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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2930 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

That, in turn, was followed by the announcement, in the context of the budget presented in June 1998, that there should be some reforms linked to the presentation of the budget for 1998-99 which would dramatically change the way in which the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act operated. Legislation was introduced a couple of months later. That was followed by an inquiry by the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety, and finally by debate in this place in December of last year.

There has been a process that lasted for at least three years from go to whoa and the legislation was before the Assembly for well over a year. Few pieces of legislation get as much exposure as this legislation was given.

Mr Quinlan: Enshrining inequity.

MR HUMPHRIES: I know you want to say something, Mr Quinlan, and I am sure, if you just hold your horses, you will get a chance to do so in a moment. The fact is that this legislation was desperately needed in this territory. Our criminal injuries compensation scheme was being rorted and rorted big.

Everybody, except perhaps for a few people in the legal fraternity who believed that things were going along very nicely, accepted that changes needed to be made. It is worth noting that it is the legal profession that has most vehemently objected to these changes and has been most concerned. I might give my personal understanding of why that should be. The fact is that a number of lawyers in this town were seriously caught short by the passing of this legislation. Those lawyers apparently-and I say this on the basis of conversations with a number of their clients-failed to warn their clients that there were changes to the legislation on the table in the Legislative Assembly which, if passed, would have the effect of dramatically altering those clients' rights to access criminal injuries compensation payments.

In some case, those lawyers-and I know this from those conversations with their clients-did not warn their clients of that fact. Those lawyers had to make embarrassing explanations to their clients when the legislation did pass in a form not exactly the same as, but similar to, the one that the government had put forward. This left clients who had commenced actions generally after the introduction of the legislation without a course of action or at least without access to a lump sum payment.

We need to remember that the legislation, as well as reforming the system, enlarged access by victims of crime to counselling and other support services. Today the territory has a victims assistance service which is vastly in excess of what was previously on offer in terms of the quality and quantum of publicly funded counselling and assistance to victims in this territory. This is a huge improvement.

Apparently Ms Tucker, who has no objection to the scheme to support people who access it, also wants to reinstate cash payments. The fact is that, as I have said, the old system was being rorted. There were many examples of payments being made in inappropriate circumstances. Obviously, the payments were made in accordance with the legislation-I do not suggest that anyone was paid outside the terms of the legislation.

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