Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996: Report (html)

9. The decision maker in the proposed victims of crime financial assistance scheme

Introduction

9.1 In Chapter 8, the Commission recommended that to deliver assistance to victims of crime more effectively, a new state-funded financial assistance scheme (the proposed scheme) should be established, led by an independent, dedicated and specialised decision maker.

9.2 Additionally, the Commission recommended that the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic) (VOCAA) be repealed and replaced with a new Act (the proposed Act) which establishes the proposed new decision maker and scheme and incorporates the legislative reforms recommended in this report.

9.3 This chapter makes recommendations relating to the establishment of the proposed scheme decision maker. This includes recommendations relating to:

• the decision maker’s appointment, functions and powers, and

• the composition of the decision maker’s office to ensure the decision maker is effectively supported in the exercise of their powers.

An independent, dedicated and specialised decision maker

9.4 This section considers the approaches adopted in other Australian states and territories, as well as the existing Victorian context. This part also considers stakeholder views on the functions of the proposed scheme decision maker.

Approaches in other jurisdictions

9.5 In the Australian Capital Territory, the Victims of Crime Commissioner manages both the victims’ services scheme and the financial assistance scheme.^[1] The ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner also has a range of broader victims’ advocacy functions.^[2]

9.6 Similarly, in New South Wales, the functions of the NSW Commissioner of Victims Rights include determining applications for financial assistance and victim support, in addition to performing a broad range of victims’ advocacy functions.^[3]

9.7 The Commission has been told by both the ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner and the NSW Commissioner of Victims Rights of the importance of their advocacy functions in enhancing the operation of their jurisdictions’ financial assistance schemes by raising awareness of entitlements for victims as well as employing a beneficial approach to financial assistance to best support victims of crime.^[4]

The Victorian context

9.8 Victoria has a Victims of Crime Commissioner established as an independent office under the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (Vic).

9.9 The Victorian Victims of Crime Commissioner is appointed by the Governor-in-Council, on the recommendation of the Attorney-General.^[5] The Commissioner is supported by a small office comprising staff of the Department of Justice and Regulation.^[6]

9.10 Similarly to the ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner and the NSW Commissioner of Victims Rights, the Victorian Victims of Crime Commissioner has a number of specified functions.^[7] These include advocating for the recognition, inclusion, participation and respect of victims of crime by government departments, bodies responsible for conducting public prosecutions and Victoria Police.^[8]

9.11 Unlike the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales, the functions of the Victorian Victims of Crime Commissioner do not include administering a state-funded financial assistance scheme.

Responses

Dedicated and specialised

9.12 A number of stakeholders said that only dedicated and specialised decision makers should make financial assistance decisions.^[9] While these views were expressed in the context of the existing scheme, it is evident that many stakeholders consider that decision making in relation to financial assistance should be a specialised area of expertise, regardless of model.

9.13 Stakeholders also emphasised the need for the decision maker to undertake appropriate training to ensure their approaches were trauma-informed. For example, the Victorian Council of Social Service submitted that decision makers should receive regular training on family violence, trauma-informed care and working with victims of crime.^[10]

9.14 Victim representatives of the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee also told the Commission that all victim support, including financial assistance, needed to be provided by trained, specialist professionals who recognise and understand trauma.^[11] Safe steps Family Violence Response Centre emphasised the findings of the Royal Commission into Family violence, that only specially trained professionals should work with victims of family violence.^[12] Similarly, the Law Institute of Victoria, in the context of the existing scheme, submitted that all magistrates in the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT) jurisdiction should undertake victim training.^[13]

9.15 In addition, stakeholders emphasised the need for decision makers to undertake mandatory cultural awareness and trauma training, including how to engage with intergenerational trauma.^[14]

Standing and authority

9.16 A number of stakeholders considered it vital that if a non-judicial decision maker was used, the decision maker have the authority and standing in the community to acknowledge victims.^[15] For example, some legal professionals said commissioners are authoritative figures^[16] and might provide a more trauma-informed response than a magistrate.^[17]

9.17 Similarly, some victims advocates suggested ‘government officials’,^[18] ‘administrators’ or ‘commissioners’ would have sufficient standing and authority.^[19] Safe steps Family Violence Response Centre specifically recommended the decision maker be Victoria’s Victims of Crime Commissioner:

we recommend a predominantly administrative system that maintains a hearing option for victims conducted by the Victims of Crime Commissioner. That way, victims could elect to have their matter heard in a formal setting if this was important to them.^[20]

9.18 A number of stakeholders agreed that acknowledgment could be provided by senior government officials^[21] or a commissioner,^[22] provided the acknowledgment comes from someone with standing^[23] and occurs in a meaningful^[24] and respectful way.^[25]

Connection with victims’ services and improving awareness

9.19 The location of the proposed scheme is important, given some stakeholders have suggested victim support in Victoria is ‘fragmented’^[26] and results in inefficiencies because various government agencies or programs overlap.^[27]

9.20 Some stakeholders told the Commission that the scheme needs to have appropriate connections with victim support, as more ‘holistic’ approaches lead to improved outcomes for victims.^[28]

9.21 Raising community and support sector awareness of state-funded financial assistance was highlighted as a key function of the respective administrative schemes’ decision makers in both New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory.^[29]

9.22 The scheme decision maker in New South Wales—the NSW Commissioner of Victims Rights—told the Commission that part of her role is to advocate on behalf of victims and to raise awareness of the supports available with victim support agencies on the ground. This includes raising awareness with support services that specialise in domestic violence and sexual assault, as well as organisations that work with the LGBTIQ community, the Aboriginal community, multicultural communities and the disability sector.^[30]

9.23 Similarly, the ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner told the Commission that community engagement activities have resulted in increased awareness of the scheme, particularly among key support and community agencies following completion of around 120 community engagement activities, along with associated website and radio promotion activities. The ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner said that the ability to undertake comprehensive community engagement activities was one of the benefits of moving from a court-based model to an administrative model.^[31]

Discussion and recommendations

9.24 Government services for victims of crime aim to be ‘victim-centred’.^[32] However, accessing or navigating victim support in Victoria is often not straightforward. In particular, the services and supports available to victims can be fragmented and difficult to navigate for those without the time and resources.

9.25 For this reason, the Commission considers that the proposed scheme should not add to the victims’ services and functions already available in Victoria. Instead the Commission considers that the proposed scheme should enhance existing services rather than create additional complexity.

9.26 As noted above, views in consultations emphasised the importance of the decision maker being specialised, dedicated and trauma-informed, with sufficient standing and authority in the community to acknowledge victims of crime on behalf of the state.

9.27 The models in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory also illustrate the benefits of having an independent financial assistance decision maker who also has a broader victims’ advocacy role. In particular, the Commission notes the complementary nature of managing a financial assistance scheme with a beneficial approach, within an agency whose mandate is to provide services to victims, underpinned by legislatively prescribed functions which include advocating for the interests of victims.^[33]

9.28 The Commission also notes the observation in the Department of Justice and Regulation consultation paper, A Victorian Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Abuse, that redress decision makers should be both independent and have sufficient expertise and judgement to determine redress claims.^[34]

9.29 Given the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (Vic) already establishes an independent statutory officer whose main function is to advocate for victims of crime,^[35] the Commission considers that it would be appropriate for the proposed scheme to be administered by Victoria’s Victims of Crime Commissioner.

9.30 The Commission considers that enabling the Victims of Crime Commissioner to make financial assistance decisions would have the following advantages:

• The Commissioner has standing and authority to provide meaningful acknowledgment to victims of crime.

• The role of the Victims of Crime Commissioner is already established as an independent statutory appointment dedicated to, and specialising in, victims’ advocacy and support.

• Enhancing the Commissioner’s existing statutory role complements Victoria’s existing victims’ support framework, and avoids further fragmentation or duplication that would be created by the introduction of a new office or function.

• The Commissioner’s powers and functions would be expressly provided for under the proposed Act, thereby providing increased transparency in decision making, and providing for appropriate review and complaints mechanisms to improve such transparency, including bringing the provision of financial assistance within the Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic).

9.31 The Commission considers that the proposed Act should establish the Victims of Crime Commissioner, appointed pursuant to section 7 of the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (Vic) as the proposed scheme decision maker. This provision could be modelled on the approach in the Australian Capital Territory where the relevant financial assistance Act refers to the Commissioner as the decision maker, and defines the Commissioner with reference to their appointment pursuant to the Victims of Crime Act 1994 (ACT).^[36]

9.32 To ensure greater transparency in the selection and appointment process, and to ensure that the person appointed is a person of appropriate standing and is suitably qualified, the Commission considers that section 7 of the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (Vic) should be amended to provide that the Victims of Crime Commissioner, as the scheme decision maker, be an appointment made by the Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of the Attorney-General, following public advertisement, and must be a person of appropriate standing and suitably qualified.

9.33 The Commission notes, for example, that the relevant Tasmanian Act requires that the minister only appoint Australian lawyers of at least five years standing to be Criminal Injuries Compensation Commissioners.^[37]

Recommendations

3 The proposed Act should establish the scheme’s decision maker as the Victims of Crime Commissioner, appointed pursuant to section 7 of the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (Vic).

4 Section 7 of the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (Vic) should be amended to provide that the Victims of Crime Commissioner, as the scheme decision maker, should be appointed following public advertisement, and should be a person of appropriate standing and be suitably qualified.

Functions of the Victims of Crime Commissioner

9.34 The Victims of Crime Commissioner has a number of specified functions under the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (Vic). These include:

• to advocate for the recognition, inclusion, participation and respect of victims of crime by government departments, bodies responsible for conducting public prosecutions and Victoria Police

• to carry out inquiries on systemic victim of crime matters

• to report to the Attorney-General on any systemic victim of crime matter

• to provide advice to the Attorney-General and government departments and agencies regarding improvements to the justice system to meet the needs of victims of crime.^[38]

9.35 Given the Commission’s recommendation above that the scheme’s decision maker should be the Victims of Crime Commissioner, the Commission considers it necessary that the legislative functions and powers of the Victims of Crime Commissioner be expanded to include the exercise of the functions and powers necessary to administer the proposed Act and scheme.

9.36 To ensure that there is clarity and transparency regarding the powers and functions of the decision maker, and to ensure the effective administration of the proposed scheme, the Commission considers that similarly to the approaches taken in the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales, the scheme decision maker’s functions and powers under the proposed Act should be expressly stated as:

• conducting victim conferences and providing recognition statements for the purposes of hearing and acknowledging, on behalf of the state, the impact of the criminal act on a victim

• administering the scheme for the provision of financial assistance to victims

• receiving applications for financial assistance

• deciding applications for financial assistance

• paying amounts of financial assistance

• reviewing decisions made by other scheme staff

• administering the repayment and recovery processes for payments of financial assistance made

• providing information to victims about the Act and the support services and assistance available to assist recovery from the criminal act

• publishing guidance materials and resources for victims, support service providers and legal practitioners in relation to the Act

• conducting education and training, public awareness activities and research in relation to the Act

• collecting and publishing annual data and information in relation to the operation of the Act.

9.37 The Commission considers that these functions and powers should be provided in either the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (Vic), by amendment to section 13, or as a provision of the proposed Act. The rationale for these functions and powers exercisable by the decision maker are discussed further below.

9.38 In addition, and to ensure the decision maker’s functions and powers are exercised appropriately, the proposed Act should provide that any person in exercising any functions or powers required under the Act must have regard to the purpose and objectives of the Act, its guiding principles, and the Victims Charter Act 2006 (Vic). The purpose and objectives of the proposed Act and its guiding principles are discussed in Chapter 11.

Recommendations

5 The functions and powers of the Victims of Crime Commissioner should be expanded to include the functions and powers necessary to administer the proposed Act and scheme. These functions and powers could either be expressly provided in the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (Vic) by amendment to section 13, or as a provision of the proposed Act.

6 The proposed Act should provide that the functions and powers of the scheme decision maker are to:

(a) conduct victim conferences for the purposes of hearing and acknowledging, on behalf of the state, the victim and the impact of the criminal act on the victim

(b) provide eligible victims with a recognition statement for the purposes of acknowledging, on behalf of the state, the victim and the impact of the criminal act on the victim

(c) administer the scheme for the provision of financial assistance to eligible victims

(d) receive applications for financial assistance

(e) decide applications for financial assistance

(f) pay amounts of financial assistance

(g) review decisions made by other scheme staff

(h) administer the repayment and recovery processes for payments of financial assistance made

(i) provide information to victims about the Act and the support services and assistance available to assist recovery from the criminal act

(j) publish guidance materials and resources for victims, support service providers and legal practitioners in relation to the Act

(k) conduct education and training, public awareness activities and research in relation to the Act

(l) collect and publish annual data and information in relation to the operation of the Act.

7 The proposed Act should provide that any person in exercising any functions or powers required under the Act must have regard to the purpose and objectives of the Act, its guiding principles, and the Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic).

Resourcing the Office of the Victims of Crime Commissioner

9.39 The Office of the Victims of Crime Commissioner is currently resourced by two full-time staff members.^[39] Using the staffing numbers employed by other Australian jurisdictions with administrative models as a guide, it is clear that additional staff would be required to support the expansion of the office of the Victims of Crime Commissioner to administer the proposed scheme as recommended by the Commission.^[40]

9.40 In the submission from the Victims of Crime Commissioner to this review, approximate costings were provided in relation to staffing required to implement an administrative scheme in Victoria, although costings did not specifically relate to such staff being part of the Office of the Victims of Crime Commissioner.^[41]

9.41 There were 7312 applications lodged with VOCAT in 2016–17.^[42] In New South Wales, where a similar number of applications were lodged in the 2016–17 financial year, the administrative scheme was overseen by around 22 assessment staff.^[43] Victim Assist Queensland currently has 12 assessors and three assessment teams processing around 2500 applications a year.^[44] In Western Australia, the Office of Criminal Injuries Compensation has three full-time assessors and 17.2 full-time equivalent administrative employees processing around 3313 claims a year.^[45]

9.42 Cost implications of the proposed scheme are considered in Chapter 18. However, the Commission considers it vital that the Commissioner be provided with appropriate staffing and funding to administer the proposed Act and scheme. The Commission notes that section 16 of the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (Vic) requires the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Regulation to ensure that the Victims of Crime Commissioner is provided with any employees that are necessary to assist the Commissioner in performing the Commissioner’s functions.

9.43 The Commission considers that the Victims of Crime Commissioner should be provided with the staffing and funding necessary to enable the Commissioner to properly perform their functions, including the function of administering the proposed scheme.

Recommendation

8 The Victims of Crime Commissioner should be provided with the staffing and funding necessary to properly perform their functions, including the function of administering the new state-funded financial assistance scheme, consistent with section 16 of the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (Vic).

9.44 To ensure the Victims of Crime Commissioner can be properly assisted in the exercise of their functions and powers in relation to the proposed Act and scheme, the Commission considers the Commissioner should also be provided with the legislative power to delegate appropriate functions to suitably qualified staff. This will help to ensure the proposed scheme remains efficient and sustainable, and significantly for victims, that assistance is timely. Delegation will also allow for increased specialisation.

9.45 Recommendation 6 above provides that one of the decision maker’s functions is to conduct victim conferences. As discussed in Chapter 10, victim conferences are a central component of the proposed scheme and are designed to meet victims’ pecuniary and non-pecuniary needs, including providing appropriate victim recognition and acknowledgment. It is important that victim conferences are responsive, timely and trauma-informed. Specialisation is also crucial. The Commission acknowledges it would be difficult for the scheme decision maker alone to conduct all victim conferences and to perform other key functions without appropriate support and assistance.

9.46 The Commission therefore considers that the scheme decision maker should be supported by deputy decision makers, who are subject matter specialists, who may be called on as required by the scheme decision maker to perform key functions under delegation, including conducting victim conferences. This would ensure victim conferences can be appropriately prioritised and conducted by specifically skilled decision makers who are subject matter experts in areas such as child sexual abuse, sexual assault, family violence or homicide. This type of approach was also discussed in the Department of Justice and Regulation consultation paper, A Victorian Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Abuse, where it was emphasised that a mix of expertise in decision making would be highly beneficial in relation to assessment of redress claims.^[46]

9.47 Given the significance of victim conferences, the Commission also considers it crucial for decision makers to have appropriate standing and authority. In the Commission’s view, the proposed Act should require that deputy decision makers be appointed by the Governor-in-Council, on the recommendation of the Attorney-General, following public advertisement, and are to be persons of appropriate standing and suitably qualified.

9.48 The Commission does not envisage that these deputy decision maker positions would be full-time positions. Instead, appropriately qualified decision makers could be appointed on a part-time basis, and be called on to perform key functions when required. This will help to ensure the proposed scheme remains efficient and sustainable.

9.49 The Commission considers that the proposed scheme decision maker and deputy decision makers should also be supported by appropriately qualified staff, including case managers and administrative staff. Case management under the proposed scheme is discussed in Chapter 10.

Recommendation

9 The proposed Act should provide that the scheme decision maker be supported by:

(a) deputy decision makers, appointed by the Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of the Attorney-General following public advertisement, who are suitably qualified and are subject matter specialists of appropriate standing

(b) appropriately qualified case managers

(c) other staff as required for the efficient and effective operation of the Act.

Rural and regional presence

9.50 The existing scheme has a wide geographic spread, with VOCAT operating out of each of the 51 Magistrates’ Court locations across Victoria. While this enables better physical access to VOCAT hearings for rural and regional victims, a number of stakeholders raised concerns about the operation of VOCAT in regional areas. In particular, inconsistency in decision making was described as a particular issue in rural and regional areas.^[47] In their written submission, VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria submitted that under the existing scheme there:

is a risk of inconsistent decision making in relation to awards and interpretation of broad areas of discretion for multiple decision makers with varying levels of VoCAT experience, operating across 51 locations. This can foster unrealistic expectations on the part of victims about likely award outcomes, and the perception that the system is not fair.^[48]

9.51 VOCAT, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Children’s Court of Victoria also submitted that the ‘diffused’ operating model of the existing scheme created not only administrative inefficiencies, but raised challenges in relation to sufficient specialisation in VOCAT matters and oversight of practice.

9.52 The Commission is mindful that replicating this diffused model may result in similar inefficiencies and inconsistency in decision making.

9.53 In the Commission’s view, the expanded office of the Victims of Commissioner should retain a centralised metropolitan office—to provide for centralisation of administrative functions, resources and expertise. However, the Commission is also considers it important the proposed scheme has some rural and regional presence to ensure all victims of crime, regardless of their geographic location, have access to the proposed scheme.

9.54 As discussed in Chapters 10 and 17 the Commission considers there are a range of measures and initiatives that should be implemented to increase access for rural and regional victims of crime. These should include the implementation of co-location or outreach programs in rural and regional areas as well as the decision maker conducting victim conferences^[49] in rural and regional locations. Depending on demand, such rural and regional victim conferences could be conducted at an individual victim’s request, in a specific rural or regional location, or on a rotating schedule throughout the year.

Delegation of powers

9.55 To ensure efficient and effective operation of the proposed Act and scheme, the Commission considers that the Act should empower the Victims of Crime Commissioner, as the scheme’s decision maker, to delegate any of their functions or powers under the proposed Act, with the exception of the power to conduct victim conferences, to any appropriately qualified member of staff.

9.56 The Commission also considers that the proposed Act should provide that the scheme’s decision maker may delegate the power to conduct victim conferences and issue recognition statements^[50] only to deputy decision makers, and not to any other scheme staff. This is in recognition of the importance of victim recognition, and the need for victim conferences to be conducted only by suitably qualified persons of sufficient standing and authority, to ensure they are victim-centred, trauma-informed and viewed with appropriate importance.

Recommendation

10 The proposed Act should provide that (other than the power of delegation) the scheme decision maker may delegate:

(a) the power to conduct victim conferences and to provide recognition statements to deputy decision makers only

(b) any other functions or powers under the Act, with the exception of the power to conduct victim conferences and to provide recognition statements, to any appropriately qualified member of staff.

1. Victims of Crime Act 1994 (ACT) s 11 and Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 2016 (ACT) s 31(1).

   ↑

2. See Victims of Crime Act 1994 (ACT) s 11.

   ↑

3. Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) s 10(1).

   ↑

4. Consultations 21 (Victim Support ACT and the Victims of Crime Commissioner, ACT), 22 (Victims Services, NSW and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, NSW).

   ↑

5. Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (Vic) s 7(1).

   ↑

6. Victims of Crime Commissioner (Vic), Annual Report 2015–2016 (2016) 9.

   ↑

7. Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (Vic) s 13(1).

   ↑

8. Ibid s 13(1)(a).

   ↑

9. Submissions 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria); Consultations 2 (Legal Professionals—Private Practice), 6 (Victims’ Advocacy Organisations), 20 (Academics), 25 (Children’s Court of Victoria).

   ↑

10. Submission 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service). Training of decision makers and staff is also discussed in Chapter 10.

    ↑

11. Consultation 8 (Victims’ Representatives—Victims of Crime Consultative Committee).

    ↑

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

    ↑

13. Submission 51 (Law Institute of Victoria).

    ↑

14. Submissions 39 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Services), 44 (Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Victoria).

    ↑

15. Consultations 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 22 (Victims Services, NSW and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, NSW).

    ↑

16. Consultation 11 (Regional Consultation—Victoria Legal Aid—Gippsland).

    ↑

17. Consultation 13 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Legal Professionals).

    ↑

18. Consultation 6 (Victims’ Advocacy Organisations).

    ↑

19. Submissions 29 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Domestic Violence Victoria), 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service).

    ↑

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

    ↑

21. Submission 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria); Consultations 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria), 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations), 11 (Regional Consultation—Victoria Legal Aid—Gippsland), 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 14 (Chief Magistrate’s Family Violence Taskforce), 21 (Victim Support ACT and the Victims of Crime Commissioner, ACT), 22 (Victims Services, NSW and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, NSW).

    ↑

22. Submissions 31 (Victorian Council of Social Service), 37 (safe steps Family Violence Response Centre).

    ↑

23. Consultations 12 (Regional Consultation—Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 22 (Victims Services, NSW and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, NSW).

    ↑

24. Consultation 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support).

    ↑

25. Consultation 7 (Family Violence and Advocacy Organisations).

    ↑

26. Consultation 8 (Victims’ Representatives—Victims of Crime Consultative Committee).

    ↑

27. Consultation 5 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

    ↑

28. Consultation 10 (Regional Consultation—Morwell Victim Support Agencies).

    ↑

29. Consultations 21 (Victim Support ACT and the Victims of Crime Commissioner, ACT), 22 (Victims Services, NSW and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, NSW).

    ↑

30. Consultation 22 (Victims Services, NSW and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, NSW).

    ↑

31. Consultation 21 (Victim Support ACT and the Victims of Crime Commissioner, ACT).

    ↑

32. See, eg, Department of Premier and Cabinet (Vic), Victim-centred Justice (2016) <www.vic.gov.au/familyviolence/our-10-year-plan/transforming-our-approach/victim-survivors-are-safe-and-supported/victim-centred-justice.html>.

    ↑

33. Consultation 21 (Victim Support ACT and the Victims of Crime Commissioner, ACT).

    ↑

34. Department of Justice and Regulation (Vic), A Victorian Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Abuse, Public Consultation Paper (5 August 2015) 19.

    ↑

35. Victims of Crime Commissioner (Vic), The Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (2017) <www.victimsofcrimecommissioner.vic.gov.au/legislation-and-victims/the-victims-of-crime-commissioner-act-2015>.

    ↑

36. Victims of Crime Act 1994 (ACT) s 11 and Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Act 2016 (ACT) s 31(1).

    ↑

37. Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1976 (Tas) s 2A.

    ↑

38. Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (Vic) s 13(1).

    ↑

39. An Executive Assistant and a Senior Research and Policy Adviser: Victims of Crime Commissioner (Vic), Organisational Structure (2018) <www.victimsofcrimecommissioner.vic.gov.au/about-us/organisational-structure-0>.

    ↑

40. Chapter 18 further discusses costs associated with establishing the proposed scheme, and includes details of staffing in other jurisdictions.

    ↑

41. Submission 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

    ↑

42. Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, Annual Report 2016–17 (2017) 4.

    ↑

43. Submission 49 (Victims of Crime Commissioner, Victoria).

    ↑

44. Consultation 1 (Victim Assist Queensland).

    ↑

45. Office of Criminal Injuries Compensation, Department of the Attorney General Western Australia, Chief Assessor’s Report 2016/17 (2017) 4.

    ↑

46. Department of Justice and Regulation (Vic), A Victorian Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Abuse, Public Consultation Paper
    
    (5 August 2015) 19.

    ↑

47. Consultations 4 (Victim, Witness and Court Support), 12 (Regional Consultation – Mildura Victim Support Agencies), 16 (Regional Consultation – Ballarat Legal Professionals), 19 (RMIT Centre for Innovative Justice).

    ↑

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

    ↑

49. The purpose and operation of victim conferences under the proposed Scheme are discussed in Chapter 10.

    ↑

50. The purpose and operation of both victim conferences and recognition statements under the proposed scheme are discussed in Chapter 10.

    ↑