❓ A parliamentary question is posed regarding delays in increasing criminal injuries compensation, despite election promises. The Attorney General declines immediate action and retrospective application, citing a comprehensive legislative package and concerns about retrospectivity.
AnsweredQoN 1102Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
In view of - (a) the urgency with which the Attorney General viewed the need for an increase in the maximum amount of compensation payable under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act and the promises made to the Western Australian public at the last election; (b) the long and apparently continuing delay in introducing legislation; (c) the number of people who have missed the opportunity to take advantage of the higher rate; and (d) the fact that a competition review of the Act was not part of the election promise (1) Will the Attorney General move immediately to use his regulatory powers to raise the maximum amount of compensation under the Act to $75 000 in accordance with the Government’s election promise? (2) Will the Attorney General include in amendments to be brought before the Parliament a provision backdating the increase to 1 July 2001? (3) If not, why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The Government intends to introduce a comprehensive legislative package into Parliament of which an increase in the maximum amount of compensation payable to $75 000 is part. (2) No. (3) It is the Government’s position that retrospective legislation is not appropriate in this case. It goes against the principle of retrospectivity to impose an additional burden on any party; in this case, potentially requiring an offender to pay more compensation to the State than he or she would have paid had the legislation not been made retrospective.
(b) the long and apparently continuing delay in introducing legislation; (c) the number of people who have missed the opportunity to take advantage of the higher rate; and (d) the fact that a competition review of the Act was not part of the election promise
(c) the number of people who have missed the opportunity to take advantage of the higher rate; and (d) the fact that a competition review of the Act was not part of the election promise
(d) the fact that a competition review of the Act was not part of the election promise
(2) Will the Attorney General include in amendments to be brought before the Parliament a provision backdating the increase to 1 July 2001? (3) If not, why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The Government intends to introduce a comprehensive legislative package into Parliament of which an increase in the maximum amount of compensation payable to $75 000 is part. (2) No. (3) It is the Government’s position that retrospective legislation is not appropriate in this case. It goes against the principle of retrospectivity to impose an additional burden on any party; in this case, potentially requiring an offender to pay more compensation to the State than he or she would have paid had the legislation not been made retrospective.
(3) If not, why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The Government intends to introduce a comprehensive legislative package into Parliament of which an increase in the maximum amount of compensation payable to $75 000 is part. (2) No. (3) It is the Government’s position that retrospective legislation is not appropriate in this case. It goes against the principle of retrospectivity to impose an additional burden on any party; in this case, potentially requiring an offender to pay more compensation to the State than he or she would have paid had the legislation not been made retrospective.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The Government intends to introduce a comprehensive legislative package into Parliament of which an increase in the maximum amount of compensation payable to $75 000 is part. (2) No. (3) It is the Government’s position that retrospective legislation is not appropriate in this case. It goes against the principle of retrospectivity to impose an additional burden on any party; in this case, potentially requiring an offender to pay more compensation to the State than he or she would have paid had the legislation not been made retrospective.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The Government intends to introduce a comprehensive legislative package into Parliament of which an increase in the maximum amount of compensation payable to $75 000 is part. (2) No. (3) It is the Government’s position that retrospective legislation is not appropriate in this case. It goes against the principle of retrospectivity to impose an additional burden on any party; in this case, potentially requiring an offender to pay more compensation to the State than he or she would have paid had the legislation not been made retrospective.
(1) No. The Government intends to introduce a comprehensive legislative package into Parliament of which an increase in the maximum amount of compensation payable to $75 000 is part. (2) No. (3) It is the Government’s position that retrospective legislation is not appropriate in this case. It goes against the principle of retrospectivity to impose an additional burden on any party; in this case, potentially requiring an offender to pay more compensation to the State than he or she would have paid had the legislation not been made retrospective.
(2) No. (3) It is the Government’s position that retrospective legislation is not appropriate in this case. It goes against the principle of retrospectivity to impose an additional burden on any party; in this case, potentially requiring an offender to pay more compensation to the State than he or she would have paid had the legislation not been made retrospective.
(3) It is the Government’s position that retrospective legislation is not appropriate in this case. It goes against the principle of retrospectivity to impose an additional burden on any party; in this case, potentially requiring an offender to pay more compensation to the State than he or she would have paid had the legislation not been made retrospective.
(b) the long and apparently continuing delay in introducing legislation; (c) the number of people who have missed the opportunity to take advantage of the higher rate; and (d) the fact that a competition review of the Act was not part of the election promise
(c) the number of people who have missed the opportunity to take advantage of the higher rate; and (d) the fact that a competition review of the Act was not part of the election promise
(d) the fact that a competition review of the Act was not part of the election promise
(2) Will the Attorney General include in amendments to be brought before the Parliament a provision backdating the increase to 1 July 2001? (3) If not, why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The Government intends to introduce a comprehensive legislative package into Parliament of which an increase in the maximum amount of compensation payable to $75 000 is part. (2) No. (3) It is the Government’s position that retrospective legislation is not appropriate in this case. It goes against the principle of retrospectivity to impose an additional burden on any party; in this case, potentially requiring an offender to pay more compensation to the State than he or she would have paid had the legislation not been made retrospective.
(3) If not, why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The Government intends to introduce a comprehensive legislative package into Parliament of which an increase in the maximum amount of compensation payable to $75 000 is part. (2) No. (3) It is the Government’s position that retrospective legislation is not appropriate in this case. It goes against the principle of retrospectivity to impose an additional burden on any party; in this case, potentially requiring an offender to pay more compensation to the State than he or she would have paid had the legislation not been made retrospective.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The Government intends to introduce a comprehensive legislative package into Parliament of which an increase in the maximum amount of compensation payable to $75 000 is part. (2) No. (3) It is the Government’s position that retrospective legislation is not appropriate in this case. It goes against the principle of retrospectivity to impose an additional burden on any party; in this case, potentially requiring an offender to pay more compensation to the State than he or she would have paid had the legislation not been made retrospective.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. The Government intends to introduce a comprehensive legislative package into Parliament of which an increase in the maximum amount of compensation payable to $75 000 is part. (2) No. (3) It is the Government’s position that retrospective legislation is not appropriate in this case. It goes against the principle of retrospectivity to impose an additional burden on any party; in this case, potentially requiring an offender to pay more compensation to the State than he or she would have paid had the legislation not been made retrospective.
(1) No. The Government intends to introduce a comprehensive legislative package into Parliament of which an increase in the maximum amount of compensation payable to $75 000 is part. (2) No. (3) It is the Government’s position that retrospective legislation is not appropriate in this case. It goes against the principle of retrospectivity to impose an additional burden on any party; in this case, potentially requiring an offender to pay more compensation to the State than he or she would have paid had the legislation not been made retrospective.
(2) No. (3) It is the Government’s position that retrospective legislation is not appropriate in this case. It goes against the principle of retrospectivity to impose an additional burden on any party; in this case, potentially requiring an offender to pay more compensation to the State than he or she would have paid had the legislation not been made retrospective.
(3) It is the Government’s position that retrospective legislation is not appropriate in this case. It goes against the principle of retrospectivity to impose an additional burden on any party; in this case, potentially requiring an offender to pay more compensation to the State than he or she would have paid had the legislation not been made retrospective.
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.