the headline was changed:
How Fighting a $3 million payout, the state of WA government tried — and failed — to limit payouts to abuse survivorshave its cake and eat it too
Outlets edit stories after they go out, usually without saying so. We keep
what we saw the first time.
The Western Australian government was trying to have its cake and eat it too when it walked into the Court of Appeal last week.
The government wanted to argue it was too much, or shouldn’t have been given at all — a case even the most talented politician wouldn't be able to sell to the public.
The three Supreme Court justices who heard the government's case rejected it on the same day, and this week published their reasons for doing so.
Questioned about the decision on Tuesday, WA Premier Roger Cook said the government acted on "the best legal advice".
Shadow Attorney-General Nick Goiran said questions about the commission's conduct went beyond Mr Barber's case.
5 sentences from our version of the report,
chosen to cover it. Nothing here is written; every line is in the article below.
How
Summarized version
The three Supreme Court justices who heard the government's case rejected it on the same day, and this week published their reasons for doing so.
Headline check
The one thing this headline claims is in the report.
Figures, names and quoted words in the headline, looked for in the report itself — not in the summary above. One claim in this headline could be checked, so this is a narrow pass and not a thorough one. How this is checked
The article, shortened and in plain language
The Western Australian government was trying to have its cake and eat it too when it walked into the Court of Appeal last week.
Child sexual abuse survivor Dion Barber was last year awarded nearly $3 million in compensation for abuse he suffered while in state care in the 1980s and 1990s.
The government wanted to argue it was too much, or shouldn’t have been given at all — a case even the most talented politician wouldn't be able to sell to the public.
A successful appeal would have effectively created a double standard — one for Mr Barber, and one for everyone who came after him.
The three Supreme Court justices who heard the government's case rejected it on the same day, and this week published their reasons for doing so.
In other words, if the government wants to reduce compensation for a victim-survivor, it needs to say it to their face, and the face of every Western Australian.
Questioned about the decision on Tuesday, WA Premier Roger Cook said the government acted on "the best legal advice".
Having a reference point on damages, and answers on how the courts interpret the law, can narrow the scope of negotiations with those remaining 200 people.
The Insurance Commission is the state government's insurer.
Shadow Attorney-General Nick Goiran said questions about the commission's conduct went beyond Mr Barber's case.
"Over $110 million has been paid to over 300 victims in this state," she told parliament, before getting into a shouting match with the opposition.
Shortened to 1 minute
of reading, this version reads 6.7 on the Niral Score.
You are reading our version, not theirs.
This is ABC News's report shortened to its most important sentences, in plainer words, with
verdicts and loaded words taken out. Plain description stays, and so do adjectives
that carry a fact, such as "former" or "federal". The reporting, the facts and the quotations
are theirs — quotations are never edited — and the indicators beside it measure
this version. Hover or tap Adjectives to see every one left in the text.
How this outlet filed it, and how we rewrote it
No other newsroom we read has filed on this event, so there is nothing to compare it with yet.
This story is about a matter before the courts. Comments are closed on those, because what is written under them can prejudice a trial or damage somebody who has been charged with nothing.
If something here is wrong, tell us — that we do read.