VICTIMS OF CRIME (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 October 2012.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:26): I will give the government's response in relation to this matter. The government would like to thank all honourable members who have contributed to the debate on this important issue. The government also acknowledges the strong interest the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has for the Victims of Crime Fund.

The government is aware that primarily the bill amends the act to increase the cap for orders of compensation from $50,000 to $100,000 and seeks to index the cap by CPI every 12 months. It also removes the $10,000 cap on compensation for grief suffered by the claimant. The bill also seeks to double the numerical scale for non-financial loss.

The government believes that there is value in reviewing aspects of the victims of crime compensation fund that have been raised in this bill by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. However, the government is concerned that the financial impact of increasing the payouts from the Victims of Crime Fund have not been properly costed, nor have alternative models been canvassed.

The government does not want significant changes to be rushed through parliament without proper review of its implications. It is vital to ensure the fund is properly managed and maintained for future victims of crime. It is an important issue and we need to get it right. For these reasons, the government wishes to refer this bill to the Legislative Review Committee to investigate alternative models and examine the financial implications of increasing payouts to victims and raising the scale.

We also know that professionals are being dissuaded from practising in this area because their payments have not been increased for nearly 10 years. This cannot be a good outcome for victims in the system either. This should be a matter for the committee to review further. I thank the Hon. Robert Brokenshire for bringing this bill before the parliament. The government looks forward to working with honourable members to improve the current system. While I am on my feet, I move to amend the motion as follows:

That all words after 'That' be omitted and insert the words 'the bill be withdrawn and referred to the Legislative Review Committee for its report and recommendations.'

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:30): I rise to indicate that the Liberal opposition is interested in the debate, but we are not disposed towards a referral to the Legislative Review Committee. I found it surprising, to say the least, that the government is suggesting that this matter is proposed to be rushed through. I remind members that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire did not introduce this bill last week: it was tabled on 31 October 2012. It was in response to community disquiet with respect to the limits on the compensation provided by this act.

I think the Hon. Robert Brokenshire would agree with me that this was not a Damascus road experience but is part of a long conversation this council has had. The Hon. Ann Bressington, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and I think the Hon. John Darley have introduced proposals to refine the statutory model for victims of crime. The second reading speech that the honourable member gave us, and the bill at that time, have been on the table for seven months, hardly being rushed through.

That was October. In November the cabinet subcommittee that dealt with justice also considered this matter, so it is hardly a matter of being rushed through. I will quote from the briefing paper that the cabinet committee received at that time:

The victims of crime levy has increased from $10 on 30 June 2007 to $60 on 1 January 2011. Total revenue into the fund increased from $18 million in 2006-07 to $48 million in 2011-12. This increase is almost entirely attributable to increases in the levy. No new policy measures relating to expenditure have been approved from the fund to offset this revenue increase. The government continues to be criticised on this point.

The balance of the Victims of Crime Fund has now grown to $109 million and is expected to exceed $200 million by 2015-16. The level of compensation currently awarded is inadequate and has not increased since 1990. If inflation was applied to the current maximum, this would be worth around $100,000. This measure proposes increasing the maximum from the current level of $50,000 to $100,000. Further fees for legal representation have not increased since the commencement of the Victims of Crime Act on 1 January 2003.

The items to be dealt with as part of this measure include changing the scale applied to compensation payments, an increase in the maximum amount of compensation payable from the fund ($6 million per annum), increasing fees for legal representation ($0.3 million) and additional payments to victim support organisations and other payments which support victims ($1 million). (Note that this funding could potentially support the victim support program at $1.1 million.) Further, it is proposed to abolish the maximum levy currently payable for young offenders, revenue loss estimated at around $0.3 million.

So, far from being rushed through, this matter was tabled by the member in October, was considered by a cabinet subcommittee in November, and on 3 April we had this release, headed 'Victims set for windfall', which states:

Doubling the maximum compensation of victims of crime to $100,000 is part of a $29 million proposal the state government is considering for its coming budget.

It is among proposals that went before a cabinet committee in November. A month earlier lawyers called on Attorney-General John Rau to raise the maximum amount of compensation available and create minimum payouts for different types of crime, from assault through to murder.

The Government's Victims of Crime Fund has a $100 million surplus, a figure that is expected to double in the next four years.

The proposal also includes laws to crack down on the number of suspended sentences to repeat offenders.

So, first of all, the government gets the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill in October. They consider it in a cabinet subcommittee in November. There is a judicious leak, for want of a better word, in April, and the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars comes in and says, 'We are being rushed.'

I would suggest that the government is not genuine in effecting real reform for victims of crime. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that tomorrow we actually see the black ink on the budget papers. Remember, this is not money that is coming out of, if you like, tax revenue: this is a dedicated fund that has been put aside for years to benefit victims and this government, for 10 years, has snubbed victims. The Liberal Party has joined honourable members a number of times in expressing our concerns about the insensitivity of the government. We hope that tomorrow we might see a change of heart.

We will be supporting the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill. If the council considers that it is appropriate to take it through all stages, we are happy to do that—not because we think that every 'i' has been dotted and every 't' has been crossed. There is more work to be done on this bill, but at least the Legislative Council and the crossbenchers are in here doing the work.

Where has the government been? Time after time we have had these victims bills thrown out with no response and no constructive engagement. We are not going to be pedantic and begrudging. We are going to support this bill today without holding it up on technicalities. Sure, there might well be points where the government, through alternative amendments in the House of Assembly, might seek to improve it. I note the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has made his own suggestions for improving the bill even now and others may well come.

I do not think we are going to benefit from a Legislative Review Committee report, in spite of all of the learned members that serve on that committee. We have done the work in this chamber; let us keep doing the work in this chamber. The Liberal Party, as I said, will support this bill as a starting point for much-needed reform. There is no point in addressing the detail, in our view, until we have a government which is willing to constructively engage in reform. If that comes in tomorrow's budget, the opposition stands ready to constructively work through changes. If that needs to wait for a Liberal government, so be it.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:37): In summing up, there are a few further comments that I would like to make. Two amendments were circulated on 30 May. Just to refresh everyone's mind, one was consequential on lifting the limit to $100,000 by taking the point scale up accordingly. The other was regarding making a scale of compensation by regulation. Consultation revealed that was not going to be acceptable, so we have removed that aspect. The bill will continue the status quo on how entitlements are determined.

I obviously consulted far and wide on this. I acknowledge colleagues, including the Hon. Ann Bressington—as the Hon. Stephen Wade said—and, I believe, also the Hon. John Darley, to give two examples, have been pushing this for some time too.

There is nothing worse, I would imagine, than being a victim of crime. No-one wants to be a victim of crime but, if you are, then you need proper support. In talking about support, you also need NGOs and others to get opportunities for programs and support as well. I contacted the Office of the Commissioner for Victims' Rights, and I want to put on record a few of the paragraphs that I received from that office. I quote:

Since state funded victim compensation was established in South Australia in 1969, it has become a critical ingredient of our responses to crime victims. Such compensation is a tangible acknowledgement on behalf of South Australians for those people who have been hurt by violent crime in particular.

Lump sum compensation, however, does not address all the harm done, so it is also important to provide practical, medical and therapeutic assistance to crime victims that is accessible when they need it. Compensation therefore should be a component of a broader system of crime victim support. The state has a responsibility to pay compensation when violent offenders are unable to pay restitution. Further, state-funded compensation is in the public interest as doing more to assist victims deal with the effects of crime. It should help these people recover so they can continue to contribute to our community. If victims are physically and mentally well, as well as able to, amongst other things, return to work, then the entire community is better.

$50,000 as the maximum payable was introduced more than two decades ago. The sum does not have the same value today as it did in 1990, so it should be increased. One way to do that is double the maximum payable and introduce a 0-100 point scale instead of the existing 0-50 point scale. There are other ways that might come forth during the parliamentary debates on the victims of crime bill.

The final quote is:

Victim compensation payments should be fair. The process for obtaining compensation should be respectful and efficient and easily understood, thus I urge that any changes to the existing compensation scheme do not add insult to injury by making compensation difficult to obtain. A prime object should be to ease the burden on those who have suffered at the hands of criminals.

I think that is a pretty good summing up of the intent of the bill and I would imagine that most, if not all, members of parliament in both houses would have at times made representation on behalf of victims of crime to the office and the Commissioner for Victims' Rights. It is an important office and I commend the work that the office do for victims. Without that I do not know where we would be able to go to seek assistance.

I want to talk further about what the shadow attorney-general said regarding a report in The Advertiser. The figure of $29 million was reported in The Advertiser some months back—based on a leak or a drop from government; I am not sure what happened—as what cabinet was considering on raising the limit to $100,000. We are entitled to rely on that, in my opinion. The government has not, as yet, repudiated the estimation either, which confirms to me that that is what the figure would be. I am sure that the government have that figure and they could have today given us that figure because they do have access to all the officers that we do not have access to.

Interestingly enough, when you look at the freedom of information material that we received, that indicates that $29 million is what the fund made net in just nine months of the current financial year. So, $29 million of additional cost to look after these victims. The net figure, after all expenses, for a nine-month period in the fiscal year to March 2013 was $29 million—so $29 million is grabbed just like that. The fund, I believe, can afford the doubling of compensation and some change.

The critical question really that all people in the community would ask is: why was the victim of crime levy doubled? Did the government double it just to sit in the fund, never being paid out, to help the budget bottom line across government? Is it a benefit to the government to have an independent and transparent dedicated fund still within the budget lines? Is that a benefit to offset the massive debt that the state has? Why did the government create a dedicated fund? Was it to truly provide for victims of crime or was it to avoid the political problem of creating a tax by claiming it was a levy? Finally, if this is genuinely a fund for victims of crime, it should be applied for their benefit and not for the budgetary or political benefit of the government. It is there as a specific dedicated fund so that we can give these victims of crime some compensation to help with the healing.

I am not playing politics at all with this. I think this is way above politics. It is an important piece of legislation put up for victims of crime and their families, and we have had good contributions from members today and previously when other colleagues have put up a very similar bill. It is not my brainwave to do this; it has come up through crossbenchers, the Liberals raising it and, I believe, the government talking about it too, which is why we saw it in The Advertiser.

Whilst I understand and accept that it may not be the will of the majority of my colleagues in this council to support the bill through all stages today, my fallback position, as I indicated to the government, will be to accept the bill being examined and going to the Legislative Review Committee. That would be my fallback position. At least we would get some advancement on this for a change instead of stalling.

With the amount of requests, demands and public debate in relation to this matter on the increase, I acknowledge, as the Hon. Stephen Wade said, that there could be some improvement, and we have already found that ourselves. If the bill is passed in this council today, it will go to the House of Assembly and there will be an opportunity for the government, with all of its resources, to make this better, but at least we will be progressing it. I fear that unless we get some advancement today we could be here in three years' time with no improvement.

The final point I want to make is that if the absolute majority of my colleagues in this council do support this bill through its three readings, then I would obviously go down that track because we would be advancing a lot quicker than if we put it through to the Legislative Review Committee. As I said, the government can then review this in the next few weeks and put amendments in.

I want to put on the public record that I, on behalf of Family First—and colleagues can speak for themselves when other amendments come back—would be very open to the government putting any amendments forward in the House of Assembly that come back here to further improve this bill. I do not think we can be more open with the community and the parliament. With that, I commend the bill to the council.

Amendment negatived; bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 3—

After line 10—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) Section 20(3)(a)(ii)—delete '0 to 50' and substitute '0 to 100'

Lines 13 to 16 [clause7(3)]—Delete subclause (3)

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I indicated in my second reading contribution, we are not intending to deconstruct and reconstruct this bill. We do not have the actuarial resources the government has. We would look forward to a constructive engagement by the government in the House of Assembly with alternative amendments, if they see they are necessary.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8.

The CHAIR: I point out to the committee that this clause, being a money clause, is in erased type. Standing order 298 provides that no question shall be put in committee upon any such clause. The message transmitting the bill to the House of Assembly is required to indicate that this clause is deemed necessary to the bill.

Remaining clause (9), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:52): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.