Thursday, 26 May 2022

Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance Scheme) Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms PULFORD:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:54): I am very pleased to make a contribution on another justice bill, a justice bill that those of us on this side of the house will be supporting. It is a good bill. It is not controversial. It builds upon some important reforms that have been made recently to make things simpler for victims of crime. The chief elements of the bill are drawn from a Victorian Law Reform Commission report and its recommendations.

It puts in place a compensation amount, and the statute of limitations on applications for assistance has increased, as have the compensation amounts. These are positive things. They are supported by the Liberal and National parties. The victims of crime commissioner will have independent oversight of this updated scheme. It was back in 2018 that the Victorian Law Reform Commission reported on its review of the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal and also its governing legislation, which is the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996. The VLRC made 100 recommendations in all, including the creation of a new administrative scheme to assist victims in their recovery from acts of violence, and so this bill provides for that new administrative scheme to deliver financial assistance for victims of crime in Victoria. This was pledged, I believe, by the government at the last election.

There were some good contributions in the other place across the house, noting that all of us—and, I do not doubt, all of us in this place—want to have the deepest regard, as we make policy, for the sensibilities and the needs of victims of crime. I was pleased to join the minister and various other members and previous members—actually it was good to see Mr Haermeyer there—at an event just last night for Crime Stoppers. There were numerous notable people who had been victims of crime who were there at that event, where the minister talked about the government’s intention to continue to make reforms in order to ensure that as far as possible the needs of victims of crime are met.

Since I have come into a range of different portfolios, including youth justice and child protection presently and previously that of Shadow Attorney-General, it has been my great privilege to regularly meet with victims of crime. I found it a very hard thing to regularly meet with people whose family members have been killed or who have been victims of other egregious crimes of violence. They often report to me, as I know they report to members opposite as well, that they so often find the justice system cumbersome. If we are committed to the rule of law, and we are, and if we are committed to proper processes, and we are, then unfortunately I think it is a foregone conclusion that victims will often find the justice system a frustration. But to seek to ensure that together, across this house and with colleagues in the other place, we make changes incrementally, based upon the best advice, informed always by victims themselves, is an important thing to do. So I welcome this legislation.

Mr Battin, the relevant shadow minister, led the debate in the other place. He was at pains to stress that he does not doubt that members opposite share the convictions of those of us in the Liberal and National parties and those of us on the crossbench who care so deeply for victims of crime. Mr Battin used to be a copper, and in fact he noted that the member for Bayswater, who I think was in the other place when Mr Battin was making his contribution, is another former copper, who has had some really fantastic things to say about how we can do better to seek to support victims of crime.

I think on questions like this, wherever we can, to reach out across the aisle and to find common ground is a really important thing. So I did think it was odd actually that at the function that I went to last night for Crime Stoppers the minister remarked to all those present that she was not sure if this bill would pass this chamber, given that Mr Battin had already said in the other place and other coalition members had said in the other place that we wholeheartedly supported it. Now, the numbers have changed in this place recently—I understand that—with some notable changes across all parties, but nonetheless if you added the number of government members to the number of opposition members, it was very clear that of course this bill had majority support. I am sure some members have read Mr Battin’s comments. Again, they are laudable in their bipartisanship, as are other contributions from members of the ALP. So I was disappointed, actually—deeply disappointed—that the minister yesterday sought to make a partisan point here, because other members of the Labor Party had not done that and certainly members of the coalition had not done that either.

The main provisions of this bill are to provide a new scheme to assist victims of crime in their recovery from acts of violence; amend the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 in relation to the scheme set out in that act; and also amend the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 in relation to victims of crime, the functions of the commissioner and reporting requirements. It makes consequential amendments to other acts as well.

Given the fact that I think on the whole this is a really good bill—and I commend it to the house and I hope it has a speedy passage through this place—we do have one or two key concerns that I presume will be able to be allayed through some further information from the Attorney-General. It has previously been the practice of the Attorney-General—the very constructive practice of the Attorney-General, may I say—to respond at the conclusion of debates on justice bills by addressing, in every instance that I can recall fulsomely, the specific concerns that I have raised and other opposition members have raised, which has often meant that those of us on this side of the house have not felt the need to move to committee. I will just very briefly reiterate the points that have been made by Mr Battin in the other place for the Attorney’s excellent staff, and hopefully—I would not wish or deign to seek to instruct the Attorney—if she wishes to continue her very constructive practice, we will see if we can expedite this matter.

We have a concern, which I dare say may well be able to be allayed, regarding clause 31—grounds where an application for assistance can be refused. There is no definition in that clause of what constitutes ‘reasonable time’. I am sure that the government’s intention is to ensure that these matters can be dealt with in an appropriately speedy way; nonetheless, I would appreciate some further information from the Attorney about how that will be able to be managed, given that we feel that that wording could be tighter and there could be some definition of what ‘reasonable time’ entails.

Our second concern is regarding clause 41, ‘Victim recognition meetings’. This clause entitles victims who have been granted an application for assistance to request that the scheme decision-maker meet with the victim on behalf of the state. The concern that was expressed in the other place—and for the benefit of my friends on the other side, I will just briefly restate it here—was to know what factors are to be considered when deciding if a meeting would be held and whether victim representatives would be involved. I would welcome any further information on that point.

Finally, at clause 42, regarding the recovery of compensation, subclause (1) allows a person to whom, or for whose benefit, assistance is paid, on or after being notified of the decision to pay the assistance, to assign to the state their right to recover from any other person by civil proceedings, damages or compensation in respect of the injury or death to which the assistance relates. So my two queries are these: does this all mean that the scheme could be capped, and also does it mean that the agency could consider the scheme to be too costly due to take-up and therefore close it? Again, I raise these concerns in good faith, and on every occasion that I have raised similar concerns in the past the Attorney has been good enough to take it that way and provide me with very fulsome information.

I note that some amendments will be moved. Certainly the amendments of Ms Maxwell and her colleague seem to me, and to us on this side of the house, to be very sound, to be carefully crafted and to be put together in a way that is feasible, that is not too broad and that would deliver—although not in any expansive way—in a sensible way some better outcomes for victims of crime.

So again I want to flag, for the benefit of the house, that they will have the support of the opposition parties. That being said, notwithstanding our support for those amendments, we will certainly support the bill as it currently stands, and I wish it a speedy passage.

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (17:05): I am really delighted to follow Dr Bach’s contribution. Thank you so much for putting so much into your remarks. There is of course a point I would like to begin with, which is acknowledging the tireless advocacy and determination of victim-survivors in speaking on this, the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance Scheme) Bill 2022. The strength of victim-survivors is what makes bills like this before us today possible. It is important to all of us in this place that we listen to you and that your powerful voices are given a platform to be heard. Having heard of the support of the Liberal-Nationals coalition as well as ours, which we should enjoy today, I hope that you are feeling supported and encouraged by what is about to happen in the passage of this bill. I myself have previously spoken on many occasions on victim support in this place, and I will always advocate for victims of crime to be supported in a safe and trauma-informed manner. Their recovery needs to contain access to financial assistance, and this bill delivers exactly that. This bill is an opportunity to provide victims with a better road to recovery from the impacts of crime. Victims have waited far too long to get the help they need, and the government with this bill is fixing that. I am proud to be part of the Andrews Labor government in delivering key reforms for victims of crime right across our state—and it is really an important note that it is right across the state.

The bill delivers on the 2018 commitment to significant progress in the recommendations of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s review of the operation and effectiveness of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, or the VOCA act, and the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, VOCAT. The VLRC review found that victims faced excessive delays in accessing critical help and that VOCAT processes further exacerbated the trauma victims experienced.

Through this bill the financial assistance scheme will replace VOCAT with a timely, trauma-informed, culturally safe and accessible system of financial support for victims of crime. The road to this bill has been led by the advocacy and determination of victim-survivors. It will indeed deliver a trauma-informed and safe administrative scheme that is supported by guiding principles. The bill implements or partially implements 84 of the 100 recommendations from the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s report into VOCAT. Significantly the Royal Commission into Family Violence also received several submissions that detail the traumatic experiences of family violence victim-survivors with VOCAT.

The harm experienced by victims of crime is often life long and deeply traumatic. This will provide a forum for the state of Victoria to acknowledge and recognise the harm victims have experienced to better support their safety and recovery. This bill enhances accessibility to financial assistance for many victims of crime by better recognising LGBTI chosen families, Aboriginal kinship families, families who are exposed to violence and victims of image-based sexual offences. Upholding and protecting the rights of victims of crime is a significant responsibility, and this bill ensures victims can access services and support and tell their stories with their rights and their privacy protected.

There is more to speak of in this bill, but I am just going to take a moment to discuss the bill with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. For those of you that know of my advocacy in this space this will be well familiar. The financial assistance scheme will be a trauma-informed and safer place for victim-survivors, with no place for alleged offenders.

There is a key principle under this bill—I am just going to take a moment to discuss this—to promote cultural safety for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander victims. This guiding principle has been written by the Aboriginal justice agreement, phase 4, women, families and victims collaborative working group. And can I take a moment to acknowledge their incredible work in bringing this before us today. The guiding principle of cultural safety states:

acknowledging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as descendants of Australia’s first people; and

… Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system in a way that has contributed to criminalisation, disconnection, intergenerational trauma and entrenched social disadvantage; and

… victims of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent have cultural rights and familial and Aboriginal community connections relevant to assistance under this Act.

This guiding principle helps to ensure that the great progress made by the Koori list at VOCAT is embedded in the foundations of the scheme. Additionally, Aboriginal kinship relationships are better represented under the bill through the definition of ‘close family member’. And on this National Sorry Day it is really good to see that we are in fact debating justice legislation that will benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have been victims of crime—and none more so than the members of the stolen generation and their descendants, who are disproportionately affected by crime.

The government understands that there is more work to do to increase access to victim support services for Aboriginal Victorians, and the work continues. At the heart of the reform contained in this bill, we are listening to what victims say and implementing the recommendations of the VLRC’s report on replacing VOCAT with a safer and fairer financial assistance scheme for victims of crime. This is the most significant reform to financial assistance for victims of crime in 50 years, and it will make a fundamental difference to the lives of victims accessing support. I commend this bill to the chamber.

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (17:12:232:): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance Scheme) Bill 2022. The bill provides the foundation for a new scheme to support victims of crime and removes some of the frustration, trauma and limitations of the 25-year-old Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (VOCA act). As the Minister for Victim Support said in her second-reading speech, victims of crime have high expectations for reform of the scheme, and they should have.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission’s (VLRC) review of the VOCA act made 100 recommendations for the reform of victim financial assistance. The 612-page report confirmed that the current model is not victim centred or beneficial in its approach because it prioritises procedure and evidentiary processes over the recovery needs of victims. Many of the 100 recommendations are addressed either fully or partially in this bill, and I commend the government on its very thorough work to reform the scheme. I also thank Minister Hutchins, her staff and the department for providing me with a number of lengthy briefings on this bill and discussions about what is needed to support victims, what is possible now and our aspirations for the future—and the aspirations of victims.

I will say, though, I still have some concerns around the operation of the new scheme. There are some limited but very important amendments I will propose in this debate and other questions I hope to ask in the committee stage to give further understanding or assurances about how the scheme will be designed, delivered and reviewed.

We absolutely welcome the shift from a tribunal system to an administrative one. We hope that the requirement within this bill to be expeditious in processing applications will see the end of the constant delays that victims endure. Despite a recommendation from the VLRC to remove the existing hierarchy of victims and replace it with a single and comprehensive definition, the structure of primary and secondary victims remains in place, although I recognise it is expanded and improved. A primary victim will now include someone who has tried to prevent an act of violence, and children will be better recognised as victims in their own right, as they should be. Importantly the time limits for making applications for assistance and variations have been increased, and this is appropriate.

I note there is some scope to do this further through regulation. The VLRC recommended that victims within the scheme be notified as they are nearing the end of this period so they can make a final application for variation if necessary, and we propose an amendment to include this in the bill. I am wondering if it might be an appropriate time to circulate those amendments.

Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party amendments circulated by Ms MAXWELL pursuant to standing orders.

Ms MAXWELL: Victims will be entitled to some legal support in making their application under this scheme. My colleague Stuart Grimley, or Mr Grimley, formally proposed the victims legal service to this government in January 2021. The government saw its value and partly funded the establishment of a service in the 2021–22 budget. Our party view is that this scheme needs to be expanded, particularly for families of deceased victims who need independent legal support to navigate the broader justice system—from police to the Office of Public Prosecutions—and to understand court and corrections procedures such as adjournments, sentencing, parole and particularly the plea-bargaining process that can often leave families confused and/or devastated.

The caps on financial assistance have been raised, and for related victims the assistance will not come from one singular pool, which solves an issue that I have previously put to the government and I am sure has been raised by others. I hold here today a refusal to vary an award of assistance for a mother whose 11-year-old daughter was murdered. She had access to 22 months of counselling—22 months for the loss of a child—not appropriate and not enough. This mother will require counselling for the rest of her life.

What is of continued concern for our party also, having spoken with many victims over many years about their experiences and advocating for change, is that counselling provisions, while better than the former scheme, will still remain limited by financial caps, hence why I bring forward that example of the resistance and the exhausting of funding for that particular mother. The Centre for Innovative Justice conducted a review of victim services and recognised the path of recovery is not a straight and continuous line. A guiding principle of this bill states that ‘the needs of victims may vary’. Without the right support at the right time, victims’ recovery can be compromised. I recognise that the scheme needs to be sustainable, but the preventative investment of counselling can avoid other burdens on our health and justice system down the track.

Victim-survivor Nina Funnell tweeted just yesterday that 25 May marks the anniversary of her assault. She said:

Assault anniversaries are strange things. They mark both the growth & distance we have achieved, while also plunging us right back in time

Michelle Skewes posted this week about her anniversary of the date she was cross-examined in the courts to bring her abuser to justice. Michelle has given me special permission to use her words today in my speech. She wrote:

The feeling of shatteredness that enveloped me that night, is indescribable.

Every person who goes through trying hold their abuser to account, my hat is off to you. To every person who hasn’t yet, I get it.

Victims do not want these anniversaries, they do not want these triggers, so when these anniversaries occur, when the triggers present—and it is different for everyone—if they need support, it should be available.

It was heartbreaking to bring to this Parliament an issue experienced by an applicant under the existing system, and I have referred to this mother just previously in my speech. That problem has not been resolved in this bill. I have suggested amendments for the Legislative Assembly to consider removing the caps on counselling for this very reason. This is not something a victim will seek to exploit but needs to be an ongoing provision to help their recovery.

I know that if these amendments pass, it will require the bill to go back to the Assembly, but it is important to get this right. There are still limitations within the scheme that will protect its viability, and this should not wait for the two-year review. If the government has concerns about expenditure, there are certainly other places that savings could be sought rather than limiting the counselling awards for victims of crime. I feel that anyone not supporting these amendments is slapping a victim in the face.

Stakeholders raised with us a concern that the scheme decision-maker may refuse an application if they are satisfied that the act of violence was not reported to police within a reasonable time. ‘Reasonable time’ is not defined, and the government has said that this was deliberate to give more flexibility to decision-making. I think this will be an important area of focus when the act is reviewed to make sure that the scheme is operating as intended in this regard.

Another concern raised by the sector is provision for the scheme decision-maker to grant or refuse an application based on the character, behaviour or attitude of a victim at any time. The government has indicated that it is not their intention that character or prior convictions will be considered outside of what may be directly relevant to an application. For example, we know that trauma can lead to such things as problematic drug use, and it will be disappointing if a victim is denied further access to support because their behaviour does not fit the mould of a gracious victim. On the other side of that coin, we recognise that there may be occasions where the character or history of an applicant may raise serious concerns about granting further support.

Clause 37 of the bill can require an applicant to repay an amount of interim assistance and recover it as a debt if the final application is refused. This is in contrast to the VLRC review recommendation 34. It is my understanding from discussions with the government that in recent times the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal has not forced applicants to repay an interim award after having their final application refused. I think this should be done in very limited and exceptional circumstances.

Victims will always welcome the opportunity to give an oral statement as part of victim recognition meetings. Victims can feel short-changed in court when their victim impact statement is redacted, and while this bill does not fix that particular issue, if victim recognition meetings are done in a genuine and compassionate manner, they should help the healing process.

The final point I want to make, and to be honest I could talk endlessly on this bill because of its importance to me and to Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party, is about the importance of case management in the operation of the new financial assistance scheme. The VLRC review recommended that case management be an essential component of this new scheme, and while the government has confirmed this will be part of the scheme’s design, it is not explicit in the bill. The VLRC report noted that case management is a key feature of schemes in other jurisdictions, including Queensland, the ACT and New South Wales, contributes positively to the recovery process and reduces reliance on legal assistance to more complex matters. We think that case management should be explicit in this bill to protect the integrity of the scheme as well as to ensure that future governments cannot tinker with and remove this key component.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge the supportive comments from around this chamber in the past for victims of crime, including in response to the last motion I brought for debate. Ms Shing said about the enduring pain of victims:

… that that in and of itself represents a tragedy that gives rise to our responsibility and our obligation as a Parliament and as a community more broadly …

She agreed that victims of crime need access to varying levels of support at different stages of their trauma and recovery. Dr Bach said that in the meetings and discussions he has had with victims of crime that it was apparent that they understand that:

… the government has no magic wand, no silver bullet, to deal with their travails, but nonetheless they want a fair system, a system that is flexible, a system that as far as possible meets their changing needs.

Ms Patten has previously said that:

… anything … we can do to address … system limitations and better meet victims’ needs for assistance is absolutely a good thing.

Ms Taylor was absolutely correct when she said she could appreciate that:

… it can take many, many … years, if not a lifetime, to have any hope of recovery and healing from something that is inherently traumatic.

I could go on and on, but I do not want to speak for them. This is to acknowledge the broad support for victims of crime in this chamber, and it is those victims of crime that I acknowledge most of all. All of them—their pain, their courage, their journey and those who have found it possible in the midst of their own very personal recovery to share their lived experience and contribute to policy debate and reform. Mr Grimley and I are both very grateful for the close collaboration you have with us, but we know you also make valuable contributions to committees, such as the recent Legal and Social Issues Committee review of the criminal justice system, to the Victorian Law Reform Commission, to the victims of crime commissioner, to advocacy groups and more generally in the public space. Supporting you underpins the work of Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party, and I hope this new scheme delivers what is intended, stays true to the principles that are in this bill and delivers the support that is much needed for victims to recover.

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (17:26): I am also pleased to speak on the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance Scheme) Bill 2022. Can I start by welcoming the support from other speakers and parties in this chamber today. It is always great when we can come together on important bills like these and important reforms to support them. It is great to see the chamber working together on these sorts of reforms.

The harm experienced by victims of crime is often deeply distressing and can have residual, even lifelong effects. That is why we have made it our priority to improve how we assist victims of crime here in Victoria. It became clear to us that we needed to do more to ensure that we protect the community in the times when they are most vulnerable, after they experience crime and harm. The Andrews Labor government’s road to improving our victims assistance framework began in 2015 with the Royal Commission into Family Violence, the first of its kind. The royal commission was sparked after the tragic increase in violence-related deaths in Victoria. What was revealed by the royal commission was damning, but necessary, as it produced 227 recommendations on how we should improve our response to family violence here in Victoria. It was found that the programs existing at the time were not able to reduce the frequency and impact of family violence, support victim-survivors or hold perpetrators to account for their actions.

The royal commission sparked the 2018 Victorian Law Reform Commission’s report and review of the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal and the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996. This was a necessary and holistic review of how we help victims of crime here in Victoria through both our primary tribunal and the legislative framework. The review was comprehensive and essential, as the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 had not been reviewed in the 20 years it had been in operation. It closely examined the legislative, policy, operational and administrative barriers to the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal operating efficiently. It also examined how reform could be made across legislation and all other relevant areas. After the Andrews Labor government received the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s final report, we made a commitment to review and implement the recommendations made in it. In total the Victorian Law Reform Commission made 100 recommendations, and this bill before us today will implement or partially implement 84 of these recommendations. The bill enshrines many necessary changes in the way we will be able to support victims of crime within our community, particularly with regard to the financial assistance we offer them.

The main goal of the bill is to establish a new administrative financial scheme for victims of crime to aid with recovery from acts of violence. This comes after it was found that the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal had not been able to keep up with the needs and expectations of the community. This new scheme is entitled the ‘financial assistance scheme’ and will provide the money required for victims of violent crimes to cover medical expenses, loss of earnings, counselling expenses and funeral expenses.

Whilst it has a significant focus on offering more efficient and effective financial assistance to victims of crime, the bill also has a broader set of objectives, which include enshrining guiding principles to uphold victims’ dignity and wellbeing, providing a modern and efficient legislative framework to process financial assistance, expanding accessibility to financial assistance, extending time limits, prioritising victims’ safety, increasing special financial assistance to victims of crime, better supporting bereaved families of homicide, recognising and acknowledging the harm experienced by victims of crime, promoting cultural safety for Aboriginal Victorians, enabling access to legal representation, upholding and protecting victims’ rights and allowing flexibility through regulations and guidelines.

Noting the time, I will not speak to all of those objectives, but I will highlight some elements. The objective to provide a modern and efficient legislative framework to process financial assistance is particularly important. It will see the judicial Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal model replaced with an administrative scheme that will be located within the Department of Justice and Community Safety. There will be added levels of integrity to ensure the best outcomes possible for victims. This is implemented within the bill, whereby it clearly outlines that the victims of crime commissioner will provide independent oversight of the scheme. Further, the bill allows victims to make direct complaints to the victims of crime commissioner to ensure a high level of compliance with the victims charter. Another important goal of the bill is to expand accessibility to financial assistance. The bill will do this by making the necessary changes to increase access for victims to the financial assistance scheme.

The bill will add offences that are not currently in existing laws, such as upskirting, grooming and image-based offences as well as allowing for more offences to be captured within the legislation in the future. It will expand and diversify the definitions of ‘primary victim’ and ‘close family member’ to recognise close personal relationships, including rainbow, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer families, as well as kinship relations, grandparents and Aboriginal kinship relations. Further, the bill will allow for the financial assistance scheme to recognise children exposed to family violence as victims in their own right. This means their applications will be processed as primary victims. Finally, the bill will expand accessibility to the financial assistance scheme by simplifying the application process. This will be done by eliminating courtrooms and hearings. The application will be an easy process and less legalistic.

One of the most important parts of the bill is it prioritises the safety of victims, as I said earlier. It will discontinue the need for a courtroom. There will not be magistrates or hearings, so the alleged offender will not be notified to attend. There will be added safeguards around the use of victims’ application documents in other legal proceedings to protect their personal details from possible misuse. Victims also will now no longer be cross-examined about the content of documents connected to the financial assistance scheme. This is in the hope that victims will not be deterred from applying for the scheme out of fear of it being used against them in other legal proceedings.

Overall, the changes made in this bill will create meaningful changes for victims who require access to financial support. By breaking down the barriers and increasing accessibility, the bill aims to improve overall experiences of victims trying to gain support through our system and provide them with better outcomes. Victims of crime here in Victoria deserve nothing more than to be supported by their government. That is why we have put the financial and emotional wellbeing of victims at the forefront of the bill. Providing adequate financial assistance to victims during vulnerable and traumatic times is integral to their recovery, and this bill makes the changes necessary for us to do this.

I am proud to support this bill, which encapsulates and enshrines meaningful and efficient reforms to the legislative framework regarding how we assist victims of crime, and I am proud that the Andrews Labor government are meeting the responsibility we have to care for and assist victims of crime in the most effective and supportive ways possible. I commend the bill to the house and wish it a speedy passage.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (17:33): I rise to speak on the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance Scheme) Bill 2022. This bill makes some really important reforms to the victims of crime financial assistance scheme, and I am sure it will have a real impact on many people’s lives. Some of these important changes have already been mentioned by my colleagues. However, I will run through them briefly. Victims will be given the opportunity to request a recognition meeting with government representatives to discuss the harm caused to them. The meeting will include a personal apology on behalf of the state government. This has not been legislated anywhere else in Australia. Victims appreciate having their experience acknowledged, and this change is a critical part of that.

The bill will remove the current practice of pooling the financial assistance of bereaved families. I know that prior to this change we had close family members being short-changed as others made claims that decreased the pool available. We never should have been inflicting this type of conflict and trauma on families already experiencing so much.

There has also been an increase in the time limit in which victim-survivors of sexual assault or family violence can make a claim, from two years to 10 years. This time extension will be incredibly important for many, as the trauma of being subject to a crime can render them unable to apply so soon after it.

The new scheme itself is also a significant improvement on the existing system, and it is the product of many years of advocacy from survivors, victim support and some of my crossbench colleagues. These reforms are a response to the review by the Victorian Law Reform Commission, the VLRC, which addressed a recommendation of the 2014 Royal Commission into Family Violence. That is why, despite the improvements made, it is also disappointing to see that the bill failed to deliver on a number of recommendations from the VLRC. I have been informed that these holes in the legislation, pointed out by community law advocates and victims, will be addressed in regulations. That is not good enough. Currently the bill has mandatory grounds for refusal of financial assistance based on character and past criminal activity. This provides far too much discretion, and we know that such broad grounds for refusal will not always be applied consistently. We know that a relationship exists between criminalisation and victimisation. We see that in the high rates of women in prison who have experienced family violence. I understand this was intended to ensure that the scheme decision-maker has sufficient discretion to refuse to grant assistance to a person involved in an act of violence. So why doesn’t the legislation just say that? The VLRC recommended that when determining the recovery payment or amount the decision-maker should have no regard to criminal activity related to drug and alcohol consumption. This recommendation is fair and empathetic, yet absent from this bill.

There is also concern about repaying any interim assistance provided when the financial application is refused. This is a slippery slope. We know that the interim assistance is likely to be spent immediately on counselling or other support services. This means being forced to repay the assistance is likely to put failed applicants in a cycle of unsustainable debt. This repayment should only be required for those who have been fraudulent in their application. It should not be used to disadvantage those who are already vulnerable.

There is also a matter of mandatory police reporting, where victims can be refused assistance because they did not report an act of violence to police within a reasonable time or provide assistance with an investigation, arrest or prosecution. It is incredible that this provision exists given what we know about victims of sexual violence: the bulk of victims do not report sexual violence to police. There are many ways in which a person can prove an act of violence has occurred. This police reporting requirement is not needed.

I understand there are provisions for special circumstances. Speaking to those on the ground at our community legal centres, the term ‘special circumstances’ has been very subjectively applied. I have been informed of a teenager who was sexually assaulted by a much older man, and the victim, who is a child, did not report this crime to police. The Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal found that this circumstance was still not special enough, and the victim was refused financial assistance. Why has this not been addressed in the bill? We know how under-reported sexual violence is. Why is the government forcing victims to jump through these hoops?

I note that this bill also requires victims to show exceptional circumstances if they want to attain recovery-related expenses. The entire objective of this bill is meant to assist victim-survivors to recover. It should be trauma-informed and victim-centred, so why must they declare exceptional circumstances to get recovery support? This will absolutely lead to inconsistent determinations. I have even been informed that some scheme decision-makers have refused recovery assistance on the grounds that the family violence is too common to be considered exceptional circumstances.

This bill is an improvement on the system we have currently. That is why I will support it today. However, I am disappointed by the notable lack of empathy and understanding shown in certain provisions of the bill. It significantly limits the access to fair financial assistance, but I will commend this bill to the house.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:40): I rise to speak on the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance Scheme) Bill 2022. This bill establishes a new administrative financial assistance scheme for victims of crime, to assist in their recovery and to allow finalisation of all pending matters. We should be doing everything we can to support victims of crime. I am pleased to see a number of measures introduced in this bill. Expanding the eligibility, increasing the time limit to make an application and doubling the financial assistance caps are all welcome, as is improving the protection of victims’ information.

In Victoria more than 200 000 victim reports are registered every year. Over a third of these are crimes committed against a person, crimes such as murder, sexual assault, assault, abduction, blackmail and stalking. When it comes to these crimes, I am concerned that perhaps the bill does not go far enough. How can you set a cap on counselling available to the victims of some crimes? Can you really set a cap for counselling for someone who has been abducted, for a mother who has lost her child or for someone who has seen their loved one killed?

Now, I understand the government may have concerns over at the cost of such a scheme if it were uncapped, but we are talking about victims. We are talking about people who have been traumatised by crime. We should be doing everything to support them, and if the government have concerns over cost, well, they should get their priorities right. They should learn how to properly manage their infrastructure projects and not blow out the costs—not by thousands of dollars, by billions. That money should be used to help those that need it the most. It should be used to help victims of crime. It needs to be acknowledged that a one-size-fits-all approach cannot be adopted here. The experience of every victim of crime will be different, and the recovery of every victim of crime will be different.

This bill is based on recommendations of the review of the Victorian Law Reform Commission. However, one of the recommendations has unfortunately been overlooked by this bill, and that is the appointment of case managers. As I said earlier, I welcome the reforms in this bill, but it is our job in this chamber to make legislation that is the best that it can be. I look forward to the amendments.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (17:43): This is the most significant reform to financial assistance for victims of crime in over 50 years. I will detail responses to many of the matters that have been raised; however, it is important to note that the government will work with victim-survivors and stakeholders in the development of regulations and guidelines which can address many of the matters that have been raised today.

As with implementing any legislation, there is work that will continue to occur between now and the second half of next year, when the financial assistance scheme becomes operational. The bill also provides for an independent two-year review, in clause 71. The government’s commitment to this reform does not end with the passing of this legislation. We are the first government to appoint a dedicated Minister for Victim Support, who will continue to prioritise this important reform.

The opposition raised questions regarding the bill in the Legislative Assembly. On clause 31, reasonable time for reporting to police was raised. The government has consulted widely on the development of this bill and the financial assistance, and from this we know that trauma-informed practice is important. What is considered a reasonable time to report an act of violence will be different depending on the circumstance for each victim, the nature of the act of violence and the explanation for the delay. For example, what is reasonable for a victim-survivor of a sexual offence may differ markedly from someone who witnessed an act of violence. People with lived experience, the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) and stakeholders have told us that not every victim’s experience is the same. That is why the bill provides the scheme decision-maker with discretion and flexibility to determine what is reasonable time on a case-by-case basis. VCAT has previously found that a significant reporting delay in child sexual abuse cases was not unreasonable. It is not appropriate to specify a set time limit in which the victim must report the act of violence to police, as to do so would remove the flexibility to consider the individual circumstances of the victim and the impact of the act of violence upon them, which is not an approach that is trauma informed.

In respect of clause 41, victim recognition meetings, victim recognition meetings represent an Australian first in responding to the needs of victims by building a forum for the state to meet with victims and acknowledge the act of violence and its impact on them. The use of ‘may’ provides the scheme with the flexibility to hold victim recognition meetings where it is appropriate and allows the scheme to consider victims’ needs. If the scheme decision-maker believes conducting the victim recognition meeting may be more appropriate at a different time, they require the flexibility to decide to decline holding a meeting at this time. This decision must take into account the views of the victim. The needs and the preferences of victims will underpin all decisions made by the scheme under the bill. Every decision made by the scheme, including whether to hold a victim recognition meeting, must be made through the lens of guiding principles at clause 6. At the forefront of these guiding principles is that the needs of victims, including their safety and wellbeing, are of paramount importance. The scheme will publish guidelines providing further information on when the scheme would hold victim recognition meetings. In developing these guidelines we will consult with relevant stakeholders, including victims with lived experience.

In respect to clause 42, right to recover damages, to be clear, successful awards provided to applicants under the bill are paid out of the Consolidated Fund at clause 68 of the bill. This means that the financial assistance scheme as a whole is not capped. There is no limit to the number of applications it can receive or awards it will pay as long as they are within the requirements outlined in the bill. This is the same arrangement as at the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT). The bill provides that financial assistance must be paid to the applicant once the decision has been made. Clause 42 goes to a victim who has received assistance from the scheme being able to choose to assign to the state their right to recover damages or compensation relating to the act of violence from any other person. This is the same as section 51 of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996. The VLRC recommended retaining this offender provision to support scheme sustainability. This allows a victim to assign their right to recover any other damages or compensation by civil proceedings to the state. In other words, if a victim chooses to assign their right, it would enable the state to stand in the shoes of a victim and commence enforcement proceedings for compensation or damages on their behalf. Enforcement proceedings are often complex and lengthy processes which can be retraumatising for victims.

In response to a number of matters that Ms Maxwell has raised—and before I move on to that can I thank her for her continued advocacy for victims of crime—while the government will not be supporting Ms Maxwell’s amendments, it will seek to address many of them through operations, regulations and guidelines and the independent two-year review of the scheme. Clauses 10, 14 and 16 deal with counselling. The amendment to expand counselling provisions in the bill is not supported by the government. However, to provide maximum flexibility and to allow the scheme to evolve with time the bill provides for reasonable counselling sessions, with guidelines to inform what is the reasonable cost or reasonable number of counselling sessions.

Victims have up to 10 years following the original award to apply for additional counselling if required. Victims can use up to their maximum award cap of $50 000 or $60 000 for counselling based on the VLRC finding that most victims are unlikely to exceed 20 counselling sessions and that the average Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal award is $8291. Most victims are highly unlikely to exceed the existing award caps and need access to unlimited funds for counselling. Further improvements to increasing award caps can be explored through the regulations. The government is also committed to exploring how counselling provisions are working in the independent two-year review period.

Clause 54 is about making case management explicit. While the amendment on making case management explicit in the bill is not supported by the government, case managers and other support staff will be part of the financial assistance scheme operation. Decision-makers and deputy decision-makers are included in the bill, as they have legal powers to make decisions regarding the applications made to the scheme. Case managers will be an important part of the scheme, and their roles will be integral to supporting victims; however, this is an operational matter and will be addressed in the scheme’s design.

In respect of clause 48, providing notification to applicants of time limits, while the amendment on providing notification to applicants on time limits is not supported by the government, communication with victims will be considered in operational design and can be reviewed in the independent review. It is important that victims understand their rights, and the bill embeds this with its guiding principles. That is why it is important we consider that notifying a person some nine years after their financial assistance scheme application that a time limit is coming up may trigger and retraumatise the victim, who may be well on the road to recovery and may not wish to be reminded of the crime and the harm that it caused them. The communication between the scheme and the applicants is a matter of operations and something the government is continuing to consult with victim-survivors on. It would be inappropriate to legislate now but could be considered in the two-year independent review.

In respect to clause 74, removing the limit on substantive variations during the transition phase, the amendment proposed, to remove the limit on how many times a substantive variation can be made to a VOCAT award, is not supported by the government. Victims seeking minor variations—that is, a variation that gives a full effect to the original VOCAT award—can make multiple variation applications. While victims seeking a substantive variation may only make one further application, nothing in the bill limits victims from combining multiple requests for assistance in the course of a standard variation. For example, this means a victim could seek additional assistance for both dental and medical costs in their variation application if that is what is required. The scheme will provide assistance to victims to help them understand the substantive variation limits, to ensure victims are given every opportunity to apply for the assistance they need in their one substantive variation application. The victims legal service will also be an available service for eligible victims to receive support in their application.

The government has been working with important stakeholders, including victim-survivors, community and legal organisations that support them, throughout the development of the bill and the financial assistance scheme. Importantly, the government does this formally with the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee and the victim-survivor advisory group, which included powerful and dedicated victim-survivors who have shaped many of the important reforms of this bill that will fundamentally change the lives of victim-survivors. Community legal centres provide vital services to victim-survivors, and the government notes their advocacy on a range of matters in this bill—including the Federation of Community Legal Centres.

The role of community legal centres will continue to be vital to access the justice system with the establishment of Victoria’s first victims legal service but also as we implement this legislation and operationalise the financial assistance scheme. As we turn to this work in creating the guidelines and regulations for the scheme, we note that many of the matters raised by stakeholders relate to the guidelines and regulations. Therefore in continuing our consultative approach to this reform and in the event that this bill is passed, the government will establish an implementation forum with stakeholders to provide input on the regulations and guidelines needed to operationalise these laws. We look forward to continuing to work with community organisations, legal stakeholders and victim-survivors on these very, very important matters.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (17:57)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Maxwell, I would invite you to move your amendment 1, which is a consequential amendment to your substantive amendment 12, and it tests your amendment 12.

Ms MAXWELL: If I just may speak very briefly to that amendment, this amendment makes case management explicit within the operation of the scheme. The Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) recognises that case management is integral to support for victims, as did the Centre for Innovative Justice when it reviewed the system design, and the bill we believe should reflect this. This is an important connection to the principles of the bill and protects the scheme from being compromised in the future. If the government’s position is that case managers will be included as necessary for the effective operation of this act, then it should have no hesitation in saying so in this bill and agreeing to this amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, if we can stop for just a second, there is a mistake on the running sheet, so the amendment is not in clause 1, it is in clause 3. We might just move clauses 1 and 2 first, and then we will come back to you to do that in clause 3.

Clause agreed to; clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (17:59:279)

Ms MAXWELL: I move:

1. Clause 3, page 6, line 6, after “54(a)” insert “, (ab)”.

As I said, clause 3 relates to case management. I will not go through that blurb again, but I will just reiterate that if this is going to be included in principle then we would like to see it actually included in the act and therefore in the bill.

Ms TIERNEY: I covered off on this when I spoke about clause 54 in my summing-up.

Mr ONDARCHIE: The Liberals and Nationals will be supporting this amendment.

Committee divided on amendment:

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 4 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (18:07)

Ms MAXWELL: I move:

2. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—

Clause 10, line 13, after “plus” insert “any assistance paid for counselling services under subsection (5) and”.

3. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—

Clause 10, lines 21 to 23, omit paragraph (a).

4. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—

Clause 10, page 15, after line 20 insert—

“(5) In addition to any assistance paid under subsection (2) or (3), a primary victim is eligible for an amount of assistance for expenses actually incurred, or reasonably likely to be incurred, by the primary victim for reasonable counselling services.”.

These amendments give the decision-makers scope to provide a victim with ongoing counselling assistance without it being denied because a victim has reached their cap. We know the path of recovery is not a straight and continuous line, as I previously said, and counselling is a basic and vital component of support. I have raised this issue numerous times since being elected to this Parliament, and without these amendments victims of serious violent crime could continue to be denied basic counselling. It happens now, and we know it costs the health and justice systems downstream. Victims do not want to need counselling; they do not want their trauma. And if this scheme cannot provide scope for ongoing counselling to someone whose daughter has been murdered, it is an indictment on the very principles this bill is based on.

Principle (b) says ‘victims should be protected from further trauma, intimidation or distress’. Principle (d) says ‘the needs of victims may vary’. Principle (e) says that the scheme should be ‘flexible in providing assistance’ and the viability of the scheme is still protected by time limits and by caps on other provisions. To be honest, we see billions of dollars spent on all manner of projects without apology for cost overruns. The minister said herself that this is a once-in-50-year reform, so if we do not get it right now, victims will pay for it for decades. We should not rely on maybe looking at this as part of a two-year review, which might actually be five years from now, because we know this is a problem now and we should fix it now. Victims say they need it, and this will likely only apply to relatively few numbers of victims. On 18 February 2020 the Premier said:

Victims should always be supported—no matter what.

No matter what.

Mr ONDARCHIE: The Liberals-Nationals will be supporting these amendments.

Ms TIERNEY: I dealt with this in my summing-up speech when I made references to clauses 10, 14 and 16.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Before I put this, I just remind members that under sections 62 and 64 of the Constitution Act 1975, the Council does not have the power to make amendments that impose a tax or make appropriation from the Consolidated Fund. No question will be put on these clauses where such amendments are agreed to, and any proposed amendments must be in the form of a suggested amendment to the Assembly. Standing order 14.15 sets out the procedure for dealing with suggested amendments.

Committee divided on suggested amendments:

Suggested amendments negatived.

No question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).

Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).

Clauses 17 to 47 agreed to.

Clause 48 (18:19)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Maxwell, I invite you to move your amendment 11, which tests your amendment 13.

Ms MAXWELL: I move:

11. Clause 48, page 44, after line 15 insert—

“(2A) At least one year before the expiry of the period in which a person may apply for variation, the scheme decision maker must make all reasonable efforts to give written notice to the person of the expiry date.”.

Clause 48 covers the time frames that a victim has to apply for a variation of assistance. For most this will be limited to 10 years, or longer time periods may be prescribed by regulation. This flexibility is good, but victims should be advised when they are nearing the expiration date. The VLRC review recommendation 52 says that victims should be notified in writing a year before the expiration date, and this amendment delivers on that recommendation. My amendment requires the attempt to contact a victim to be reasonably made or the contact to be reasonably made, understanding that victims may be difficult to contact at times. The government may suggest that contacting a victim who is at a good place in terms of their recovery and who does not need support to tell them that their access to the scheme will expire in the next year may retraumatise them. Ultimately, if the government are worried about retraumatising victims in this way, they could make the time frames much longer. So on balance it is our view that not knowing could deliver more trauma, not less, and that the amendment gives the victim the important opportunity of and control over making a personal and informed decision about any further application they may make and is consistent with other victim reforms.

Mr ONDARCHIE: The Liberal-Nationals, and I suspect many on this side of the chamber, will be supporting this amendment.

Ms TIERNEY: I dealt with this matter when I was referring to clause 48 in my summing-up. The government will not be supporting this amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Ms Maxwell’s amendment 11, which is a test for her amendment 13, be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. Is a division required? Ring the bells.

Bells rung.

Ms Maxwell: On a point of order, Deputy President, if I may—if you could indulge me for a moment—it is my understanding that when the question was put there was actually no opposition from anyone. So I do ask: why did we end up having a division?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister did not say no, but I think the Government Whip said that within a reasonable time frame. She picked up what was happening.

Mr Finn: On the point of order, Deputy President, as you quite correctly point out, the minister had absolutely no intention of saying no. In fact nobody said no until quite some considerable time after the question was put. As I recall, you said, ‘The ayes have it’. Now, once you have said the ayes have it, I think the ayes indeed do have it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, they did say no when the division was called. I said, ‘The ayes have it’, and the minister did not then call for a division but the whip called for it. The whip picked up that the minister had not called for a division, and the whip pointed it out.

Ms Maxwell: Thank you for indulging me in that process. You definitely heard the whip say that?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. The whip definitely picked up quite quickly that something was going wrong for the government and said, ‘Hang on a minute, what’s going on here?’.

Ms Shing: On a point of order, Deputy President, I actually very clearly heard the whip say no. It is not correct to say that the whip had picked up that something had gone wrong from the government benches. It was the whip’s call. The whip made the call and sought a division, and that is in fact what occurred in terms of what I heard. So I would just ask you to take that into consideration in perhaps casting an aspersion that the minister had not actually addressed the issue and that the whip realised that something had gone wrong—not the case.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Shing, what we are talking about here is not when we said yes or no to the voting; it was about calling a division. I am actually defending the government here and allowing you to call the division. The other side are saying that you should not have a division. I have allowed the division because I clearly heard the whip. There was nothing from the minister, but I clearly heard the whip say, ‘Hang on a minute, what’s going on here?’. It was actually what she said. Then she said, ‘The noes have it’.

Mr Ondarchie: On the point of order, Deputy President, I draw your attention to standing order 7.01(3) and (4). In fact the question had been put, and there were no opposing voices at the time the question had been put. So the question I have—

Members interjecting.

Mr Ondarchie: I have not finished my point of order, Deputy President. I put to you that in fact there were no opposing voices when you had completed the question, so the requirement for a division had come post that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have ruled there were voices that said no to the vote. When I called, ‘The ayes have it’, there was silence from the minister on calling a division. That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about the vote; we are talking about whether a division was called. The whip called a division, and we are having a division, which we are in the middle of.

Ms Shing: Further to the point of order—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Shing, I think we are finished with this now. We are in the middle of a division, and we are going on with the division.

Ms Shing: No, I am entitled to respond to the point of order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Shing, the clerks have just advised me that, even if the whip had not drawn attention to it, it is open to the Chair to call a division to prevent a decision by misadventure, so that is what we are doing. We are having the division now, and we are in the middle of the division, so we are moving on with the division.

Mr Finn: On the point of order, Deputy President—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, Mr Finn, I am sorry. Let us be finished with this. I have made my ruling. The whip drew my attention to it. She wanted to call a division, and we have called the division. The whip called the division.

Committee divided on amendment:

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 49 to 67 agreed to.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.

Ms TAYLOR: I move:

That the dinner break scheduled for 6.30 pm be suspended.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 68—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).

Clauses 69 to 91 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (18:36): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (18:36): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.