PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Contact us | Advanced search |   search
  1. Home
  2. Hansard
  3. Legislative Assembly by date
  4. 4 May 2000

Joint Select Committee On Victims Compensation

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript | « Prior Item | Item 67 of 95 | Next Item »


About this Item
SpeakersStewart Mr Tony; George Mr Thomas
BusinessCommittee, Report


    JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON VICTIMS COMPENSATION
Page: 5337
    Report: Ongoing Issues Concerning the NSW Victims Compensation Scheme

    Mr STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.46 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I once again speak as chairman to a report of the Joint Select Committee on Victims Compensation. This report is titled "Ongoing Issues Concerning the New South Wales Victims Compensation Scheme". The previous such committee which I chaired was prolific in both its inquiries and reports which resulted in significant amendments to the victims compensation scheme at the end of 1998. Those amendments resulted in a scheme that worked much better, but still needed further enhancement.

    As a result of its inquiries, the previous select committee on victims compensation produced six reports, two of which specifically focused on issues concerning the long-term financial viability of the 1996 victims compensation scheme, which was already showing evidence of rapid cost escalation. In its second interim report, titled "The long-term financial viability of the Victims Compensation Fund", the previous committee made a total of 16 recommendations. At the time of tabling that report the fund was paying out approximately $90 million per year, with future liabilities expected to reach $128.7 million by 2000. In fact, at the commencement of this inquiry, the committee learned that the Victims Compensation Fund currently has outstanding liabilities of $150 million.

    Following the recommendations made by the previous committee, the Attorney General introduced into Parliament the Victims Compensation Amendment Bill 1998. That bill contained a number of amendments to the victims compensation scheme, including reducing the number of counselling hours, creation of the injury category for domestic violence and an increase in the powers of the tribunal to recover restitution. The significant amendments were the replacement of the injury category of shock with a new category called "psychological injury" and the introduction of a requirement that the applicant seeking compensation for shock must obtain an independent medical assessment by a doctor who has been designated by the Director of Victims Services.

    The previous committee, in its report "Inquiry into psychological injury—shock", welcomed the new amendments to the scheme but believed that there was a need to monitor the operation of the new provision of psychological injury and the counselling scheme. The committee found that the evidence provided to it during its inquiry suggested that it would be difficult to provide an accurate definition that would restrict the ability of interested parties from tailoring their reports to meet the criteria.

    The committee was also concerned that the director of the tribunal did not have sufficient regulatory control of the designated doctors, and if they do not perform satisfactorily that they could be removed from the list. This committee was established in November last year to inquire into and report on the effectiveness and efficiency of the Victims Compensation Scheme in providing assistance to genuine victims of crime, and as to the current state of the provision of counselling and associated support services for victims of crime. In previous reports the committee highlighted the conflict of interest that might arise when a practitioner is required, on the one hand, to prepare reports substantiating the claims of victims and, on the other hand, to seek approval on behalf of victims for further counselling sessions.

    The former committee concluded that practitioners who write medico-legal reports for victims should not also provide counselling to those victims. I am pleased to say that the Attorney General accepted the recommendations of the former committee and amended the Victims Compensation Act to require applicants seeking compensation for psychological injury to obtain an independent medical examination from a medical practitioner approved by the director and termed "authorised report writers". A panel called the Professional Advisory Panel has been established to assist the director to determine the merits of each of the report writers before approval is given.

    If it is considered that the reports prepared by an authorised report writer are not of a high quality, and are not objective evidence-based assessments, the report writer may be called before the Professional Advisory Panel and may be removed from the list of authorised report writers. Victims Services has thus far approved 190 practitioners as authorised report writers. The committee supports the tightening of the criteria of authorised report writers and the establishment of the Professional Advisory Panel. As Professor Waring, President of the New South Wales Psychologists Registration Board, explained to the committee:
        ... the authorised report writers are now more responsible to the tribunal rather than hired guns, as it were, for people who have virtually turned this into an industry.

    As the tribunal is yet to determine any applications for chronic psychological injury the system created for monitoring the work of the approved report writers is yet to be fully tested. The committee believes that ongoing monitoring and reviewing are needed to ensure that the authorised report writers scheme works efficiently and effectively in practice. The counselling scheme established in 1996 represents a positive directional change towards the provision of rehabilitation services to victims of crime. Prior to the 1998 amendments all persons eligible to receive a victims compensation award had an initial entitlement to two hours of independent counselling with a following 20 sessions granted based on an approved psychological assessment.

    The scheme was widened following the 1998 amendments. There is no longer a requirement that victims have to have suffered a compensable injury in order to claim counselling. The establishment of the Victims of Crime Bureau in 1996 is a positive step in the provision of counselling and other services to victims of crime, not only through the approved counselling scheme. The bureau also assists victims who may not be eligible for counselling under the Victims Compensation Scheme. The agency’s objectives include the co-ordinated delivery of victims support and counselling services by government and community agencies—in short, an important cog in a whole-of-government co-ordinated approach to the provision of services to victims of crime.

    During this inquiry the committee heard evidence from various victims support groups. They have also begun to provide comprehensive victims assistance services, which includes information, referral and counselling. The committee also heard that there is a lack of counselling resources, particularly in regional areas, resulting in some victims having to travel large distances and incur long waiting times to see a counsellor. The committee considers that a greater effort should be made by the Victims of Crime Bureau to ensure a more comprehensive regional coverage of approved counsellors. One of the major issues which most concerned the committee during the course of its inquiry was the delay in processing and paying compensation claims. It is currently taking the tribunal an average of 18 months to determine applications for victims of crime.

    As at June last year the tribunal had more than 16,000 claims pending, representing a potential liability of $150 million. Such delays only increase the suffering of victims of violent crime. Obviously that problem must be corrected. The committee also heard evidence from various victims of crime support groups of their concerns in respect of the tribunal's internal policy change which restricts their involvement in the tribunal's operations. The support groups expressed the view that they could be more involved in a hands-on process in assisting victims with their claims. Currently, victims groups assist victims in the completion of applications for compensation and counselling, without the provision of any ready assistance. However, once the application has been lodged the tribunal will communicate only with the victim and not with the support group.

    This lack of communication with the victims groups is contributing to the delays in processing victims applications for counselling and monetary assistance, and it is increasing the suffering of victims who have suffered more than enough. Evidence provided by the tribunal indicates that 45 per cent of all claims lodged since the 1998 amendments are seeking compensation for chronic psychological injury. This is only marginally lower than the figure of 55 per cent of claims lodged under the previous category of shock. While the tribunal is hopeful that more claims for psychological injury will be dismissed due the 1998 amendments to the Victims Compensation Act, it still appears to the committee that the number of claims under that category will not significantly reduce.

    A recommendation of the committee is that test cases under the 1998 amendments be determined as soon as possible and communicated to the legal profession so that something can be done about it as quickly as possible. In summary, the committee has put forward recommendations to the Government which amount to increased counselling services in country and regional areas. We must look at the way in which the Victims of Crime Bureau is operating at the moment to make it more efficient in line with the needs of victims. More important, we must provide the families of victims of homicide with increased services, rehabilitation and counselling when and where they need it. We must increase to $75,000 the amount of compensation available to them—an increase on the previous figure of $50,000. I commend the report to the House. It is a great direction for victims of crime.

    Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [12.56 p.m.]: During the inquiry the committee heard evidence from Graeme and Delma Collins, whose 16-year-old daughter, Nichole, had been horrifically murdered in 1997. They spoke about the problems they faced in gaining access to an approved counsellor in their home town of Bega. Due to problems with the Victims Compensation Tribunal and the lack of suitable counsellors in or near Bega, the Collins did not receive suitable counselling for a significant amount of time. The Victims Compensation Scheme did not provide a suitable approved counsellor at Bega. Counselling was organised with the assistance of the Homicide Victims Support Group.

    The only suitable counsellor was in Canberra, which is some three hours drive from Bega. In order to obtain counselling the Collins were forced, after work, to make a three-hour trip to Canberra. After a one-hour counselling session they would make another three-hour trip home. As Mr Collins said, this process was almost counterproductive to their mental health. By the time they got home they felt worse than when they had left. Members of the Homicide Victims Support Group said that early intervention counselling is far more beneficial to people who have lost loved ones to homicide than any lump sum compensation. Counselling must be readily available and it must be provided promptly.

    The present system of approved counselling involves the Victims Services Bureau inviting counsellors to submit an application to become accredited as approved counsellors for the purposes of the Victims Compensation Act. Counsellors must submit their qualifications and experience and, if approved, be entered on a register of counsellors who are allowed to undertake counselling work for the bureau. Victims Services have accredited 406 counsellors since the beginning of the counselling scheme in 1996. It is the committee's opinion that the current counselling scheme is operating well, but there is a definite need for improvement in the areas of regional coverage and monitoring of performance.

    The committee also heard from the Homicide Victims Support Group of the difficulties confronted by aggrieved family members of homicide victims who live in regional New South Wales. The committee was informed of the case of one counsellor who worked only two days a week in a country centre who wanted parents of a deceased victim to make an appointment two weeks in advance. As members of the Homicide Victims Support Group stated, grieving family members do not know what they will be doing tomorrow or whether they can even get out of bed, let alone wait two weeks for their first appointment with a counsellor.

    The committee considers that the Victims of Crime Bureau should make a greater effort to ensure that counsellors from regional areas are attracted to joining the accreditation scheme. The bureau should actively seek feedback about the performance of approved counsellors from victims groups and individual victims to ensure that the counselling scheme is meeting the needs of victims of crime. The Homicide Victims Support Group also raised the possibility of counsellors travelling to family members' homes to provide counselling in circumstances where members are incapable of travelling to the nearest approved counsellor for reasons of distance or because of terrible distress. Currently this service is offered in other jurisdictions, such as Western Australia.

    The Victims Compensation Act 1996 significantly changed the way in which the relatives of homicide victims were dealt with under the victims compensation scheme. Previously, relatives of homicide victims had to show evidence of psychological injury as a result of the murder, evidence that was usually in the form of medical reports. Monetary amounts were then awarded on the basis of the degree of injury sustained by the relatives. This was a purely arbitrary manner of providing monetary assistance to grieving relatives of homicide victims. The 1996 legislation removed the need for the relatives of homicide victims to prove injury and placed such relatives in a protected category of victim. Family relatives of a homicide victim were automatically recognised and each applicant member now shares equally from an amount of $50,000, with priority being given to dependent children of the deceased.

    That initiative achieved a number of important changes for family members of homicide victims. First, it spared family members from the indignity of having to medically prove the impact that the murder of a close relative has had on their lives. Second, it aims to make their applications easier to prepare and to have their claims administratively expedited by the tribunal. Upon receipt of all applications by family members the tribunal could share the compensation award amongst the applicants. Initially the system operated very effectively. The committee heard evidence from members of the Homicide Victims Support Group that when the provisions of the 1996 Act commenced a system was introduced that enabled the speedy and efficient processing of applications for compensation by family members.

    Ms Martha Jabour, the executive director of the group, stated that she could ring the registrar of the tribunal or he would ring her when the application form was received by the tribunal. Any difficulties with the case would be discussed and solutions agreed upon. Ms Jabour said that claims at that time were finalised promptly. Sometimes they were finalised within a month, with the average being two months. The committee was extremely concerned to learn that compensation payments for homicide victims were taking an average of six to nine months. The committee was also informed by the Homicide Victims Support Group that some of its members are waiting too long for payment of interim awards. Section 33 of the Victims Compensation Act provides for the making of interim payments in cases of severe financial hardship or for the payment of funeral expenses in cases of homicide. Ms Jabour informed the committee of one case in which the Homicide Victims Support Group was sending food hampers to the victims because they were under such financial hardship. [Time expired.]

    Report noted.

    [Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Mills) left the chair at 1.01 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

         Contact us | Job opportunities | RSS feeds | Site help
Copyright & conditions of use | Privacy | Authorised user login