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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4231 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The major objections to the Bill lie in the definition of "extremely serious injury", the compulsory nature of participation in the victims services scheme and the establishment of the victims services scheme by regulation. Clause 11 defines an extremely serious injury as a criminal injury that results in permanent impairment, that is extremely serious and will remain so permanently. The references to permanency will exclude victims of such crimes as sexual assault and domestic violence from the special assistance awards of amounts up to $30,000.

Victims must report the crime to the police and participate in the victims services scheme before being eligible for any financial assistance, including the special assistance awards. As I have said, many victims do not wish to report the crime and would prefer the support of family and friends to a government-sponsored scheme but, if that is what they choose, then there will be no assistance.

The establishment of such an important element as the victims services scheme by regulation is an entirely inappropriate delegation of this Assembly's legislative power. The Minister's wish to retain as much flexibility as possible in establishing the scheme is, I guess, understandable. Leaving it to regulation gives the Government the flexibility to establish anything from a Rolls Royce service to no service - although, given its record on disability services, it is clear which end of the spectrum will be chosen. This legislature must take a role in deciding such significant matters as the establishment of a Victims Assistance Board to ensure that it will give independent advice to the Government and give victims a voice.

I will be proposing amendments to these three elements of the Bill, but I believe quite strongly that the debate should be adjourned until the first sitting next year so that the community organisations have time to react to the Government's response to the standing committee's report and members of this place have some opportunity to investigate and assess some of the amendments which I understand are being foreshadowed. We need time.

Mr Humphries: You have had 21/2 years. For 21/2 years this issue has been on the table.

MR STANHOPE: That is simply not true, Attorney. Look at the motley collection of amendments that have now been foreshadowed and circulated tonight. People in the community have had absolutely no opportunity to assess the implications of some of the amendments that are to be moved. We had a reasonable expectation that you would at least listen in some part to the standing committee's views on things you have completely ignored.

Adjourning the debate will also give the Minister time to circulate information to members on the relative costs of the existing scheme and the proposed scheme. The Minister should disclose exactly how much funding will be allocated to the victims services scheme. Will the amount saved by shutting out potential claimants from compensatory payments be diverted to establishing a service that will be of real benefit to victims? Or will the savings simply go on such other essential government services as guaranteeing ticket sales to football teams or to car races?

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