HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Motions

Victims of Crime Fund

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. C. Bonaros:

That this council—

1. Notes the Victims of Crime Fund had a balance of $251.2 million reported as at 30 June 2025, representing an increase of $27.3 million on the previous financial year;

2. Recognises the current compensation scheme applies a reduction of 25 per cent for financial loss payments, including medical expenses, exceeding $2,000; and

3. Calls on the Malinauskas government to commission an independent actuarial review of the Victims of Crime Fund to assess the impact of abolishing the 25 per cent reduction in compensation on the position of the fund.

(Continued from 12 November 2025.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (12:38): We on this side of the chamber know what we are doing.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: That is a first.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The Victims of Crime Fund continues to hold a very substantial balance, reported at more than $251 million as of 30 June 2025. I will ignore that interjection, the Hon. Robert Simms.

The PRESIDENT: Interjections are out of order, the Hon. Mr Simms. Calm down.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Thank you, Mr President, for your protection. At the same time, the current compensation scheme still applies a 25 per cent reduction to financial loss payments above $2,000, including medical expenses. That reduction sits within a broader statutory framework that already limits the compensation many victims can receive. These settings have been the subject of concern for some time. They were highlighted during a debate on the Victims of Crime (Compensation) Amendment Bill 2023, where the Law Society pointed to clear shortcomings in the existing model, particularly around financial loss and legal costs.

An independent actuarial review is a sensible way forward. It would allow government and the parliament to understand, in a clear and informed way, what impact the removal of the 25 per cent reduction would have on the fund's long-term position. With that information, any future decisions can be made responsibly and with confidence. This motion does not predetermine an outcome, it simply seeks transparency and evidence to guide possible reform. That is in the interest of victims and in the interest of maintaining a sustainable compensation scheme. For these reasons, I indicate that we wholeheartedly support the motion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (12:39): I rise briefly to indicate that I will be supporting this motion, given the opposition has put on the record its support, for your ability to count the numbers.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (12:40): I thank the honourable member for bringing this matter before us. The honourable member has been very passionate in her advocacy in relation to victims generally and making sure that victim welfare is well looked after.

This issue has been raised this week in discussion in parliament in question time. This issue has been ventilated during the Auditor-General's question time and although we have significant sympathy with what the honourable member is putting forward, as I have said a number of times in relation to the call from the National Redress Scheme, we want to make sure that we are in a position, when that National Redress Scheme comes to the close (which it has been indicated will be in the middle of 2027), that there are sufficient funds within the Victims of Crime account to make sure our South Australian contribution to that National Redress Scheme can be met.

We have already committed, since the National Redress Scheme was established, hundreds of millions of dollars, including many tens of millions of dollars recently. Although we do not disagree with the sentiments the honourable member is putting forward, we need to ensure there are sufficient funds with the anticipated call—and I would be shocked if there were not very significant further calls—of many tens of millions of dollars from the Victims of Crime Fund for the National Redress Scheme.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (12:41): I thank the speakers on this motion: the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Ms Franks and the Deputy Premier. Just to the point, there are two issues before this parliament that deal with victims of crime: one is asking for a bill to be passed to allow the discount that currently applies in the bill to be removed from the bill and, noting all the concerns that have been raised by this government, there is this motion. This motion seeks to do exactly what the Deputy Premier just said. The Deputy Premier wants to ensure that we have enough funds in there to deal with the Redress Scheme. We want to know that there are enough funds in there to deal with the Redress Scheme, too.

This is not about removing the discount; this is about providing an actuarial review of that fund so that we all know what the viability of that fund looks like. I can understand that I have a difference of opinion with the Deputy Premier when it comes to the bill, but I cannot understand how it is not in this parliament's interest, or in the public's interest, to undertake a review of that fund, which currently has $251.2 million in it, and take into account the calls that have been made, not just by me but by the Law Society, which has done an extraordinary job at leading the charge on this campaign for the last two years and which takes on board the issues that have been raised by the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Leader of the Opposition and looks at whether the fund is healthy enough or viable enough to ensure that it can make these changes and meet the needs of the Redress Scheme—that is all this is intended to do.

There is nothing else; there is nothing magical in here. We are just saying, 'Let's have an actuarial review of that fund so we all know—this parliament knows, the public knows, the Law Society knows, stakeholders know—what the scope and viability of that scheme will look like, with or without the expenditure of the Redress Scheme or otherwise, and what dent removing those provisions would look like in this bill. I cannot wrap my head around this position. I understand and take on board what has been said about the bill, but on this issue, where we are just asking for an actuarial review, a review of the fund so we all know where it sits, it is quite staggering. For the record, I will be dividing on this motion.

Motion carried.

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