Victims of Crime (Compensation) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 August 2023.)

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (22:18): Very briefly, I rise to indicate my support for the bill.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (22:18): I rise today in support of the Victims of Crime (Compensation) Amendment Bill 2023, introduced by the Hon. Connie Bonaros. This bill is a much-needed legislative adjustment to correct some real shortcomings in the current bill. It seeks to restore dignity, fairness and justice to those who have suffered the trauma of crime and, through no fault of their own, have been left with expenses.

At present, the scheme operates under constraints that set limits on the amounts that can be awarded to victims. Victims are currently limited to a compensation ceiling of just $2,000 regardless of the severity of their suffering or the long-term impacts on their lives. This is not just and does not reflect the costs that may be suffered by victims in accessing medical and dental work as a result of crimes against them. By automatically limiting the amount of compensation payable by a set ratio, those who have suffered the greatest amount of medical, dental or psychological trauma will be left with the higher amount of out-of-pocket expense. This legislation is currently failing the very people it should protect.

The Law Society reported in 2024 that the fund itself had accumulated over $200 million. That is money earmarked for victims, yet survivors of assault, domestic violence and other heinous crimes may struggle to pay for medical treatment, psychological support and legal representation under the existing system. This bill repeals the arbitrary cap and allows for full compensation to be awarded based on actual loss and suffering. It also increases the amount legal practitioners can charge. This will ensure victims have access to proper legal support when navigating the claims process.

These are reasonable, necessary changes. The Law Society of South Australia has endorsed these reforms, citing the unfair discounting of future economic loss and medical expenses under the current scheme. Victims are often forced to make up the shortfall out of their own pockets, compounding their trauma with financial stress. This bill corrects that injustice.

We the opposition commend the Hon. Connie Bonaros for her advocacy on this issue. Her commitment to restoring justice and her willingness in challenging the status quo are evident in this bill. Again, the opposition supports this bill in this place, but we do note that it is a money bill and would therefore need the support of the government to progress.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (22:21): I can indicate that while the government has complete sympathy with the Hon. Connie Bonaros' stated intentions in supporting victims of crime, the government will not be supporting the bill today on the basis that the financial impact of the bill's proposed changes are predicted to be significant and one that the VOC Fund may not be able to sustain in the longer term. I note that the balance of the VOC Fund at 30 September 2025 was $193 million compared with $251 million as at 30 June 2025.

The bill proposes to amend the Victims of Crime Act 2001 in order to increase compensation payable to victims and the amount of costs that can be paid to legal practitioners acting on behalf of victims and making a claim under the act. In particular, the bill:

repeals section 20(3)(a)(i) from the act so that a victim of crime will be entitled to the full amount of financial loss up to $100,000 for both financial and non-financial loss, removing the current cap of $2,000 plus three-quarters of the excess, capped at $100,000; and

deletes and substitutes section 25(1)(a) so that a solicitor involved in a claim for compensation can claim $2,500 for their professional costs, which amount I am advised is currently set at $1,400.

As iterated in the legislation, the victims of crime compensation scheme is intended to be a compensation scheme of last resort. The scheme is not and has never been intended to fully compensate all financial and non-financial loss, which is demonstrated by the existence of the $100,000 cap on compensation. This overall cap on compensation was last increased in 2015 under former Labor Attorney-General John Rau of blessed memory from a then maximum of $50,000 to the current $100,000 cap. The financial impact of this proposed change is predicted to be significant and one that the VOC Fund may not be able to sustain in the longer term.

Regarding the second proposed change in the bill about legal practitioners' fees, the current fee for legal practitioners is capped at $1,400 indexed for most claim types and is paid from the VOC Fund. There is a set process that legal practitioners follow when seeking compensation under the act on behalf of victims of crime. This set process can be contrasted to the work of legal practitioners acting for clients in other personal injury claims, which can involve significantly higher volumes of often more complex work. Given the VOC Fund is intended to primarily compensate victims of crime, this proposed change to provide greater reimbursement to lawyers is not supported.

Both components of the bill would have a significant negative impact on the VOC Fund, which may not be able to be sustained in the longer term. Accordingly, the bill is not supported by government members tonight.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (22:24): I rise to speak in support of the Victims of Crime (Compensation) Amendment Bill 2023, strongly advocated by the Law Society to fix two major flaws and ensure victims are treated fairly and can access the support they need. It is an important step forward to ensure victims of crime in South Australia are treated with fairness and can access the support they need to recover.

Under the current scheme, victims face an arbitrary reduction in compensation. For claims above $2,000, only three-quarters of the remainder is paid. To demonstrate the flaws with this, I will use a dental bill as an example. After an assault, a dental bill of $19,000 is not unheard of. Under the current rules, a victim would still be left with a $5,000 shortfall. No victim should be left out of pocket, and for many this shortfall means real financial hardship. Disadvantaged individuals, including migrants without Medicare, domestic violence survivors and others already vulnerable, are being left behind. This is not the standard of care or justice that our community expects. The bill removes the reduction and ensures victims receive the full compensation they are entitled to.

This bill also addresses another barrier: access to legal representation. Right now, the maximum legal cost allowed under the act is indexed from $1,400 and sits under $2,000. These claims often involve gathering medical evidence, negotiating with the state and calculating compensation across several areas, such as medical costs, loss of income and psychological harm. Victims of crime compensation lodgements fell by almost 200 in 2022-23, which may be due to lack of legal representation. Many lawyers have stopped taking these cases, particularly in regional areas, leaving victims without help. By increasing the cap to $2,500 indexed, this bill makes representation viable again. It is a modest change, but one that will make a real difference. Victims will have better access to legal advice, and claims will be handled properly and fairly.

These reforms strengthen communities. Fair compensation and legal support help victims recover, reducing disadvantage and breaking cycles of vulnerability and crime. By removing barriers and ensuring victims are supported, we build trust in our justice system, encourage reporting and create safer and more resilient communities. For these reasons, I support the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (22:27): I thank members who have spoken on this bill: the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, the Hon. Mr Hunter and the Hon. Ms Lee. I am grateful for the support of the opposition and the Hon. Ms Lee and, I am sure, other crossbenchers in this place including, without speaking out of turn, the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Mr Simms, who I am sure—

The Hon. R.A. Simms: I did speak.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: You did speak. I thank the Hon. Mr Simms, who spoke in support of the bill and who I think shares the views of everyone who has supported this bill. I am disappointed with the position of the government on this bill. I am extremely grateful for the support of the opposition on this bill.

The Hon. Mr Hunter has talked about the significant impact that this bill would have on the Victims of Crime Fund, which currently has a balance of about $251.2 million and has increased over recent years. I do not know where the significant impact is coming from and how they can come to that, but I think a more accurate reflection is that it would have a modest impact, as outlined by the Hon. Ms Lee a moment ago.

As I have said since this bill was introduced, even a back-of-the-envelope calculation by someone who is not the best at maths, and that would be me, would show that if every claim that is made on the fund based on figures released from the Auditor-General had that 25 per cent—and this is not every eligible claim, but I am throwing them all in the same basket. If we added 25 per cent onto every single claim that is made today from the fund, the total could not exceed about $12 million or $13 million a year. How that is a significant impact remains absolutely beyond me. But there is a solution and the solution is to support the motion that I have introduced in this place today that calls for an actuarial review of the victims of crime funds so we can actually establish if this is a significant impact or a modest impact and, more importantly, whether that modest impact on the scheme is worth compromising on given what is at stake.

If the government wanted to, they could have moved amendments to this bill to strike out those provisions that sought to increase legal fees. It is not a position that I would have been happy with, but they could have done that and ensured, just as a bare minimum, that victims of crime, who have done absolutely nothing to bring this upon themselves, are not left out of pocket for financial losses they have incurred as a result of a crime committed against them.

Let's remember: somebody is an innocent victim. A perpetrator of a crime has been charged and convicted of an offence against that individual and we see fit, and we have seen fit for a very long time, to discount the amount of compensation they receive for the injuries they have sustained by virtue of the fact that they are a victim of that crime. The government keeps saying this is a fund of last resort, but, as the Law Society has quite rightly said, for a huge proportion of the public who would access this it is a fund of only resort. There is no other avenue available to them.

We talk the talk when it comes to victims of crime, when it comes to victims of assault and when it comes to victims of domestic violence, but we have real-life examples there that would clearly demonstrate that those very victims are often left out of pocket because they cannot access the full amount of financial loss they have sustained as a result of an injury against them from the perpetrator of a crime.

So I am deeply disappointed with the government's position, but I remain hopeful that the motion that has been introduced will be considered favourably by the government and that we will actually get to the bottom of what the impact is on the scheme. Is it significant, as the Hon. Mr Hunter has described? Based on everything before us, if $12 million or $13 million or $8 million or $10 million is significant out of a $251 million fund then I would like them to go and explain that to the victims of crime who have done nothing to bring upon the sorts of injuries they have sustained that claim from that fund.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C. BONAROS (22:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.