Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Victims of Crime Victims of Crime The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO Legislative Council Victims of Crime The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (15:08): I seek leave to provide a brief explanation before asking a question of the Attorney-General regarding victims of crime. Leave granted. The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO Legislative Council The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: In The Advertiser article from 2 October 2024, it is outlined that, in response to victims of crime Mr Egbert and Ms Wells, who asked the Attorney-General to intervene in a complex situation that meant they had to pay back $40,000 to the victims of crime unit, a Crown solicitor said: …Mr Maher offered 'his sincerest condolences' but had 'declined' to intervene. She said doing so would amount to 'a further payment', and the government sought to 'avoid any double compensation being paid for the same harm'. 'In order to ensure this issue does not arise again…my office is amending the standard terms of discharge and release in Victims of Crime claims,' she wrote. She said all future victims would have to sign a clause 'expressly stating' they 'agree not to make a request to the Attorney-General' to intervene. My questions to the Attorney-General are: 1.	Does the Attorney-General think he and his staff are above handling victims of crimes that face complex arrangements of compensation for pain and suffering? 2.	Does the Attorney-General think Mr Egberts and Ms Wells were intentionally double dipping? 3.	Will the Attorney-General implement further clauses asking victims of crime not to contact him? The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Attorney-General Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:09): I thank the honourable member for her question. I completely reject much of the opinion that was in the question. Often there are horrific circumstances in which people become victims of crime, such as the one the honourable member has mentioned. Regularly, what occurs is that application is made under the victims of crime legislation and scheme for payment. Payment is made. If it is something that is to do with the negligence or actions that haven't been taken by a state government department, there can follow a civil claim against that department. In those occasions where that happens, there is often a settlement that is reached. What regularly occurs in such settlements is there is an amount that is agreed to in terms of that settlement deed, and that settlement deed will reflect that there is an amount as compensation for that civil claim. It will also reflect that there has been an amount that has already been paid from the Victims of Crime Fund as part of that settlement, and then that amount is paid. I want to be very clear: in those circumstances, anyone who has received that victims of crime payment are not asked to pay it back, and they don't pay it back. They get to keep that initial payment, but it is reflected that that has already been paid in the settlement of claim's deed. People can then make a second application for another payment on top of what has already been received if they wish for a second payment for the same circumstances, but that I think would be rarely paid for another payment for the same circumstances.