Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996: Report (html)

19. Monitoring the operation of the proposed Act and scheme for victims of crime financial assistance to ensure best practice

Introduction

19.5 Although not a matter raised directly in either the first or supplementary terms of reference, this chapter considers and makes recommendations in relation to the monitoring and review of the proposed Act and scheme.

19.6 As the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT), the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria noted in their joint submission, many of the adverse impacts of the current provisions of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic) (VOCAA) can be linked to the failure of the Act to keep pace with changes in community understanding and expectations about what constitutes an act of violence or injury, and what recovery means or involves for victims.^[1]

19.7 To help address this issue, VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria proposed the inclusion of an automatic review provision to enable a systematic and regular process for reviewing the operation of the Act to assess whether the application of the Act is keeping pace with its intent over time.^[2] To ensure such an assessment is meaningful, the courts considered that such a review should be informed by relevant performance criteria, ongoing data collection, and trend analyses and forecasting.^[3]

19.8 This chapter considers the data and reporting requirements necessary to support and inform such a legislative review, as well as the timing for such a review.

19.9 In addition, and having regard to concerns raised with the Commission by some stakeholders during consultations,^[4] and the experiences of other jurisdictions in reforming their state-funded financial assistance schemes, this chapter considers the transitional arrangements necessary for the implementation of the proposed Act and scheme.

Reporting and publication of data

Current law

19.10 Under section 68(1) of the VOCAA, VOCAT is required submit an annual report to the Minister on the performance by the Tribunal of its functions, powers and duties during that year. VOCAT’s annual report is then required to be tabled in both houses of parliament.^[5]

19.11 VOCAT’s annual reports contain some data on applications lodged and awards granted during that financial year. For example, they include information on how many people applied to the scheme, the geographical spread of applications, the offence category to which applications relate, the age and gender of applicants, how many awards were made, and the average quantum awarded.^[6]

19.12 However, as discussed in both the first and supplementary consultation papers, there are significant gaps in VOCAT’s annual report data. For example, the first consultation paper noted the inadequacies of VOCAT’s data concerning family violence, such as the use of self-reporting to classify an application as relating to family violence.^[7]

19.13 Moreover, and as noted in the supplementary consultation paper, VOCAT’s data currently does not currently distinguish between applications that were struck out and applications that were withdrawn.^[8] This makes it difficult to know how the time limit under section 29 is functioning. In addition, VOCAT’s annual report contains no data on refund of awards, including whether these provisions are actually used.^[9]

19.14 Beyond the requirement to submit an annual report, there is currently no requirement under the VOCAA for VOCAT to collect, record or publish data.

Responses

19.15 A number of stakeholders told the Commission that there are deficiencies in VOCAT’s current collection and publication of data.^[10]

19.16 In their joint submission, VOCAT, the Magistrates Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria told the Commission that significant data gaps exist, particularly in relation to systemic issues, such as demand.^[11]

19.17 Other stakeholders also noted deficiencies in VOCAT’s data in relation to specific cohorts of victims. For example, safe steps Family Violence Response Centre noted inadequacies in VOCAT’s family violence data collection, such as the use of self-reporting.^[12]

19.18 Stakeholders told the Commission that effective collection and recording of data would enable better monitoring of the scheme into the future. Safe steps Family Violence Response Centre submitted:

Gaining an accurate picture of the scheme’s applicants and their journey through the process, including the awards they receive, will be crucial to any further evaluation of any changes to the award structure. Accurate and comprehensive data collection is important more generally to enable measurement of any amendments to the Act and the scheme.^[13]

19.19 Moreover, and as noted in Chapter 15, stakeholders told the Commission that there should be improved publication of data relating to decision making in order to improve consistency and transparency.

19.20 In particular, a number of stakeholders submitted that de-identified information relating to application results and reasons for decisions should be published.^[14] Stakeholders made these submissions in relation to application outcomes,^[15] as well as decisions made on whether to strike out an application for being out of time.^[16]

Discussion and recommendations

Collection and recording of data

19.21 As outlined above, a number of stakeholders submitted that robust collection and recording of data would better enable effective monitoring of the scheme into the future.^[17]

19.22 In particular, the joint submission of VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria stated that significant data gaps need to be addressed before budget, projected demand and sustainability of the scheme could be assessed.^[18]

19.23 The Commission notes that the importance of data collection in relation to scheme monitoring was also raised during the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse,^[19] as well as in the recent reviews of the victims of crime assistance schemes in Queensland^[20] and New South Wales (ongoing).^[21]

19.24 In response to stakeholder submissions regarding the need for data recording, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee recommended that the redress scheme include in its annual report ‘detailed data to understand the experiences of people going through the Redress Scheme and to provide a basis of any necessary refinements to the Scheme’.^[22]

19.25 The Commission considers that the proposed scheme should undertake robust collection and recording of data in order to ensure that the effectiveness and sustainability of the scheme can be monitored. In particular, the Commission considers that detailed data should be collected in relation to the number of and types of applications made, application outcomes, including, quantum of awards and duration of assistance, as well decisions relating to other aspects of the scheme, such as those concerning the time limit.

19.26 Moreover, the Commission notes stakeholder support for the collection and recording of data in relation to vulnerable groups or groups that experience discrimination and disadvantage.

19.27 As noted above, safe steps Family Violence Response Centre submitted that there is a need for improved data collection specifically in relation to family violence victims.^[23]

19.28 The need for effective data collection in relation to family violence victims also reflects broader concerns identified by the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence regarding the inadequacy of data on family violence in Victoria generally.^[24]

19.29 The need to improve data collecting practices in relation to vulnerable groups or groups that experience discrimination and disadvantage was also raised in both the NSW and Queensland reviews of their victims of crime assistance schemes.

19.30 The need to strengthen data collection abilities to determine access of victims with a culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) background was identified during Queensland’s 2015 Review of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009.^[25]

19.31 In addition, in its 2016 submission to the NSW Review of the Victims Rights and Support Act, Community Legal Centres NSW stated that there should be specific data collection in relation to the applications and awards of certain cohorts of victims, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander victims and victims of domestic violence and/or sexual assault.^[26]

19.32 As such, the Commission also considers that the proposed scheme should also enable specific data collection in relation to applications made by persons from vulnerable groups or groups that experience discrimination and disadvantage, including family violence victims and victims from CALD and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds in order to monitor and improve scheme effectiveness and accessibility for these cohorts.

Publication of data

19.33 As described above, a number of stakeholders supported the publication of de-identified reasons for decisions in order to promote scheme predictability and transparency.

19.34 The important role that publication of data can play in promoting public confidence was also noted in submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse. For example, Professor Kathleen Daly submitted to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee that ‘the more information [that] is conveyed to survivors, advocates, and members of the general public, the greater the likelihood that there will be trust in the operator and scheme’.^[27]

19.35 The Commission is of the view that data collected and recorded by the proposed scheme should be made publicly available. This data should be published in an annual report to be presented to the Minister and tabled in the Victorian Parliament so that it can be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

19.36 In addition, simplified data should be published in the form of factsheets and informational brochures in order to enable applicants and potential applicants to understand how the scheme operates. This could be done in a similar manner to Victims Services NSW, which publishes data profiles and factsheets online.^[28]

19.37 These fact sheets should include sufficiently de-identified information relating to decision making, especially in relation to decisions made under discretionary provisions in the proposed Act, such as regarding recovery payments. This could be done in the form of de-identified case summaries.

19.38 The Commission considers that such documents should be available in hardcopy and on the new scheme’s website in order to enhance accessibility.

Recommendation—reporting and publication of data

98 The proposed Act should provide that the scheme decision maker must annually publish and make publicly available in readily accessible form information and data relating to all aspects of the scheme, including but not limited to:

(a) the number and type of applications lodged

(b) applicant details, including geographical location, gender, age and whether they are a member of a vulnerable group or groups that experience discrimination and disadvantage

(c) application outcomes, including the number and type of awards granted

(d) the amount and duration of assistance

(e) processing times

(f) decision making, particularly in relation to the application of discretionary provisions in the proposed Act

(g) offender recovery.

Legislative review of the proposed Act and scheme for victims of crime financial assistance

Current law

19.39 The VOCAA currently does not include any provision requiring it to be subject to review.

19.40 However, in some other Australian jurisdictions an automatic review provision is included in their relevant victims of crime assistance legislation.

19.41 In New South Wales, section 119(1) of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) requires the Minister to undertake a review of the Act in order to ‘determine whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid and whether the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives.’ Section 119(2) of that Act requires the first review to be completed as soon as possible after three years from the date of assent to the Act and then subsequent reviews to be completed at three- to five-year intervals.

19.42 Queensland also originally included an automatic review provision under section 144 of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), which provided that the Minister must review the Act within five years of the commencement ‘to decide whether the Act’s provisions remain appropriate’.^[29] The Act also required the review report to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly.^[30] This section was repealed following the 2015 review and the subsequent implementation of its recommendations.^[31]

Responses

19.43 As noted above, VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria submitted that consideration should be given to having an automatic review provision, similar to section 119 of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW).^[32]

19.44 VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria told the Commission that this would enable the scheme to keep up with changing social standards and policy positions. They submitted:

An automatic review provision would assist the legislation to be more responsive to the impact of significant government policy reforms (such as those flowing from the [Royal Commission into Family Violence]), keep better pace with the evolving body of expert knowledge and understanding around victim support, and would better reflect community expectations as they evolve.^[33]

19.45 In addition, VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria highlighted the relationship between an effective automatic review provision and robust data collection and analysis. They submitted that:

… it is essential that such a mechanism can meaningfully assess whether the application of the Act is keeping pace with its intent over time, and is informed by relevant performance criteria, ongoing data collection, trend analyses, and forecasting capacity.^[34]

Discussion and recommendations

19.46 As noted earlier in this report, the Commission’s review of the VOCAA finds its origins in the Royal Commission into Family Violence. The Royal Commission recommended that the Commission consider the application of the VOCAA to victims of family violence in light of stakeholder concerns that such victims encounter multiple barriers in accessing state-funded financial assistance for victims of crime. This led to the first terms of reference, subsequently expanded by the supplementary terms of reference.

19.47 The difficulties encountered by victims of family violence in relation to the VOCAA are in many ways the product of the scheme having been designed without such victims in mind. As VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria observed in their submission:

… the absence of reference in the Act to family violence is reflective of the time the Act came into effect, when community understanding about and tolerance for family violence was vastly different from today.^[35]

19.48 This history demonstrates that there is a need for the proposed Act and scheme to be able to evolve with changing times and to remain practical, effective and inclusive into the future.

19.49 The Commission considers that an effective way to do this is to provide for a statutory review of the Act and scheme not more than five years after its commencement. Such a review would enable the operation and effectiveness of the Act and scheme to be assessed and for any changes to be made in response to any changing societal standards, community expectations and policy initiatives as may be required. The substantial recommendations made by Queensland’s review in 2015,^[36] subsequently implemented

in 2017,^[37] are an example of this. This review resulted in extensive changes being made to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), in particular in relation to domestic violence.^[38]

19.50 Moreover, an automatic review provision is an effective way to monitor scheme sustainability. As Chapter 18 discussed, it is difficult without sufficient data to determine demand projections and costings. While comparative data from other Australian jurisdictions is helpful in providing some estimates, it remains to be seen whether the Victorian experience will be different.

19.51 It was for similar reasons that the 2012 review of the former victims of crime assistance scheme in New South Wales recommended that the new Act include an automatic review provision.^[39] The NSW review relied on Queensland data for part of its analysis, and noted that ‘there is uncertainty whether the experience in NSW will be similar to QLD’.^[40] As such, that review recommended:

The initial scheme review should be conducted after 3 years and subsequent reviews should be conducted every 3-5 years to provide the opportunity to recalibrate either funding or benefits to ensure that the scheme is delivering on its objectives.^[41]

19.52 The Commission considers that the proposed Act should include a provision for review after not more than five years.

Recommendation—review of the proposed Act

99 The proposed Act should provide for a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act and the scheme not more than five years after its commencement.

Transitioning to the proposed Act and scheme for victims of crime financial assistance

Current law

19.53 The VOCAA sets out transitional provisions in sections 76 to 82 and schedule 1.

19.54 Section 76 and schedule 1 relate to the transition from the former Act, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 (Vic), to the VOCAA. Clause 2 of schedule 1 abolishes the former Tribunal (the Crimes Compensation Tribunal) and vests its rights and property in VOCAT.

19.55 Clause 4 of schedule 1 of the VOCAA provides that all pending applications or matters made under the former Act are to be determined by the new Tribunal (VOCAT) in accordance with the former Act.

19.56 Clause 5 of schedule 1 states that the VOCAA applies to all new applications, including those relating to acts of violence that occurred before its commencement date.

19.57 Sections 77 to 81 address the transitional arrangements in relation to a several amending Acts, from the Victims of Crime Assistance (Amendment) Act 2000 (Vic) to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Victims) Act 2018 (Vic).

19.58 The most extensive of these provisions are those in section 77, which deal with the transitional arrangements relating to the Victims of Crime Assistance (Amendment) Act 2000 (Vic). This is the amending Act that introduced special financial assistance.

19.59 Section 77(1) provides that applicants may only make an application for special financial assistance if the act of violence that is the subject of the application occurred on or after 1 July 2000. Section 77(3), however, makes an exception for victims of sexual offences which occurred while they were under the age of 18 years. Such applicants may make an application for special financial assistance if the act of violence in question occurred on or after 1 July 1997^[42] or the perpetrator was committed, directly presented for trial or charged on or after 1 July 1997.^[43]

19.60 The transitional provisions in the VOCAA are long and complex. These provisions, including schedule 1, span 17 pages and are very technical in nature. Moreover, these provisions employ different transitional principles. While the transitional provisions in schedule 1 regarding the transition from the former Act to the VOCAA focus on the date the application was made, those pertaining to the introduction of special financial assistance are based on the date of the act of violence and the nature of the offence. As a result, these provisions can be confusing for victims and increase reliance on legal practitioners.

Responses

19.61 In consultation meetings and submissions, stakeholders raised concerns about the complicated nature of the current transitional provisions in the VOCAA, in particular those relating to special financial assistance.

19.62 In their joint submission, VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and the Children’s Court of Victoria described the transitional provisions in section 77 of the VOCAA as ‘complex and poorly understood’, and stated that they can often operate to stop many victims of ‘historical offences’ from being able to access special financial assistance.^[44]

19.63 A number of other stakeholders also stated concerns about section 77 and historical offences. Knowmore submitted that most of its clients who are victims of childhood sexual abuse would not be eligible for special financial assistance under the VOCAA because the offending occurred prior to 1 July 2000 and charges have not been laid.^[45] It described the adverse impact that this can have on such victims:

For victims of historical sexual abuse, being advised that they have no claim for SFA under the current Act is often very distressing as they do not feel they are receiving adequate recognition for the significant trauma they suffered and that continues to adversely affect their lives.^[46]

19.64 Similarly, in a regional consultation meeting with legal practitioners in Ballarat, the Commission heard that the transitional provisions in section 77 result in a cohort of victims ‘falling through the gaps’.^[47]

Discussion and recommendations

19.65 The Commission notes stakeholder concerns that the current transitional provisions are complicated and difficult to understand, as well as that the current transitional provisions have an exclusionary effect for victims of historical offences.

19.66 The Commission considers that the transitional provisions in the proposed Act should be simple and easy to understand, and should attempt, as far possible, to apply to all applicants equally.

19.67 Accordingly, the Commission considers that the proposed Act should apply in its entirety to all new applications for state-funded financial assistance for victims of crime made after the commencement date, regardless of when the criminal act occurred.

19.68 Moreover, all non-pending applications for a variation of an existing VOCAT award should be made as new applications under the proposed scheme. Such applications should be considered within the new maximum amount available, taking into account any VOCAT award already received by the applicant. This would enable this cohort of victims to also benefit from any increase in the assistance available under the proposed Act.

19.69 However, in relation to pending applications to VOCAT, the Commission considers it necessary to maintain continuity with the current scheme in order to reduce administrative burden on applicants and promote legal certainty.

19.70 In particular, the Commission notes the difficulties experienced by some victims in New South Wales as result of the transitional arrangements following the enactment of the Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW), which required pending applications made under the former Act to be treated as if they were applications under the new Act.^[48] The retroactive effect of these transitional provisions led to substantial victim outcry because the awards such victims received departed drastically from their expectations.^[49] This eventually led the NSW Government to introduce changes that enabled this cohort to have their applications reassessed under the former scheme.^[50]

19.71 As such, the Commission considers that as at the date of commencement of the proposed Act, all pending applications made under the VOCAA, including pending applications for a variation, should continue to be determined under the VOCAA. In this context, the Commission notes that as at the end of the 2016–17 reporting period, 7207 applications were still pending.^[51]

19.72 However, given the experience of in New South Wales, the Commission considers that further consideration should be given to which body is best placed to finalise all pending applications under the VOCAA.

19.73 One option is to have VOCAT determine all matters which have not yet been finalised at the date of commencement of the proposed scheme. VOCAT would cease to exist following the finalisation of these matters.

19.74 This approach is similar to that taken by Queensland, which required the court to hear or continue hearing all pending applications made under its former judicial model.^[52] In the Commission’s view this option would do the most to reduce administrative burden on victims and maintain legal certainty. Moreover, as these applications would benefit from VOCAT’s expertise in relation to the VOCAA, it may be the most efficient way to finalise all pending applications.

19.75 However, unlike in Queensland, in Victoria this would involve VOCAT existing alongside the proposed scheme for a period of time. This could be confusing for victims and result in possible jurisdictional and/ or administrative complications.

19.76 Another option would be to have the new scheme determine all pending applications pursuant to the VOCAA. This would enable the immediate abolition of VOCAT and centralise all state-funded financial assistance for victims of crime. However, it may result in substantial administrative burden on the new scheme as it would require it to administer two Acts for a period of time, including one which was built for a judicial model.

19.77 Finally, and as a third alternative, all pending applications made under the VOCAA could be transferred to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). This was the approach taken by New South Wales, which abolished the Victims Compensation

Tribunal (NSW) and transferred all pending matters to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (NSW).^[53]

19.78 This middle ground option may be the most effective, as VCAT is familiar with the VOCAA, being the relevant review body under that Act, and connected to the proposed Act as its future external review body. However, this option may also result in administrative and budgetary issues for VCAT. As noted above, VOCAT’s 2016–17 Annual Report stated that at the end of the reporting period, there were 7207 pending applications before it.^[54] Transferring a similar number of applications to VCAT could substantially increase its case load for a period of time and result in the delayed resolution of pending matters.

19.79 These are issues that require further consideration by government. In determining the most suitable body to decide all outstanding matters made under the VOCAA at the time of transition, careful consideration should be given to administrative and budgetary issues, as well as the impact that it may have on victims.

Recommendation—transitioning to the proposed Act and scheme

100 The proposed Act should provide for the following transitional provisions:

(a) All pending applications before the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal at the commencement date of the proposed Act should be finalised under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic).

(b) All new applications for financial assistance for victims of crime made on or after the commencement date of the proposed Act should be made under the proposed Act and determined by the proposed scheme.

(c) All applications for variations of existing awards made under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic) on or after the commencement date of the proposed Act should be treated as new applications made under the proposed Act.

19.80

1. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrate’s Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

   ↑

2. Ibid.

   ↑

3. Ibid.

   ↑

4. Consultation 16 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Legal Professionals).

   ↑

5. Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic) s 68(2).

   ↑

6. See generally Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Annual Report 2016–17 (2017).

   ↑

7. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Family Violence and the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, Consultation Paper (2017) 64.

   ↑

8. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Review of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, Supplementary Consultation Paper (2017) 103.
   
   See also Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Annual Report 2016–17 (2017) 61.

   ↑

9. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Review of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, Supplementary Consultation Paper (2017) 130.

   ↑

10. Submissions 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre), 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrate’s Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

    ↑

11. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrate’s Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

    ↑

12. Submission 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre).

    ↑

13. Ibid.

    ↑

14. Submissions 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service), 41 (Springvale Monash Legal Service), 43 (knowmore).

    ↑

15. Submissions 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service), 43 (knowmore).

    ↑

16. Submission 41 (Springvale Monash Legal Service).

    ↑

17. Submissions 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service), 41 (Springvale Monash Legal Service), 43 (knowmore).

    ↑

18. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrate’s Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

    ↑

19. Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2017 [Provisions] and Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017 [Provisions] (March 2018) 89.

    ↑

20. Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Qld), Final Report on the Review of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (2015) 37.

    ↑

21. See, eg, Community Legal Centres NSW, Submission to New South Wales Department of Justice, Review of the Victims Rights and Support Act, 26 July 2016, 18–19.

    ↑

22. Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2017 [Provisions] and Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017 [Provisions] (March 2018) 95 (Recommendation 10).

    ↑

23. Submission 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre).

    ↑

24. Victoria, Royal Commission into Family Violence, Report and Recommendations (2016) vol 5, 137.

    ↑

25. Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Qld), Final Report on the Review of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (2015) 37 (Appendix 3).

    ↑

26. Community Legal Centres NSW, Submission to New South Wales Department of Justice, Review of the Victims Rights and Support Act,
    
    26 July 2016, 18–19.

    ↑

27. Kathleen Daly, Submission No 44 to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2017 [Provisions] and Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017 [Provisions] (March 2018) 7.

    ↑

28. See generally Victims Services, Department of Attorney General and Justice (NSW), Victims Services (2018)
    
    </www.victimsservices.justice.nsw.gov.au/>.

    ↑

29. Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) s 144(1) [as enacted].

    ↑

30. Ibid s 144(2) [as enacted].

    ↑

31. Victims of Crime Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (Qld) s 90.

    ↑

32. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrate’s Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

    ↑

33. Ibid.

    ↑

34. Ibid.

    ↑

35. Ibid.

    ↑

36. See generally Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Qld), Final Report on the Review of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (2015).

    ↑

37. See generally Victims of Crime Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (Qld).

    ↑

38. For an overview of these changes, see Victorian Law Reform Commission, Review of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, Supplementary Consultation Paper (2017) 103. See also Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Annual Report 2016–17 (2017) 25–6.

    ↑

39. Department of Attorney General and Justice (NSW), Review of the Victims Compensation Fund (PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia, 2012) 89 (Recommendation 46).

    ↑

40. Ibid.

    ↑

41. Ibid.

    ↑

42. Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic) s 77(3)(d)(i).

    ↑

43. Ibid 77(3)(d)(ii)-(iii).

    ↑

44. Submission 59 (Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Magistrate’s Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria).

    ↑

45. Submission 43 (knowmore).

    ↑

46. Ibid.

    ↑

47. Consultation 16 (Regional Consultation—Ballarat Legal Professionals).

    ↑

48. Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) sch 2 cl 5.

    ↑

49. Tyrone Kirchengast, Victims and the Criminal Trial (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016) 256. See also Tim Barlass, ‘Rape Victim Offered $15,000 over ‘Mistaken’ Compensation Reforms Told to Reapply’, The Sydney Morning Herald (online), 2 August 2015 <www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/rape-victim-offered-15000-over-mistaken-compensation-reforms-told-to-reapply-20150801-gipbc6.html>.

    ↑

50. Victims Rights and Support Amendment (Transitional Claims) Regulation 2015 (NSW).

    ↑

51. Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Annual Report 2016–17 (2017) 37.

    ↑

52. Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) s 167(2).

    ↑

53. Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) sch 2 cl 5.

    ↑

54. Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Annual Report 2016–17 (2017) 37.

    ↑