4210 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thursday 16 November 2006 ______ Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. Mr Speaker offered the Prayer. Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them for the custodianship of country. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Mr PETER DEBNAM: I seek leave to suspend standing and sessional orders to permit the introduction and passage through all its stages of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation (Criminal Charges) Bill. Leave not granted. CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (CARE AND PROTECTION) MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS BILL COMPANION ANIMALS AMENDMENT BILL HOME BUILDING AMENDMENT (STATUTORY WARRANTIES) BILL WORLD YOUTH DAY BILL Messages received from the Legislative Council returning the bills without amendment. UNPROCLAIMED LEGISLATION Mr SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I table a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 17 November 2006. VICTIMS SUPPORT AND REHABILITATION AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 14 November 2006. Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.03 a.m.]: The Victims Support and Rehabilitation Amendment Bill arises from a statutory review of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 and various cognate Acts. The support of victims in New South Wales remains a serious and ongoing government and community responsibility. There is genuine concern that the legal system continues to look more to the accused than it does to victims. It is welcome then that the statutory review recommended various proposals to extend the rights of victims to compensation. It recommended to extend the rights of victims to claim for psychological and psychiatric injury; to extend the number of people in a victim's family who can make application to half brothers and half sisters and, in appropriate cases, to grandparents; to make allowances for payments such as funeral expenses; and to make allowances for an assessor to make certain determinations. All these changes are unexceptional and none of them are opposed. The New South Wales Coalition continues to push, as it has over a long period, for proper acknowledgement of victims rights and proper compensation for those in society who are victims of crime. The Carr and Iemma governments have failed to address many of the fundamental and underlying issues relating to victim support. Only last week we read about the case of the Nam family in western New South Wales. The 16 November 2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4211 accused, Mr Pestano, the person responsible for terrorising them, set out on a systematic campaign to frighten them, to cut off their electricity and water, to encircle their home, and to build fires around the place—all in an attempt to evict them from the premises. When Mr Pestano was shot by Mr Nam, who was exercising self-defence for himself and his family, the Pestano family estate received the benefit of $50,000 under the Victims Compensation Scheme. An ongoing concern of the community is that money that should be going to genuine victims continues to go to people who simply purport to be victims. The Government allowed many criminals in gaol who were assaulted to make application under the scheme, but that was finally cut back only after enormous public outcry. Yet we still have cases like the one to which I have just referred. I suppose the Government's reply will be that Mr Pestano had not been charged or convicted with any offence and, therefore, he was a victim. Clearly, the legislation must be amended to ensure that when a person engages in a course of criminal conduct, even if that person is now deceased, he or she should not be able to benefit from that criminal conduct. There is nothing new in that. It has been a fundamental precept of common law since time immemorial that no-one can benefit from his or her crime. That precept has been upheld in all Commonwealth countries and in the United States of America. Yet we have cases such as that which occurred only last week when Mr Pestano's estate was able to benefit from conduct that, effectively in his case, was criminal, and that tragically ended in his death. Nonetheless, that should not have entitled him or his estate to any compensation at law. As I said earlier, the Coalition is not opposed to this legislation. I place on record matters such as the one I referred to relating to the Nam-Pestano problem. I acknowledge that there is ongoing concern amongst victims of crime that, despite the statutory provisions relating to counselling, it is not always available. That is a logistic matter but it is something that the Government must address. The Government cannot come into this Chamber, pass legislation and say, "You will be entitled to counselling for a two-hour period", as this legislation does, when no counselling is provided or available. That is especially the case in country areas. If people are to exercise their right to counselling they are often required to travel very long distances, which is simply uneconomic or impractical for them undertake. We need better reporting of the effectiveness of counselling, of the number of people who take it up, and of the ongoing results. Appropriate studies should be done about what happens to victims of crime. I realise that that matter is not necessarily addressed in this bill but the bill arises from the statutory review of the victims of crime legislation. That is why it is appropriate that I raise the issue in this forum and in this debate. No study was done on what happens to victims, how they are dealt with by the system, whether they feel satisfied from the system, whether they believe that the compensation has been of real value to them, how speedily it was obtained, and how effective the counselling was. All those sorts of matters need to be better researched and the results collated so that we have a much better database to work from for future planning on the treatment and assistance given to victims. Having made those few remarks, I again indicate that the Coalition does not oppose the bill. Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.11 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The Victims Support and Rehabilitation Amendment Bill implements most of the recommendations of the five-year statutory review of the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act. It makes a number of changes to the Act and includes a range of new benefits for victims of crime. The expansion of the compensation scheme will provide welcome financial relief from some of the expenses that victims incur as a direct result of the crime. Victims of domestic violence and sexual assault will also benefit directly from the bill: they will have better access to the compensation and the counselling schemes established under the Act. The reimbursement of funeral expenses, even where there is no eligible family victim, will help to cover the funeral costs paid by an extended family member or friend. The bill enhances the operation of the approved counselling scheme and will ensure that victims of crime continue to have ready access to free counselling in most cases, up to a maximum of 20 hours. The Government is proud of its record of achievement. We will continue to listen to victims and their support groups to ensure that the services that we provide are of the highest quality and meet their needs. I commend bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages. 4212 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 November 2006 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORATES AND ELECTIONS AMENDMENT (CHILD SEXUAL OFFENCES DISCLOSURES) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 15 November 2006. Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse—Leader of the Opposition) [10.13 a.m.]: It is unfortunate that we have to talk about this bill today but it is a reality in New South Wales after 12 years of Labor. At the outset I say that the Coalition will not oppose the bill but we need to talk about why it has come about. The object of the bill is: To amend the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912: (a) to require candidates for election to Parliament to declare whether they have been convicted of the murder of a child or a child sexual offence or have ever been the subject of proceedings for such an offence or the subject of an apprehended violence order for the purposes of protecting a child from sexual assault, and (b) to make it an offence, punishable by imprisonment for up to 5 years, to make a false declaration, and (c) to require the Commission for Children and Young People to audit the declarations for accuracy and to report on the audit to Parliament, and (d) to make other consequential amendments to that Act. As we discuss this bill we obviously need to be very careful: there are charges pending and court cases to proceed. But if you go to the heart of the matter the fact of this issue is that the Labor Party does not check its candidates. Mr Gerard Martin: Do you? Mr PETER DEBNAM: We actually do a very solid check on all candidates who present themselves to the Liberal Party and for election to the Parliament of New South Wales. What has become apparent is that the Labor Party does not. In the Labor Party it is a matter of which union you are in or which family you are related to. That is how you actually get into Parliament.