Legislation introduced this week by the ACT Legislation Assembly will shake up the system of criminal injuries compensation. It has drawn criticism from members of the legal profession and the ACT Law Society. However, it is supported by victims groups.
In 1996-97 $4.5 million was awarded to a total of 300 victims. Overall in the ACT there were 32,000 offences to property and 2200 offences to the person. A working party report on the existing law noted that a large amount of resources was going “”to such a small proportion of potential clients”. This observation was apparently made as a criticism of the present system. If so, it was not well directed. It is surely a good thing that the state-provided system is a safety-net only. There is little reason, for example, why a state criminal compensation system should give any compensation for property loss. Most property subjected to criminal attack is insured or ought to be. As to personal injury, it is better that the government scheme deal with the most serious cases, helping patch up lives that have been seriously disrupted by crime, rather than attempt to be the restitutor for every minor or even medium-range incident.
However, despite the working party’s observation, the current system still gives out money to too many victims and often gives it for the wrong things. The new Bill attempts to address some of that. Only the most gravely injured with be entitled to a solatium or payment for grief, pain and suffering. It will be limited to $30,000, instead of the present $50,000. Less severe cases will result in reimbursement for medical costs and lost earnings. Lost earnings are not available under the present scheme. It will mean a cut in direct payments from the present $4.5 million to about $2.7 million. But a further $600,000 will go to rehabilitation and professional services to crime victims.
The changes have some merit. Though medical costs should only be paid after insurance and lost earnings should be paid after sick and recreational leave have been taken.
The philosophy should not be that the state will always pick up the tab or that every vicissitude of life will be cushioned by the state.
If anything, the new scheme should make greater efforts to get more compensation out of the criminals. If the state scheme is to cut benefits, maybe the courts should be empowered to make formal findings of liability after criminal cases. True, most criminals are broke, but not all. And many perpetrators escape because the criminal burden of proof has not been met, though a court might be satisfied of their liability at the civil level. More should be done to get the money in these cases.
The trouble with the present scheme is that too much money is going to relatives and direct victims in the form of compensation for non-physical trauma. While every sympathy should be extended to these victims, it is not the business of taxpayers to hand them money. It is the business of the community to provide better support services. To this end the Bill aimed in the right direction.
However, the Bill has some dangerous retrospectivity provisions. Retrospective legislation is almost invariably wrong. The new law should be prospective. Too many people have relied on existing provisions applying to their past injury.