❓ Hon Peter Foss asks about the estimated impact of amendments to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act on compensation payouts, and whether the budget accounted for these changes. Hon Nick Griffiths provides figures for projected increases and confirms budgetary provision.
AnsweredQoN 1533Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I believe this question might have been redirected to somebody else, if the Minister for Housing and Works is not representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister for Housing and Works the Treasurer’s representative? Hon Nick Griffiths: I represent the Treasurer. Hon PETER FOSS: That is okay. I refer to the recently introduced amendments to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. (1) Has any estimate been made of the likely impact of the change on the amount of compensation paid out? (2) If so - (a) over what period is the impact expected to take effect; (b) what is the projected increase in the amount of compensation to be paid over each of the next five years; (c) was specific provision made in the budget for the expected increase, both in this year and over the forward projections; and (d) what was the amount allowed for in the budget that can be attributed to the increase in compensation? (3) If not, why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
The question that I have in front of me is to me representing the Attorney General, but the question is in the same form. Hon Peter Foss: Mine says the Treasurer. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
Hon Nick Griffiths: I represent the Treasurer. Hon PETER FOSS: That is okay. I refer to the recently introduced amendments to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. (1) Has any estimate been made of the likely impact of the change on the amount of compensation paid out? (2) If so - (a) over what period is the impact expected to take effect; (b) what is the projected increase in the amount of compensation to be paid over each of the next five years; (c) was specific provision made in the budget for the expected increase, both in this year and over the forward projections; and (d) what was the amount allowed for in the budget that can be attributed to the increase in compensation? (3) If not, why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The question that I have in front of me is to me representing the Attorney General, but the question is in the same form. Hon Peter Foss: Mine says the Treasurer. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
Hon PETER FOSS: That is okay. I refer to the recently introduced amendments to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. (1) Has any estimate been made of the likely impact of the change on the amount of compensation paid out? (2) If so - (a) over what period is the impact expected to take effect; (b) what is the projected increase in the amount of compensation to be paid over each of the next five years; (c) was specific provision made in the budget for the expected increase, both in this year and over the forward projections; and (d) what was the amount allowed for in the budget that can be attributed to the increase in compensation? (3) If not, why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The question that I have in front of me is to me representing the Attorney General, but the question is in the same form. Hon Peter Foss: Mine says the Treasurer. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
(1) Has any estimate been made of the likely impact of the change on the amount of compensation paid out? (2) If so - (a) over what period is the impact expected to take effect; (b) what is the projected increase in the amount of compensation to be paid over each of the next five years; (c) was specific provision made in the budget for the expected increase, both in this year and over the forward projections; and (d) what was the amount allowed for in the budget that can be attributed to the increase in compensation? (3) If not, why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The question that I have in front of me is to me representing the Attorney General, but the question is in the same form. Hon Peter Foss: Mine says the Treasurer. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
(2) If so - (a) over what period is the impact expected to take effect; (b) what is the projected increase in the amount of compensation to be paid over each of the next five years; (c) was specific provision made in the budget for the expected increase, both in this year and over the forward projections; and (d) what was the amount allowed for in the budget that can be attributed to the increase in compensation? (3) If not, why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The question that I have in front of me is to me representing the Attorney General, but the question is in the same form. Hon Peter Foss: Mine says the Treasurer. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
(b) what is the projected increase in the amount of compensation to be paid over each of the next five years; (c) was specific provision made in the budget for the expected increase, both in this year and over the forward projections; and (d) what was the amount allowed for in the budget that can be attributed to the increase in compensation?
(c) was specific provision made in the budget for the expected increase, both in this year and over the forward projections; and (d) what was the amount allowed for in the budget that can be attributed to the increase in compensation?
(d) what was the amount allowed for in the budget that can be attributed to the increase in compensation?
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The question that I have in front of me is to me representing the Attorney General, but the question is in the same form. Hon Peter Foss: Mine says the Treasurer. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
The question that I have in front of me is to me representing the Attorney General, but the question is in the same form. Hon Peter Foss: Mine says the Treasurer. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
Hon Peter Foss: Mine says the Treasurer. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
(1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
(2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
(c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000.
(d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000.
Hon Nick Griffiths: I represent the Treasurer. Hon PETER FOSS: That is okay. I refer to the recently introduced amendments to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. (1) Has any estimate been made of the likely impact of the change on the amount of compensation paid out? (2) If so - (a) over what period is the impact expected to take effect; (b) what is the projected increase in the amount of compensation to be paid over each of the next five years; (c) was specific provision made in the budget for the expected increase, both in this year and over the forward projections; and (d) what was the amount allowed for in the budget that can be attributed to the increase in compensation? (3) If not, why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The question that I have in front of me is to me representing the Attorney General, but the question is in the same form. Hon Peter Foss: Mine says the Treasurer. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
Hon PETER FOSS: That is okay. I refer to the recently introduced amendments to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. (1) Has any estimate been made of the likely impact of the change on the amount of compensation paid out? (2) If so - (a) over what period is the impact expected to take effect; (b) what is the projected increase in the amount of compensation to be paid over each of the next five years; (c) was specific provision made in the budget for the expected increase, both in this year and over the forward projections; and (d) what was the amount allowed for in the budget that can be attributed to the increase in compensation? (3) If not, why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The question that I have in front of me is to me representing the Attorney General, but the question is in the same form. Hon Peter Foss: Mine says the Treasurer. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
(1) Has any estimate been made of the likely impact of the change on the amount of compensation paid out? (2) If so - (a) over what period is the impact expected to take effect; (b) what is the projected increase in the amount of compensation to be paid over each of the next five years; (c) was specific provision made in the budget for the expected increase, both in this year and over the forward projections; and (d) what was the amount allowed for in the budget that can be attributed to the increase in compensation? (3) If not, why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The question that I have in front of me is to me representing the Attorney General, but the question is in the same form. Hon Peter Foss: Mine says the Treasurer. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
(2) If so - (a) over what period is the impact expected to take effect; (b) what is the projected increase in the amount of compensation to be paid over each of the next five years; (c) was specific provision made in the budget for the expected increase, both in this year and over the forward projections; and (d) what was the amount allowed for in the budget that can be attributed to the increase in compensation? (3) If not, why not? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The question that I have in front of me is to me representing the Attorney General, but the question is in the same form. Hon Peter Foss: Mine says the Treasurer. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
(b) what is the projected increase in the amount of compensation to be paid over each of the next five years; (c) was specific provision made in the budget for the expected increase, both in this year and over the forward projections; and (d) what was the amount allowed for in the budget that can be attributed to the increase in compensation?
(c) was specific provision made in the budget for the expected increase, both in this year and over the forward projections; and (d) what was the amount allowed for in the budget that can be attributed to the increase in compensation?
(d) what was the amount allowed for in the budget that can be attributed to the increase in compensation?
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: The question that I have in front of me is to me representing the Attorney General, but the question is in the same form. Hon Peter Foss: Mine says the Treasurer. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
The question that I have in front of me is to me representing the Attorney General, but the question is in the same form. Hon Peter Foss: Mine says the Treasurer. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
Hon Peter Foss: Mine says the Treasurer. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: My question has Attorney General. However, the question is the same, and the answer provided by the Attorney General is in these terms - (1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
(1) Yes. (2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
(2) (a) Four years. (b) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000. (3) Not applicable.
(c) Yes. (d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000.
(d) 2003-04 - 1 January to 30 June 2004 - $216 000; 2004-05, $572 000; 2005-06, $802 000; 2006-07, $1 009 000.
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.