❓ Hon. Peter Foss questions the Attorney General's delay in fulfilling an election promise to increase compensation payments to victims of crime, pressing for immediate action and clarification on retrospective application. The Minister provides a general response and defers answering the detailed parts of the question.
AnsweredQoN 1120Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I thank the minister for indicating that he now has the answers to these two questions, which I will ask together. I refer to the minister’s answer to question without notice 1102, which was asked on 14 August 2003. Why has the Attorney General not carried out his election promise in the past two years, when it is so simple to raise the amount by regulation? Hon Nick Griffiths: That is one question. I do not know whether the member should be asking two questions together that were to be asked separately. Hon PETER FOSS: I am making them one question, for which I have given notice. I have been told that the minister has the answers to both the questions. (1) How many months after the Government took office does the Attorney General hope the new maximum will apply? (2) Does the Attorney General regard this as having been carried out with the urgency with which he promised he would give effect to this change? (3) In view of the fact that the Attorney General said during the Assembly estimates that he hoped the new maximum would apply from 1 July 2003, what problem does he have with looking after the interests of victims immediately by raising the maximum by regulation immediately to the figure promised? (4) If the Attorney General considers retrospectivity inappropriate in principle, why did he include it in a 1997 Bill? (5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
I refer to the minister’s answer to question without notice 1102, which was asked on 14 August 2003. Why has the Attorney General not carried out his election promise in the past two years, when it is so simple to raise the amount by regulation? Hon Nick Griffiths: That is one question. I do not know whether the member should be asking two questions together that were to be asked separately. Hon PETER FOSS: I am making them one question, for which I have given notice. I have been told that the minister has the answers to both the questions. (1) How many months after the Government took office does the Attorney General hope the new maximum will apply? (2) Does the Attorney General regard this as having been carried out with the urgency with which he promised he would give effect to this change? (3) In view of the fact that the Attorney General said during the Assembly estimates that he hoped the new maximum would apply from 1 July 2003, what problem does he have with looking after the interests of victims immediately by raising the maximum by regulation immediately to the figure promised? (4) If the Attorney General considers retrospectivity inappropriate in principle, why did he include it in a 1997 Bill? (5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
Hon Nick Griffiths: That is one question. I do not know whether the member should be asking two questions together that were to be asked separately. Hon PETER FOSS: I am making them one question, for which I have given notice. I have been told that the minister has the answers to both the questions. (1) How many months after the Government took office does the Attorney General hope the new maximum will apply? (2) Does the Attorney General regard this as having been carried out with the urgency with which he promised he would give effect to this change? (3) In view of the fact that the Attorney General said during the Assembly estimates that he hoped the new maximum would apply from 1 July 2003, what problem does he have with looking after the interests of victims immediately by raising the maximum by regulation immediately to the figure promised? (4) If the Attorney General considers retrospectivity inappropriate in principle, why did he include it in a 1997 Bill? (5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
Hon PETER FOSS: I am making them one question, for which I have given notice. I have been told that the minister has the answers to both the questions. (1) How many months after the Government took office does the Attorney General hope the new maximum will apply? (2) Does the Attorney General regard this as having been carried out with the urgency with which he promised he would give effect to this change? (3) In view of the fact that the Attorney General said during the Assembly estimates that he hoped the new maximum would apply from 1 July 2003, what problem does he have with looking after the interests of victims immediately by raising the maximum by regulation immediately to the figure promised? (4) If the Attorney General considers retrospectivity inappropriate in principle, why did he include it in a 1997 Bill? (5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
(1) How many months after the Government took office does the Attorney General hope the new maximum will apply? (2) Does the Attorney General regard this as having been carried out with the urgency with which he promised he would give effect to this change? (3) In view of the fact that the Attorney General said during the Assembly estimates that he hoped the new maximum would apply from 1 July 2003, what problem does he have with looking after the interests of victims immediately by raising the maximum by regulation immediately to the figure promised? (4) If the Attorney General considers retrospectivity inappropriate in principle, why did he include it in a 1997 Bill? (5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
(2) Does the Attorney General regard this as having been carried out with the urgency with which he promised he would give effect to this change? (3) In view of the fact that the Attorney General said during the Assembly estimates that he hoped the new maximum would apply from 1 July 2003, what problem does he have with looking after the interests of victims immediately by raising the maximum by regulation immediately to the figure promised? (4) If the Attorney General considers retrospectivity inappropriate in principle, why did he include it in a 1997 Bill? (5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
(3) In view of the fact that the Attorney General said during the Assembly estimates that he hoped the new maximum would apply from 1 July 2003, what problem does he have with looking after the interests of victims immediately by raising the maximum by regulation immediately to the figure promised? (4) If the Attorney General considers retrospectivity inappropriate in principle, why did he include it in a 1997 Bill? (5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
(4) If the Attorney General considers retrospectivity inappropriate in principle, why did he include it in a 1997 Bill? (5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
(5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
I refer to the minister’s answer to question without notice 1102, which was asked on 14 August 2003. Why has the Attorney General not carried out his election promise in the past two years, when it is so simple to raise the amount by regulation? Hon Nick Griffiths: That is one question. I do not know whether the member should be asking two questions together that were to be asked separately. Hon PETER FOSS: I am making them one question, for which I have given notice. I have been told that the minister has the answers to both the questions. (1) How many months after the Government took office does the Attorney General hope the new maximum will apply? (2) Does the Attorney General regard this as having been carried out with the urgency with which he promised he would give effect to this change? (3) In view of the fact that the Attorney General said during the Assembly estimates that he hoped the new maximum would apply from 1 July 2003, what problem does he have with looking after the interests of victims immediately by raising the maximum by regulation immediately to the figure promised? (4) If the Attorney General considers retrospectivity inappropriate in principle, why did he include it in a 1997 Bill? (5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
Hon Nick Griffiths: That is one question. I do not know whether the member should be asking two questions together that were to be asked separately. Hon PETER FOSS: I am making them one question, for which I have given notice. I have been told that the minister has the answers to both the questions. (1) How many months after the Government took office does the Attorney General hope the new maximum will apply? (2) Does the Attorney General regard this as having been carried out with the urgency with which he promised he would give effect to this change? (3) In view of the fact that the Attorney General said during the Assembly estimates that he hoped the new maximum would apply from 1 July 2003, what problem does he have with looking after the interests of victims immediately by raising the maximum by regulation immediately to the figure promised? (4) If the Attorney General considers retrospectivity inappropriate in principle, why did he include it in a 1997 Bill? (5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
Hon PETER FOSS: I am making them one question, for which I have given notice. I have been told that the minister has the answers to both the questions. (1) How many months after the Government took office does the Attorney General hope the new maximum will apply? (2) Does the Attorney General regard this as having been carried out with the urgency with which he promised he would give effect to this change? (3) In view of the fact that the Attorney General said during the Assembly estimates that he hoped the new maximum would apply from 1 July 2003, what problem does he have with looking after the interests of victims immediately by raising the maximum by regulation immediately to the figure promised? (4) If the Attorney General considers retrospectivity inappropriate in principle, why did he include it in a 1997 Bill? (5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
(1) How many months after the Government took office does the Attorney General hope the new maximum will apply? (2) Does the Attorney General regard this as having been carried out with the urgency with which he promised he would give effect to this change? (3) In view of the fact that the Attorney General said during the Assembly estimates that he hoped the new maximum would apply from 1 July 2003, what problem does he have with looking after the interests of victims immediately by raising the maximum by regulation immediately to the figure promised? (4) If the Attorney General considers retrospectivity inappropriate in principle, why did he include it in a 1997 Bill? (5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
(2) Does the Attorney General regard this as having been carried out with the urgency with which he promised he would give effect to this change? (3) In view of the fact that the Attorney General said during the Assembly estimates that he hoped the new maximum would apply from 1 July 2003, what problem does he have with looking after the interests of victims immediately by raising the maximum by regulation immediately to the figure promised? (4) If the Attorney General considers retrospectivity inappropriate in principle, why did he include it in a 1997 Bill? (5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
(3) In view of the fact that the Attorney General said during the Assembly estimates that he hoped the new maximum would apply from 1 July 2003, what problem does he have with looking after the interests of victims immediately by raising the maximum by regulation immediately to the figure promised? (4) If the Attorney General considers retrospectivity inappropriate in principle, why did he include it in a 1997 Bill? (5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
(4) If the Attorney General considers retrospectivity inappropriate in principle, why did he include it in a 1997 Bill? (5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
(5) Will the Attorney General consider raising the maximum retrospectively so as to make that part which is retrospective recoverable only against the Government? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
Hon Peter Foss has just asked two questions, the second of which is in five parts. The answer I have to the first question is short and I have been able to give it consideration. The Attorney General has provided the following response - The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
The 50 per cent increase in compensation payments offered to victims of crime by this Government is in stark contrast to the mean-fisted approach of the previous Government, which refused to increase payments to victims. The increased benefits to victims will be achieved by legislation. I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
I am satisfied that the Attorney General provided this answer, because I recognise the tone. I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
I wish to make inquiries into some of the matters raised in the honourable member’s second question. I received this document when I returned to the Chamber, which was only moments before you assumed the Chair, Mr President. I invite the honourable member to ask this second question next week in the event he is here and gets the call.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.