of crime service and why a statutory commissioner position is necessary.
VOCAL wonder why a central function of the commissioner is to deal with complaints when there are so few complaints. Indeed, the victims of crime support program annual report for 2008-09 was silent on the number of complaints dealt with by that program. VOCAL ask whether the establishment of a statutory commissioner in any way duplicates the functions of the Health Services Commissioner, the human rights commissioner and the Ombudsman. I am satisfied there is some duplication of function, which serves only to underscore the question of costs. Indeed, the cost of the restructured arrangements is a common concern across all people my office has consulted on this bill.
Inevitably, a statutory commissioner will cost more. In the briefing officials gave to my office last week, they advised that the Remuneration Tribunal had determined that the salary of the commissioner would be at the same level as currently paid to the Victims of Crime Coordinator but with the addition of a vehicle. This means more money will be spent on bureaucracy. The establishment of a statutory board no doubt will mean payments of sitting fees, and this means more money will be spent on bureaucracy. The movement of functions from the board and the chief executive to the commissioner no doubt will create a demand for more support staff and other resources. More money will be spent on this new bureaucracy.
What are the benefits for the victims of crime? I will acknowledge two benefits which really are more classifications than benefits. First, this bill contemplates that if the primary victim is a child, a person administering justice must consider the views,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video