Victims of Crime Fund

The Hon. C. BONAROS (14:46): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Attorney-General a question about the Victims of Crime Fund.

Leave granted.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Last week, it was reported that an innocent victim who was repeatedly and persistently raped by two men has had to reimburse the state government $100,000 before being compensated for its alleged failure to protect her from harm. Five years ago, the victim received $100,000 from the Victims of Crime Fund for abuse inflicted on her by her stepfather and step-uncle. She subsequently sued the Department for Education, alleging it failed to fulfil its obligations to protect her.

The government is said to have made an offer of $200,000 to this victim to settle her claim, but in so doing required her to sign a deed agreeing to pay back $100,000 that had already been paid to her from the Victims of Crime Fund, on the basis that she has already been compensated for her emotional harm and suffering. My questions to the Attorney are:

1. Does the Attorney acknowledge and accept that the payments in question in this matter are in fact the subject of two separate legal matters, and that the actions that resulted in a payment from the Victims of Crime Fund were not connected in any way to any alleged departmental inaction which was the subject of the second matter?

2. Can the Attorney confirm the deed the victim signed required a repayment to the VOC Fund as part of the second legal action against the Department for Education?

3. Why didn't the Attorney use his discretion to overcome any legal barriers to being compensated for the same injury, loss or grief, albeit as a result of separate actions?

4. Given the public sentiment, does the Attorney believe that these laws need reviewing in terms of having to make that sort of payback of compensation that has already been received from the Victims of Crime Fund when there is a subsequent unrelated claim?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (14:49): I thank the honourable member for her question and for her passionate advocacy for victims of crime in South Australia. There have been quite a number of pieces of legislation and policy issues that the honourable member and the government have worked on very closely together that recognise the suffering that particularly victims of sexual abuse face.

I will not go into individual circumstances: individual deeds or legal action is not something that I tend to go into, and nor have any of my predecessors. It is a general principle that where it arises from that one criminal offence the Victims of Crime Fund is a scheme of last resort. In fact, I know that the current iteration, the Victims of Crime Act that was introduced in 2001, the then Attorney-General, the widely respected Trevor Griffin, made clear that the Victims of Crime Fund was such a scheme of last resort. I think the quote from the second reading speech was, 'Finally, as under present law, criminal injuries compensation is intended be the last resort.' Later the then Attorney-General said:

Because the fund is intended to be a last resort, the law seeks to discourage claims being made where, because other compensation has been paid or is available, the claim will result in no benefit to the victim, because there will be no net payment from the fund.

I am advised that it does occur that in some circumstances where a payment has been made from the Victims of Crime Fund and then arising from that same behaviour there is a civil action that can be and is taken against the government. I want to be clear, though, in the circumstances where that civil action is taken against the government, my advice is there are no circumstances where that victim of crime is asked to actually hand back the money that has already been paid.

Certainly, my advice is it is the case that whenever these sorts of circumstances happen any further amount paid in relation to that set of circumstances takes into account the previous payment from the Victims of Crime Fund, because as I said, as with that excerpt from the Hon. Trevor Griffin from over 20 years ago, it is intended as a scheme of last resort.

I think in many cases where there is a deed of settlement that recognises any funds that have previously been paid—and again I want to make it clear that there is not a request to pay back funds that have already been paid but to take into account that funds have already been paid. My advice is that often in those circumstances that person is legally represented, obviously takes advice about the appropriateness of the settlement deed that is proposed and then signs it on that basis after having had the benefit of that legal advice.