HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-07-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Victims of Crime (Offender Service and Joinder) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 June 2019.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:36): I rise today to indicate that I will be the lead speaker for this bill and that the Labor opposition supports this bill. The bill amends the Victims of Crime Act 2001 to remove the requirement for a claimant to the Victims of Crime Fund to serve a copy of their application on their offender. It is a small bill, but one that may have a significant impact for victims of crime.

I am advised that around 90 per cent of claimants to the Victims of Crime Fund have legal representation. In practice, it is the legal representatives who serve a copy of the application on the offender; however, I understand that there is a concern that the approximately 10 per cent of claimants who do not have a legal representative may be forced to serve the papers on the offender themselves. This is likely to be extremely distressing for victims and there are particular concerns for victims of domestic violence, victims of sexual offences or where the victim is a minor. Applications can also contain personal details, including medical reports, which may not be appropriate to provide to offenders.

In her second reading explanation, the Attorney-General represented that South Australia is the only jurisdiction where a claimant to such a fund is required to serve a copy of their application on the offender. That being the case, it makes sense in this instance to bring South Australia into line with the practices of other states.

I will just finish by saying that whilst we support this bill we do not agree and we think it was unedifying that the Attorney-General, the member for Bragg, used this bill as an opportunity to denigrate and have a crack at the former commissioner for victims' rights, Michael O'Connell. I will not repeat the comments the Attorney-General made, but I will say that it was entirely unnecessary and not in keeping with the office of the Attorney-General.

Unfortunately, during the short time that the Attorney-General has held office, she has constantly found conflict with senior officers, whether they be former office holders, like Mr Michael O'Connell, royal commissioners or the ICAC commissioner. With those brief words on the substance of this bill, I once again indicate our support.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:39): I rise to speak in support of the Victims of Crime (Offender Service and Joinder) Amendment Bill. It is well known that SA-Best are champions of compensation for victims of crime. We are strong advocates and have been for the 20 principles of the Declaration of Principles Governing Treatment of Victims, which underpins the Victims of Crime Act 2001.

We met many times with the previous South Australian commissioner for victims' rights, Michael O'Connell, who showed outstanding dedication to that role over a period of 12 years, and we have already met several times with the new Commissioner for Victims' Rights, Ms Bronwyn Killmier, who was appointed in 2018. We look forward to further enhancing victims' rights in South Australia under Ms Killmier's leadership.

We understand that this bill has its origins in calls for improved procedures in relation to service and joinder of documents upon offenders from the commissioner's victim support services and victims themselves. We are certainly well acquainted with the issues with victims of crime compensation through a steady stream of constituents contacting us to report the delays, distress and disappointments they have suffered through the process of claiming victims of crime compensation. They have told us that the process often involves refreshing and recalling the experiences of the injury and damage they have suffered, at a time when they are least emotionally and financially equipped to deal with it.

There are no other civil damages to restore victims to the position they would have been in but for the crime perpetrated against them, and often no monetary compensation will go close to dealing with the victim's actual losses. There is no compensation for property loss or loss from gambling crimes or scams. There is no compensation that will bring back a loved one or make up for the losses and serious injuries suffered by victims of violent crime and domestic abuse. There is no compensation that will restore the peace of mind, the trust and the safety that the victim has lost.

It is by the good grace of the victims of crime commissioner that suicide and murder sites are cleaned up and some funeral expenses met. It is our view that these are admirable and necessary but, given the quantum of the fund, current levels and forms of compensation, these are, overall, sadly insufficient.

However, these reforms are a start in streamlining and expediting the processes victims need to endure to obtain some compensation for the pain, suffering and economic loss incurred because of a crime committed against them or their family member. We look forward to further reforms to better resource the office of the commissioner to update systems; to centralise, harmonise and upgrade databases; and to improve cross-agency information sharing.

In our view, there is much more to be done to increase distributions made to victims from the $150 million fund to provide for increased levels of compensation and to streamline processes. For now, we acknowledge the efforts of the past and current commissioners to assist and support victims of crime, and strongly support the simple but sensible provisions of this bill.

The bill contains some very important protections for victims regarding the processes they have to endure in making an application for compensation. At present, victims must serve a copy of their application for compensation on the offender and on the court if there are court proceedings on foot. Courts can only dispense with the service in very limited circumstances, by which time the applicant victim has already been further traumatised by the often slow and unwieldy process to obtain what may in the end be quite a meagre sum.

Historically, the requirement to serve the offender has allowed perpetrators to make submissions to the Crown about the compensation applied for and given them access to a great deal of personal information of the victim, including their medical reports, details of their injuries and police reports. This often constitutes a further assault on victims. These interactions with the offender can perpetuate and exacerbate the very trauma and stress they are trying to recover from.

Of even greater concern is that victim support services report that the current requirements re service and joinder can be a trigger to further violence, especially in domestic violence and sexual abuse matters. The requirement to find and serve the perpetrator can also act as a serious disincentive to making an application for compensation. This is completely unacceptable. These provisions also alleviate an administrative burden on the Crown Solicitor's Office because they will no longer have to redact sensitive information in providing the documents to the offender and/or the court.

It is a very welcome systems improvement that the Crown will develop a much simpler notification for the offender and that this communication will take place only after the application is determined. The offender can still communicate their opposition to the victim's application to the Crown, but this will be later in the process and will not involve the victim.

It is our view that the offender should play no role at all in the consideration or determination of a victim's application for compensation. This bill does not revoke the perpetrator's right of response, but at least that communication will not be with or via the victim. We are the only jurisdiction in Australia that still imposes the requirement of a victim to serve their application on the offender and the court if proceedings have been initiated. It is about time we caught up and balanced the scales of justice to better support and compensate victims. On that note, we commend the bill to the Legislative Council.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:46): On behalf of the government, I thank honourable members for their contributions and their indications of willingness to support the legislation.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 16:50 the council adjourned until Wednesday 3 July 2019 at 14:15.

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