HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-12-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

VICTIMS OF CRIME (ABUSE IN STATE CARE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 October 2009. Page 3736.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (12:53): I rise today to indicate that the opposition will support this bill. Having said that, the opposition does not consider that the approach it envisages is the best way to provide fair compensation for victims of abuse in state care. The opposition is still of the view that a dedicated statutory redress scheme is the most appropriate way to compensate victims of abuse in state care, rather than to rely on victims of crime legislation.

On 18 October 2009, the Attorney-General announced in the Sunday Mail that the state government had allocated $7 million for compensation of state care claims, to be distributed through a formalised process of ex gratia payments under the victims of crime legislation. In this bill, the Hon. Ann Bressington is seeking to apply to the ex gratia scheme under the victims of crime legislation some of the elements which she considers should be part of the statutory redress scheme. While the opposition remains open to her statutory redress scheme model, we consider that bolting these elements onto an ex gratia scheme does not effectively convert the ex gratia scheme to a statutory redress scheme and is therefore not the best approach. For instance, we do not think that it is appropriate for victims to need to rely on the discretionary decisions of a minister with no right of appeal—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the cameraman that he is only to take footage of the person on their feet speaking. You have been swanning around the room quite a bit. Please do not do that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition does not think that it is appropriate for victims to need to rely on the discretionary decisions of a minister with no right of appeal rather than pursue statutory rights with appropriate procedural safeguards to ensure fairness and consistency, including a right of appeal. The opposition supports this bill to reiterate our disappointment at the government's failure to properly compensate victims, but looks forward to the day when victims of abuse in state care will have access to a full-blooded dedicated statutory redress scheme.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (12:55): I rise to indicate that Family First's position is that we will be supporting the Hon. Ann Bressington's bill. It has always been our endeavour to see as much compensation as possible for these victims. This was never their fault. They were primarily wards of the state. During a discussion on a redress bill that we had—it was passed through this chamber but, as yet, has not been passed by the other house—we had reached a figure from indications that we had received from the major parties. If there is an opportunity to get more compensation for these victims through the Hon. Ann Bressington, we clearly support that. Frankly, it does not matter what amount of money we give to these people: money will not replace the hurt that these people have experienced. However, if we can give them a reasonable amount of money, we can help them get on with their future.

Another point I make is that Family First wants a written apology from the government of the day on behalf of South Australians. I personally believe that the absolute majority of South Australians want to see that written apology. The Hon. Ann Bressington's bill is offering more and, for that reason, we support it.

The only other thing I want to say is that, in the current situation, the government came out and said that it would offer amounts of money to some victims through the Victims of Crime Compensation Fund, but I personally shake my head at that. I think the appropriate action here would be a proper appropriation of money from general revenue of Treasury for these victims, not to actually take money from the Victims of Crime Fund for this purpose. We do not believe that many of the victims will qualify under the proposal, anyway. It should be a separate amount of money. Not one South Australian has said to me that we should not have a $15 billion budget (or close to that amount) and not make a proper appropriation of money for these victims from that global amount.

What concerns me with what has happened now is that we will possibly see less general support for compensation for victims, because the money is actually being grabbed out of a general Victims of Crime Fund specifically to fund some of the people we feel sorry for who have been victims of abuse under previous governments—not this government; sometimes way back—which have not shown a duty of care for these people when they were wards of the state. With those few words, we strongly support the Hon. Ann Bressington's bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT