These reforms are very timely. This bill significantly expands the category of persons who have been a victim of a crime and who can obtain assistance.

One of the most important features of this bill is the transition of assistance to victims of crime from a court based scheme to an administrative scheme. I think that will be a great benefit to people who try to obtain assistance following the commission of a criminal offence or a criminal act against them.

Under the old scheme, in most circumstances compensation could be obtained only following the conviction of a person on indictment, that is, in the District or Supreme courts. I think it is well known that the process of a defendant passing through a committal stage in the Magistrates Court and then perhaps awaiting trial in the District Court or the Supreme Court could mean that it could take months, if not years, before a conviction might be achieved, thereby enabling a victim of an offence to pursue an application in those courts for compensation.

The process of applying for compensation through the courts itself could become protracted for a variety of reasons, such as difficulties in effecting service on the offender because, as I mentioned, it was an application process that was predicated on the adversarial system where the respondent was not the state but the offender himself or herself.

So despite the best intentions of the act and despite the fact that it made very significant advances on the old and limited scheme under the Criminal Code, victims were really not able to obtain financial recompense for crimes in some cases for years after the offence occurred.

That really defeated one of the most important objects of the act, which is that, for assistance to victims of crime to be most effective, it needs to be provided as soon as possible after the offence occurs.

All the evidence shows that, whether that be direct medical support and treatment for injuries, psychiatric or psychological counseling, or some other form of assistance, particularly in relation to offences that have caused mental or nervous shock, intervention at an early stage is critical.

Unfortunately, under the old scheme, if a victim did not have access through other means to obtain that type of assistance, time would pass and their recovery would be that much more difficult.

This scheme is going to redress the limitations of the current legislation by giving people access to assistance immediately once a crime has occurred without having to make an application to the courts.

I think that is one of the most critical features of the bill and it is a much needed improvement. That will have a very significant effect, particularly on victims of crime in remote areas. In many regional and remote areas of Queensland, people do not have access to the specialist services that people in metropolitan or large centres have.

It would have been quite difficult for people in those areas to get the type of assistance that they needed promptly. But under this bill that will be able to occur. I think it is of critical importance that people in remote areas will be able to make an application in simple form and the assistance that they will need can be assessed promptly and will be able to be provided promptly.

That is going to be a significant aid to their recovery and in dealing with the impacts of criminal offences committed on them. The Member for Burdekin gave an example of an unscrupulous legal practitioner who had been involved in an application for compensation under the old scheme.

Whilst I acknowledge that under the old scheme there no doubt were legal practitioners involved in unscrupulous activity, the vast majority of legal practitioners provided a very, very good service for victims of crime.

I am glad to see that under the new scheme provision is made for payment to lawyers of $500 to assist victims to make applications because there will be times when that legal assistance is required and is helpful.

Whilst under the old scheme there no doubt were unscrupulous operators, it is important to acknowledge that the vast majority of lawyers, as I say, did provide a very, very good service to many hundreds if not thousands of victims throughout this state, many of whom would not have been able to pursue their rights under the old scheme without that assistance. It is important to acknowledge that.

In fact, in many cases I have no doubt that there would have been lawyers who would and did reduce their professional fees very significantly in order that their clients who perhaps received more limited amounts of compensation could still nevertheless, at the end of the day, walk away with a reasonable amount.

Many lawyers that I know personally did just that. Whilst it can at times be fashionable to criticise lawyers for fleecing their clients, and although regrettably in some situations it does occur and did occur under the provisions of the old act, the vast majority of lawyers provided a very, very good service to people seeking compensation under the old arrangements.

There will still be a role for lawyers to help people with applications under the new scheme, but most importantly there will be a reduced need for lawyers because it is not a court based system and it is much simplified.

The details of the bill have been well canvassed during the course of the debate. I will just mention a couple of features. Under the bill we are moving away from a monetary compensation scheme, although capped amounts of monetary compensation will still be available under the new scheme to provide direct assistance.

For the reasons that I have put forward I think that that is a major improvement. Expanding the category of people who are able to apply for assistance is another key feature of this bill and a very, very welcome reform. Under the old scheme, as I indicated, only those criminal offences that were proceeded with on indictment entitled a person to claim compensation.

That left a very anomalous situation where offences, particularly offences of violence which had serious impacts on victims, could proceed in the Magistrates Court, leaving no entitlement for victims to pursue compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act.

There were limited avenues for a magistrate to award compensation for pain and suffering. It was really quite anomalous because the impact on the victim of some types of offences dealt with in the District Court were less than that of those dealt with in the Magistrates Court. Under the new scheme those anomalies have been corrected.

The categories of people who can get assistance under the scheme have been significantly expanded, which is a very good thing.

The scheme enables the state to recover the value of assistance and monetary amounts provided to victims from offenders themselves under the regime of the State Penalties Enforcement Registry.

People against whom recovery action is taken will not be able to escape that by seeking alternative forms that are otherwise available under the arrangements for criminal offences. In other words, they will have to pay the state back rather than perform community service. It is an important part of this bill that the state is able to recover from offenders so that they are accountable in that way for their actions and the impact that they have had on victims.

We have come a long way since 1995 in our recognition of the impact that crimes have on members of our community. Many reforms have put the rights and the interests of victims at the front and centre of our criminal justice system and that is as it should be.

This legislation is another important step in that direction. I commend the bill to the House.