Victims of Crime Payments

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:04): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking questions of the Attorney-General regarding victims of crime compensation in South Australia.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: As members are no doubt aware, there have been further reports in the media concerning escalating crime in Port Augusta in recent times. A letter from a concerned resident in the area was addressed to the members for Stuart and Giles and was published on 7 June 2023 in the Port Augusta Transcontinental, wherein, amongst detailing myriad criminal activity that's been regularly occurring, including break-ins, damage to vehicles, theft and rock throwing, the specific concern that was raised was with respect to the difficulty of obtaining offender-paid compensation as a result of damage caused to property. The letter stated, and I quote specifically and directly from the letter:

…Victims of Crime legislation offers very little hope for victims. As it stands, even if the perpetrator is identified, caught and then found guilty of the crime, unless they have sufficient income or assets to reimburse victims…

In the end, they don't pay at all. I say this in the context that the Victims of Crime Fund, as I understand it, at the moment has a balance exceeding a quarter of a billion dollars. My questions to the Attorney are:

1. Does the Attorney-General consider that this situation is optimal—that is, that the compensation for property loss or damage is not available to a victim unless the perpetrator is actually able to afford to pay it from their own means, and should it come from the victims of crime compensation fund?

2. Given that offender-paid compensation is the only means of victims obtaining compensation for property loss or damage, will the Attorney consider reviewing the legislation or reviewing our arrangements here in South Australia with respect to payments for property damage?

3. Finally—and the Attorney may want to take this on notice—how many South Australians should be in receipt of court-ordered compensation but in fact aren't able to receive it because the perpetrator hasn't got the means to pay?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:07): I thank the honourable member for his question. I might take the last one first, while it is still fresh in my mind, in relation to court-ordered compensation for property damage. I think that is what the honourable member was asking. I don't have statistics about when it is ordered and not paid. I'm not sure courts will, but I'm happy to see what information is kept or able to be extracted and, to the extent that I can, I'm happy to bring that back.

In relation to victims of crime payments—and I note that the question was targeted around property damage, but of course for a victim of crime who suffers as a result of that crime, if the victim qualifies for victims of crime compensation for the way that has affected their life, in effect, then they are paid out of the fund, and the fund, I think as we traversed yesterday or recently when the honourable member asked a question about victims of crime, essentially has a right of recovery against the offender for how that crime, if a person qualifies, has affected someone's life.

In terms of property damage as a result of criminal acts, there would often be insurance cover that would cover damage that is done in a whole lot of circumstances, and I would expect, depending on the policy, most policies would cover that. I am happy to have a look at it, but I'm not sure the government would want to step in as, essentially, the first insurer, effectively, in relation to damage that occurs in these sorts of circumstances.

As I said, I am happy to go away and have a look at it, but my initial thought is that with the ability for most insurance cover to be claimed upon I'm not sure we would want government stepping in to do that, because of course, then, the victims of crime levy would probably have to substantially increase. Even though there is a significant balance there, it does run down from time to time. For example, the Victims of Crime Fund was used very extensively for the National Redress Scheme for those who suffered sexual abuse in institutional care. So, although there is at times quite a significant balance, that isn't always the case, and there are often calls upon that.

If the Victims of Crime Fund was to be drastically realigned for property damage, it might be that people with speeding fines had a massive increase in that part that goes to the victims of crime levy. When there are alternatives such as private insurance that may cover that, I am not sure that is the best use of what government does. I am happy to have a look at what the honourable member has suggested.