Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this
I move, That the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration.
In March last year National announced it would introduce a $50 levy on all those convicted of an offence, which would be used to assist with expenses faced by victims of serious crime. The reaction was interesting. Members of the families of homicide victims came out into the media in support of that. A couple of weeks ago, the offender levy was again endorsed by groups as diverse as the Sensible Sentencing Trust and those involved in Rethinking Crime and Punishment. However, from the beginning Labour scoffed at the policy, and misleadingly attempted, deliberately or otherwise, to portray the levy as a direct reparation to victims. The same Labour Party promised to “consult widely on an appropriate victims’ compensation scheme.” That was in 1994. Fourteen years later and in its third term in Government, Labour asked the Law Commission to produce a discussion document on victims’ compensation. The previous Government was so committed to that policy that when I debated with the then Minister of Corrections, Phil Goff, on Radio New Zealand National during the election campaign, he had no idea that the Law Commission had released its report 10 days earlier.
This Government is not mucking around, and we are committed to putting victims at the centre of the criminal justice system. We have not forgotten that in 1999, 92 percent of voters agreed with the proposition of the citizens initiated referendum which, among other things, asked whether there should “be a reform of our justice system, placing greater emphasis on the needs of the victims, providing restitution and compensation for them”. We know from the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into victims’ rights that the victims of serious crime often face significant costs that are associated with the crimes committed against them and are not covered by accident compensation, other State assistance, or court-ordered reparation. I want to make it absolutely clear today that we can never legislate away the pain and suffering that the victims of serious crimes such as murder, sexual violation, grievous assault, and other such offences face. We can, however, respond to the practical needs and emotional costs that fall on the victims of serious crime, in particular.
Imposing a levy on offenders to provide for a fund to assist victims is not an uncommon measure. In the United Kingdom the levy is set at a flat £15, and in Canada it is set at Can$50 for summary offences and Can$100 for indictable offences.
This bill proposes to amend the Sentencing Act 2002 to provide that all offenders who have been convicted of an offence must pay a levy of $50. The levy is not a sentence, and its imposition is in addition to any other penalty that the criminal courts may impose, such as imprisonment, community work, a fine, or reparation to be paid to any victim specifically. The courts are not to consider whether the levy will cause hardship, as is the case when a sentence involving reparation is being contemplated, nor is it to be taken into account when determining the amount of a fine. The collection of the levy will be prioritised: after the collection of reparation, but before the collection of fines. To be absolutely clear, no victim will forgo reparations so that an offender can pay the levy. It is estimated that of the 120,000 eligible sentences in the first year, in 20,000 of those cases reparations will be ordered, and in the remaining 100,000 or 83 percent of eligible cases, the levy will be collected first, ahead of any court costs or other fines.
The bill includes provisions that relate to enforcing the levy. To ensure the enforcement regime is as efficient as possible, the proposal in the bill is to take advantage of the current enforcement regime that is in place for collecting outstanding fines and reparations.
The offender levy, which will apply only in the adult courts, will be paid to the Secretary for Justice, who will direct the money to a specific Crown bank account known as the victims’ services bank account. The bill requires the Secretary for Justice to approve any organisation as an approved agency for providing victims with services that are paid for from the victims’ services bank account. I can advise the House that officials are already working on identifying the gaps in services for victims that the offender levies could be directed towards. One that comes to mind is the need for victims to pay for travel to court and parole hearings, which has been identified by Kevin McNeil, the son of Lois Dear, as a particular strain on victims. Because the fund will take time to build up, we will begin by prioritising the victims of the most serious crimes, such as the families of murder victims. The fund will be bolstered by savings made from abolishing the previous Government’s Sentencing Council and Criminal Justice Advisory Board.
This bill will start a process that will fund the provision of additional services for victims of crime for many years to come, a process that should have started many years ago. I commend the bill to the House.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this
The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill could quite possibly be the most controversial of the suite of law and order bills that the Government has proposed, because there is a whole host of unanswered questions within it. Again, here we go, the bill is being rushed through under urgency after Mr Brownlee gave his Golden Globe-winning performance of “Messed-up Standing Orders”—something for which he may have to pay 50 bucks to the victims on his own side. He might be the first to pay as an offender.
This bill will sit before the Justice and Electoral Committee for 6 months, so, again, one wonders why it is being rushed through without consultation. The bill is very interesting when we look at it as a whole. It is about a very strange system, which we will examine in the select committee. It puts aside the fact that the Ministry of Justice tells us that in the period between 2001 and 2008, $146.5 million in reparation was ordered and $116.5 million was paid. So around 80 percent of the reparation that was ordered was paid. I accept that that is not perfect, but it goes some way.
We could have a number of alternative ways of looking at this issue, in terms of helping victims. One could say that if the reparation system is not working as well as it should, then let us deal with that, or one could come up with this bill.
We on this side of the House raise some real problems and questions about it. This bill says that for every offence $50 will be paid upon conviction. That means that if somebody murders somebody, then he or she will pay $50. If somebody shoplifts and is convicted, then he or she will pay 50 bucks. To me, that does not seem right. The scale and the enormity of the tragedy involved in one of those crimes—obviously murder—far outweighs, but does not excuse, the damage or trauma caused by a petty crime such as shoplifting or a petty assault such as a bar fight when somebody takes a swing at somebody. It is not excusable, but I would have thought that committing murder, rape, or serious, serious violent offences would not be equivalent somehow to a $50 shoplifting tax.
It is interesting that Mr Power talks about how reparations will not be undermined. If we actually look at the Act and look at the court precedents we see that courts, when setting reparations—I think as Mr Power said himself—take into account the economic circumstances and the ability of the offender to pay, presumably based on the principle that one cannot get blood out of a stone. We should remember that 80 percent of reparations go through and are paid. I suspect that judges are likely simply to decrease the reparation by 50 bucks. It is their decision; not Mr Power’s, not Mr Brownlee’s, and not the Government’s. It is quite rightfully the judge’s decision. Therefore, the 50 bucks will not go directly in reparation to the victim; it will be taken and then administered.
Then we come to this wonderful thing called bureaucracy. Mr Brownlee, Ms Wilkinson, and all the other so-called specialists on that side paraded round electorates saying they were going to kill off bureaucracy. I would like some answers to some interesting questions. If there are 110,000 crimes a year, this measure will raise about $5 million. What is the cost of chasing the $50?
Ms Collins, the Minister of Police, whose priority is somewhat undefined at this point, has said “There’s no point fining people who don’t pay fines when you’ve got other action to take.” Ms Collins was referring—quite rightly, I have to say—to boy racers, because they do not pay fines, which is why the law was changed. So if people do not pay fines, as Ms Collins quite rightly points out, how on earth are they are going to pay another fine?
What the judges will then do is deduct the fine from the reparation, because the reparation goes directly to the victim. But this $50 will get sucked back into the Ministry of Justice and some sort of bureaucracy. I would like to know from the Government speakers whether they have costed the administration of, firstly, fining the extra $50 and, secondly, chasing the extra $50 from people who, as Ms Collins quite rightly says, will not pay it. Exactly how much is that going to cost?
I argue and take a bet with some of the members over there that based just on the raw figures—the $5 million they will gain from this measure, not the top-up they say they will make—the cost of administrating the measure will far exceed the resource of $5 million that is supposed to help victims. I ask the National Government to reflect on that, because we are going to have a very interesting time examining this legislation.
I say again that $116.5 million was paid—of $146.5 million in reparation—between 2001 and 2008. That is 80 percent. So if one wanted to really help victims directly, as one should, then surely if one was not satisfied that the reparation system was working, one would deal to that, reform it, and make it happen.
My colleague the then Minister of Courts set up a very good system, in terms of fine collections, for situations whereby people want to whip off to Oz or whatever—or Maui, as Mr Key did—and not pay their fines. Say Mr Key, before he went on his Pacific odyssey, had not paid his fines. He could have been stopped at the border and told that he could not go until he had paid them.
This bill is interesting, because it is political theatre from the National Government. It is political theatre, but it will be examined by the select committee. Labour has been criticised, as usual. National members get up on their hind legs and say that Labour did nothing, and all that sort of thing. I have talked about the regime that the then Minister of Courts put in place. Labour was the Government that introduced and passed the Sentencing Act 2002, which introduced a presumption in favour of reparation and resulted in reparation sentences being used more frequently. As I said, 80 percent of reparations are paid. It was the Labour Government of 2003 and the Ministry of Justice that launched a campaign to trace owed money, because—and, again, Ms Collins is right—people try to evade paying fines. There was an advertising campaign and other resources were put in. Before that is criticised I point out that we established a collection centre and further bolstered collection and disbursement of reparation. In 2003 $9 million was allocated in the Budget to hunting that money down and trying to get it directly to victims.
It was Labour that passed the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, which ensured that victims of inmates awarded compensation could claim against that compensation using all practical measures. That was a particularly important measure, because people have said, quite rightly, that if a person is inside and something happens to him or her, then there needs to be a sanction. Two wrongs do not make a right, but that person should not benefit as a prisoner from that compensation while victims of the original crime sit outside and get nothing. So that was dealt with.
I ask National members—and it will be interesting to see whether speakers look at this—what the cost of this measure will be. How will they stop a judge from lowering the reparation? I do not see a clause directing a judge to maintain reparation and not lower it by 50 bucks because the person may not have enough dough in the eyes of the judge.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
And they will laugh, as my colleague says. So that is $50 that does not go directly to the victim. But everybody will pay the same: the shoplifter will pay 50 bucks, the murderer will pay 50 bucks, and the rapist will pay 50 bucks.
Chris HipkinsHon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
Yes. How much will it cost to collect it? It does not go to the victim; it goes into the bureaucracy. I am sure Treasury will have a view, as it had a view—which was scathing—on the DNA bill. We will have a wee chat to Treasury about the administrative cost of collection. I remember all the National Party MPs railing against bureaucracy. That is a problem.
I wonder also what the murder victim’s family will say about the amount being 50 bucks, which they will not see. I wonder what that family will think when they see the shoplifter come in and pay 50 bucks. What will they think when they see the rapist pay 50 bucks, and when they see the guy who has assaulted somebody in a bar and given them a bit of a nudge pay 50 bucks?
This bill has not been thought out. This bill is tantalising for the public, and I mean no disrespect to the public. They expect that people should pay, and that is why Labour set up a whole series of victim support measures when it was in Government. I can understand people saying that this measure is not a bad one, but it will be really interesting to see in a year’s time, or whenever this legislation gets through and is being administered, how much of the 5 million bucks—as Mr Heatley grins like a Cheshire cat—
Hon Phil HeatleyHon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
Maybe he looks like the other end of a Cheshire cat. It will be interesting to see Mr Heatley go to his constituents and explain to the murder victim’s family and to the rape victim why the $5 million disappeared into the ether and was sucked up in administration costs. It will be interesting to hear Mr Heatley explain why this bill is a piece of political theatre rather than something substantial.
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) Link to this
Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. Despite Mr Cosgrove speaking about political theatre, he was pretty unclear about whether his party would support this bill’s referral to a select committee. I have a feeling that there is a fair amount of political theatre going on on that side of the House, and that Labour members are supporting the referral of the bill to a select committee. That is political theatre indeed.
The Government is here today, it was here yesterday, it was here the day before that, and it was here the day before Christmas to deliver on the promises and the commitments that we took to the public at the election in 2008. The New Zealand public are out there singing to the hills that they are finally seeing a party that is delivering on the promises it made during an election campaign, and delivering in spades, whether in terms of the commitments we made regarding taxation, health, education, or infrastructure. We are here in the House delivering upon the issues that we took to the electorate. In the area of taxation, it has been great to see the small to medium sized enterprises bill. It was also great to see the commitment we made about restoring our district health board in Hawke’s Bay be ticked off on. In terms of education, it is great to see national standards being rolled out, and in the area of infrastructure it is great to see some fantastic projects, including the Matahōrua Gorge project, which has been brought forward in Hawke’s Bay. That is absolutely outstanding.
But in respect of the law and order policy, there is probably not a Minister who has spent more time working since Christmas than Mr Simon Power has. We need to acknowledge the effort that that gentleman has put into the law and order portfolio in order to make sure that he delivers on the promises and commitments he brought to the public at the election. We need to acknowledge not only Mr Power but also his team—
Paul QuinnNo, he was not skiing overseas. His team have worked until midnight and past to deliver these bills to the House. It is fantastic. I think we should acknowledge the hard work they have done, as well as Simon Power.
This bill is an initial response to the Government’s concerns about how our society should respond to the financial and emotional costs that fall on the victims of crime, particularly on the victims of serious crimes such as murder, sexual violation, and grievous assault. But that is not quite correct: it is actually a response to the public’s concerns, and this Government—unlike the Labour Government—actually responds to the concerns of the public. We have been out there listening and we are here responding because it is the public, over a number of years, who have been saying the Government should get out there, look after victims, put a victims’ compensation scheme in, and deliver compensation—the Government should do something. Here we have members on the Opposition side of the Chamber talking about political theatre, but we are actually delivering on something, and now the bill is going to a select committee where the opportunity will be there for it to be kicked around. We will be able to look at the different opportunities with regard to this bill there. I am confident that we will see a very robust, sound bill come out of the select committee. It will be one that the public of New Zealand will be proud of. I think that is absolutely fantastic.
I will talk about three particular cases from my own electorate that have been very difficult cases to handle as an electorate MP. The first one came up only a few months after I was elected, back in 2005. It was the Mōhaka rape case, whereby a young woman had been stalked by her neighbour in Napier. The gentleman was a P user. He bundled her up in his car, took her out to the Mohaka Forest, and did unmentionable things to her. That poor woman had very little, if any, support. We, as a community, had to rally behind her to fund-raise out of the community, even just to pay for replacing some of her clothes that had been taken away for sampling for DNA purposes, and for other reasons. It was appalling. I think that this is the type of legislation that can put together a fund to help men and women—particularly women such as that woman—in such situations.
The second case I will talk about is a case that involved a child sex offender in Napier who had been sent to Napier from Auckland and housed in a Child, Youth and Family home next door to a young woman. That gentleman was not looked after as he should have been. We can spread blame around, but effectively the caregivers did not look after that gentleman. He jumped the fence into the young lady’s backyard, not once or twice but seven or eight times. She had a young daughter and initially thought it was not much of a problem and that he was just one of the neighbour’s boys jumping the fence. Then she found out that the fella who was jumping into her backyard was a convicted sex offender. One can just imagine the terror that that young woman and her daughter must have felt. It was appalling. And where was the help for that young woman? Once again, we had to lobby for support to actually get her shifted from that home, because it was owned within the family, and to get all the legal fees paid so that she could move to another home out of that particular area. A victims’ compensation scheme will help. It might not provide all those costs, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. That is what the New Zealand public have been asking for: just a small contribution, or some sort of contribution.
The next case I will talk about is a much more recent case in Hawke’s Bay: the Ongaonga case. Young Mr McCutcheon was murdered outside the Ongaonga pub when he went to help a woman who was being whacked by a gang member. His young family, a wife and three daughters aged 6, 4, and 2, have been left on their own without the husband and father who was to have been there for the rest of their lives. It is unthinkable what that woman and her family will have to go through. So this legislation, again, is a step in the right direction towards providing some form of compensation. I will not stand here and say it will deliver the earth, because it would be difficult to do that. But it will be a form of reparation that will actually help with some of the costs and support that a family like that needs. We all grieve for a family like that. We all sit back and say “My God! Why should a woman and her family have to go through that?”. It is just unthinkable.
I am confident that this bill will be a step in the right direction, taking small steps to get there. It will be going to a select committee, where it will be looked at in detail, and we will come out of that with a very strong bill. The initial fund will be funded by the $50 levy, and I am sure that the levy will be debated in the select committee. I am sure that that issue will be thrown around and there will be submissions on it. Whether the levy is enough will be a matter of debate in submissions, I am sure. But the fund will be precipitated by an amount of $5.8 million from the recently disbanded Sentencing Council and the $90,000 that will be made available by disbanding the Criminal Justice Advisory Board. The levy is just a small amount to get the fund going. I say to Mr Cosgrove, who was talking about political theatre, that real money is actually going into this thing. There is real money to start it off.
I am absolutely proud to be standing here tonight as a member of the National Party, delivering on the promises that we took to the election. We said to the New Zealand public that yes, we had been listening to what they had to say. We had been hearing that they wanted to see more support for victims and the establishment of a victims’ compensation scheme. Tonight we are here, delivering that scheme. Thank you.
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this
Discussions around legislation such as this will always draw out quite heartfelt stories of heinous crimes and the victims they leave in their wake. I think it would do a disservice to this House to purport that either side does not feel massive amounts of sympathy for those victims. That is not what we are here to debate; we are here to debate whether this bill will do anything for those victims. Labour members have various strong reservations about that. Although we support this bill going to a select committee, that is so that we are able to have a constructive discussion on the support that is in place for victims, and also so that we can expose the political theatre that this bill represents.
I will go on to discuss why it is mere political theatre, but I will begin with two points I wish to highlight. Our reservations are based on the fact that this levy does not make criminals directly accountable to their victims. In fact, it makes them accountable to the State through a tax. As I will demonstrate, the bill takes the levy away from the victims, because it is likely to be deducted from reparations. Secondly, the cost of collection—this is something my colleague Clayton Cosgrove touched on—is likely to outweigh the cost of the levy itself. I will also expand on that.
Firstly, I will go over the accountability point. The explanatory note of the bill states: “The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that offenders contribute to addressing the harm they cause to victims.” How will they do that? They will do that through a levy. They will pay 50 bucks to the Secretary for Justice, it will then be transferred to a victims’ services bank account, and it will sit there, go through a bureaucracy, and be churned out the other side. How does that show direct accountability to the victim of that crime?
I can tell members that we already have in place systems and mechanisms that draw out accountability for crime. Restorative justice is one of them. That is one of the most direct ways that a criminal can be brought to account in regard to his or her victim. The second way is through reparations. Those who have read the Sentencing Act 2002 will know that it requires the court to impose a sentence of reparation unless the court is satisfied that such a sentence would result in undue hardship. We directly imposed a requirement on judges to place higher priority on direct reparation to victims. What has been the consequence of that? It has been significant. The Ministry of Justice has stated that, as a result, $148.4 million in reparation was ordered between 2001 and 2008. That equates to about $21 million per annum over 7 years. It is much more direct and it is much more significant than the offender levy that members on the Government side of the House are talking about.
One might argue that more money in the pot is good; that if we add on an extra 50 bucks per person, it will equate to $5 million and that can only be good, right? Wrong! It will come at the cost of that direct reparation to victims. How will that be? Well, clause 4 amends section 12 of the Sentencing Act 2002. It states that when a judge is considering an award of reparation he or she must consider undue hardship; he or she must take into account ability to pay. If the judge knows that 50 bucks already has to be paid, regardless of ability to pay, that 50 bucks will come off the reparation. So the Government is saying to the victims that it will give them their reparation, but it will whip 50 bucks off it and stick it in a State bank account, which will cost a huge amount to administer, and therefore the sum that goes back to the victims is likely to be much depleted. The Government is robbing from reparation and putting the money in a different account.
Where will the new money come from? It is likely to come from offenders guilty of victimless crimes, because under the Sentencing Act 2002 everyone else is required to pay reparation where possible.
Having outlined that issue with regard to the bill, which I would be very eager to hear the Minister’s response to, I come to the issue of administering the account itself—the cost of issuing the $50 levy and collecting it. As we have already heard, ability to pay is not being taken into account any more. First of all, there is not much that can be said based on the explanatory note of the bill; it has a very weak regulatory impact assessment. There is almost no analysis of collection costs. In fact, there is a very telling statement in the explanatory note, under the heading “Costs”: “the costs relating to the collection of the levy in the first year of operation. It is anticipated that over time the revenue generated from the levy will cover ongoing collections costs . . .”. It says that “over time” we will be able to cover the cost of collection. How long will it take for the levy itself to cover even the cost of administrating it? Eventually it “will rise to sufficient levels to fund services for victims of crime.”
Eventually. I know that the select committee will be very eager to see a full cost-benefit analysis. This bill has been rushed through so quickly that one has not been included in the explanatory note.
What do we have to go on to assess how much collection might cost? Well, it helps if we look at the existing legal ability to collect fines. Of course, it is held under the Summary Proceedings Act, which contains an extensive code for the enforcement of payment of fines. What can the State do to collect its 50 bucks? It can issue a warrant of seizure of property. That sounds quite expensive, if you ask me; perhaps there would be a bailiff call-out. If that sounds as though it could be a bit much, one can make an attachment order that deducts a specified amount from the offender’s salary or wages. We know that if the offender is working for a small to medium enterprise, a deduction order on the offender’s wages will come at a cost to the business owner—so where is that going? One could issue a notice requiring the bank to deduct a specified amount from the offender’s account. Banks will love that. Or one could publish a notice in a newspaper containing the name, last known address, and age of the offender. I believe—someone may correct me—that the cost of a classified ad these days is about $45. That will give 5 bucks at the end of it.
One could also refer the matter to a judge, who may impose on the offender a sentence of home detention, community detention, or community work. That is saying: “Sorry, you did not pay your $50; come back in, and we will deal with you with another court sentence.” I am not sure—perhaps the Minister could clarify—whether the offender is charged an extra $50 offender levy at that point. The court may issue a writ of sale against the personal property of the offender, or a warrant for the collection of the fine. It may impose a period of imprisonment, community work, or community detention.
A final option, something that the Labour Government introduced to improve the collection of fines, is fines collection at airports. That is one final mechanism, but I note that generally we use it only for fines of $5,000 or more, such is the cost of that method of fines collection.
I question which of those mechanisms the Government will choose to use to collect its $50 levy, and I question as well what the total cost will be.
I want to highlight, finally, that in considering this bill it is necessary that the Government reconsider what is involved in providing a comprehensive suite of mechanisms for victims. The Labour Government looked well beyond compensation. We looked at direct reparation, as I have talked about, but we looked well beyond it. We introduced the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002, and the Evidence Act in 2006 to enable people to give evidence in a way that protected vulnerable people. We amended the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act to ensure that victims of youth crime could attend Youth Court hearings, and we introduced the Victims Charter. We also promised $1.7 million in 2008-09 to establish a central contact point for victims that would provide information, and additional services totalling $5.8 million in 2008-09 and $6.2 million in subsequent years for an independent victim advocate/support person for victims of domestic violence. It is not just about travelling to court; it is about the place we give the victim in the entire justice system. That is what Labour concentrated on when it was in Government—the totality of the package.
What we have seen from the National Government is political theatre. It is conning the public, it is conning victims, and victims will only be let down if this offender levy legislation is allowed to go any further.
METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this
I am not intending to spend a great deal of time on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. It has been an interesting day, I have to say.
Well, it has—the member has to confess. It has been interesting.
The Green Party fully supports any kind of system that will provide greater support for victims. My colleague Nandor Tanczos was lauded for his work in initiating the inquiry into victims’ rights that took place, I think, in the Justice and Electoral Committee over a long period of time, and a great number of recommendations came out of that work.
This bill is not a real response to those concerns. It is an election promise and it sounds good—a $50 levy on all offenders. It is a great thing to go out and campaign on, if that is the sort of thing that tweaks one’s buttons. But in terms of policy and effectiveness in achieving the objectives and the outcomes, particularly those that are set out in the bill itself, it fails, and on that basis the Green Party will not support it at this first reading.
We are very pleased that there will be, at least, a select committee process, and we look forward to hearing what submitters say at that time in addressing a number of issues, and I will discuss some of those issues in a moment. We may well decide that the bill will be effective in dealing with some of these concerns and change our view on it, but at this stage there is really not enough in it to justify supporting it at this point. That is particularly true when we look at the background in the explanatory note, where it talks about the bill being “an initial response to the Government’s concerns about how our society should respond to the financial and emotional costs that fall on victims of crime, particularly victims of serious crimes such as murder, sexual violation, and grievous assault. Underpinning the Government’s concern is that failing to recognise and acknowledge the interests of victims in the justice process, or failing to address the negative impact of crime on victims, risks eroding victims’ confidence in the justice sector’s ability to deal effectively with crime.” That is an entirely laudable position to take; this bill fails to meet those concerns.
I agree with many of the issues that have been raised by the Labour members and I appreciate Jacinda Ardern’s very clear elucidation of those. How will imposing a $50 levy on every offender meet these objectives? The cost recovery alone will eat up the levy. In fact, the Government itself confesses that the administration of the levy will eat up those funds for a very long period of time before they become available to victims. So it is just a self-perpetuating tax of no advantage to victims, except at some long time in the future that has failed to be determined yet. Victims will not be getting access to this money any time soon, and the cost recovery will be enormously expensive.
The $50 will go to the Government, as was just described, so there is a real issue there. It will not go to the victims anyway. It will go into Government coffers, and the Government will fund programmes to support victims who need to have access to court, or it will give support in other ways. Hopefully, at the select committee we will see how that will happen, and what kinds of costs for victims will be funded through this levy.
I acknowledge that Kim Workman from the Rethinking Crime and Punishment project has expressed a great deal of support for this levy. He has talked about it as a way of finding the funds to meet the costs of restorative justice conferences—not the conferences themselves, but victims’ access to those conferences—and to help victims access and visit the offenders who committed the crimes against them, so that they can engage in some of these more constructive processes. That money is not really available to victims at this stage. Money being made available would be very useful. Unfortunately, because the administration of the levy will cost so much, this money will not be made available to those victims for a very long period of time. The concept works; the practicalities do not.
Indeed, it is very much the Green Party policy that supporting restorative justice has to be the No. 1 priority for dealing with the issues of victims and the issues of offenders in trying to reduce reoffending rates. There are many different kinds of restorative justice processes. There is not just the restorative justice conference where an offender is brought together with his or her victim to try to resolve some issues. There is a confrontation. It is one form—a very intense form—of restorative justice, but it is not the only way we can have restorative justice programmes. There are things like the Sycamore Project, where a group of offenders and a different group of victims are brought together. That is extremely helpful because it enables those offenders and victims to talk about their experiences without having any personal relationship between them.
There have been lots of really good examples of offenders, actually—who are the ones who need to change their behaviour and their attitude—saying that if they had had to confront their own victim, they would not have been able to make the progress they did, because they would have been so defensive and angry that they would have just closed themselves off. Being able to talk with other victims, who have allowed their stories to be part of those programmes, enables offenders to address those issues in a safer environment for them, and there is also opportunity for the victims to do exactly that—to confront issues of offending in a safer environment for them. There are other ways of dealing with offender issues, too, where victims can be part of those processes. Sometimes they involve Māori units in prisons, or faith-based units in prisons, where there is a connection between the community and the offender.
These are very good programmes, and all of them need support. The victims who are part of those programmes need practical support to get access to those programmes, to get information about them, to get transport, and all of those sorts of things. This levy will not provide those things because it will not be made available to them. It will be eaten up by administration until some distant time in the future.
At the select committee we will look for information about who actually will pay this levy. There are real issues around structural racism in the legal system. We do know that Māori are more likely to be stopped by the police—I have described that before in the House—more likely to be arrested by the police, and more likely to be convicted than other population groups. That is a form of structural racism against the Māori population, and particularly against Māori men. If a levy like this is imposed on them, it will have a particular impact on that population group because of the structural racism inherent in the system.
So who will pay this levy the most? We need to find out that information as well. What is the cost-benefit analysis of this levy in terms of cost recovery? How will it be recovered? Will it really come out before fines? What will be the difference? Will it not just be considered by an offender to be another part of the fine? To what extent will an offender be learning from having to pay this levy? Will it really make a difference to the offender’s attitude, as opposed to paying reparation, which often does? How will resources for restorative justice programmes, and support for victims involved in those processes, be funded out of this levy? Again, looking at the victims inquiry and the recommendations that came out of that very big body of work, we need to see whether this bill meets those objectives and whether it will take them any further.
The Greens will remain open-minded during the select committee process on this legislation. We want to see real victim-centred policy that will provide systems for victims to have their issues redressed as far as possible, economically, socially, and personally. That is why we support restorative justice, as we do. We know that those programmes also reduce reoffending and make the community safer. So we will be very open-minded about what happens in the select committee, but until we see evidence that something that is really just an election campaign promise can actually produce the results intended by the bill, we are very reluctant to support this legislation. Thank you.
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this
I rise to speak on this first reading of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. This bill is one of a number agreed to by the ACT Party in our confidence and supply agreement with the National Government, and for that reason we will be voting in favour of it today.
I appreciate what the Government is trying to do. It understands that there has been a failure in recent times to address the interests of victims. Too often victims are subjected not only to emotional and physical scars, but also to further harm through financial costs. Members will know that I have worked actively with the Sensible Sentencing Trust for 5 years or so, but I am not going to do as Ms Ardern suggested members might and roll out a number of cases. I think that it is wrong to do that, and everyone knows them, anyway.
Before moving on to the bill itself, though, I will pay tribute to the Labour Government, which introduced the Victims’ Rights Bill, because that was a significant step. When one goes to law school, one of the things they teach that seems very strange to a lay person—or to a lay person like me—is that the victim has no status. A case is named, for example, “The Queen v Brown”, and Mr Smith, or Ms Smith, who was raped or killed, is really an irrelevance—or was 20 years ago when I was at law school. So the Victims’ Rights Bill introduced by the Labour Government was a significant step in at least giving the victim a status in the criminal justice process, and I commend the Labour Government for doing that.
The problem with this bill, I am afraid—and the finger has been put on it fairly well by speakers on the Labour side—lies in the simple problem of extracting the $50 levy. The amount, clearly, is not enough in itself, but here is the catch-22—or one of the catch-22s, for reasons that I will go into in a minute. Fifty dollars is nowhere near enough, but even that will not be able to be extracted in many cases, so it is pointless making it $150.
In the old days, judges would order a fine of X dollars, or, in default, 14 days in prison. I personally would be very much in favour of returning to that system rather than having what we have now—huge levels of unpaid fines. But that would not help victims, either. Fourteen days in prison if an offender did not pay a levy—so what? It does not help anyone, as other speakers have said, get to conferences or pay for losses that have been suffered. Mr Cosgrove, over on the Opposition benches, said that 80 percent of reparation is paid. When I saw that reported on television, it sounded awfully high. Then I thought about it, and of course the reason that 80 percent of reparation is paid but $780 million in fines is unpaid is that reparation often has a significant effect on a sentence. If the lawyer for the criminal stands up and says: “And reparation has been paid, your Honour.”, or says that $500 or $1,000 has been paid to the Salvation Army, that affects the sentence that is handed down.
So I am not surprised that reparation is paid at a fairly high rate. But fines are effectively voluntary in this country now—except if an offender wants to travel overseas, as Ms Ardern has said—and every day judges write off huge amounts of fines. If a young offender whose income is $25,000 a year accumulates 30 grand in fines, when the level of fines gets high enough the judge writes them off. It is an entirely unsatisfactory system. So I am afraid that I cannot see that collecting this levy will be particularly practical, and that is leaving aside the administration issue, which appears to be quite uncertain. But given that the levy has a different status from a reparation payment—it has a different status from a fine, as well, but it is more akin to a fine than a reparation payment—I cannot see why offenders would be particularly keen to pay it. We need to remember that, by definition, the people who will be subjected to the levy will be criminals, many of whom will have their lifestyle subsidised by the State and/or have no legal income. So I do not know where or how the levy will be collected. We will see the kind of situation we have now, where $10,000 in fines is ordered to be paid at $1.25 a week, then eventually is written off.
However, ACT still supports the bill because it is a step in the right direction, as others have said. The problem with the levy and the payment thereof can be solved, surely, in other ways. This is not ACT policy, but my personal view is that one way would be to divert speed camera fines to this fund. I personally have been subjected to a few of those. I would imagine most members of the House have, and one feels unjustifiably embittered that Government coffers are being swelled by 50 bucks or 200 bucks, or whatever it is. I personally would feel better if that speed camera fine was going to a victims’ fund. But that is my personal view; it is not ACT policy. That is one idea; there must be others.
So we support the bill because it is a good idea. We support it because it recognises victims’ rights and victims’ need for compensation. Ms Ardern, I think, correctly said that the Pay or Stay campaign at the border has been effective, as has seizing defaulters’ cars. So there are other ways. The level of the levy is clearly inadequate. When we think about the logic of it, we realise that we pay insurance to cover the possibility that our house might be burned down, for example. But only one in a thousand houses burn down; the premiums on the other 999 are invested in the Bahamas, and reinsurance schemes pay the company’s profit and the cost of whoever’s house has burned down. But in this bill every criminal will have at least one victim and sometimes more than one. Every victim will have at least $50 in tangible costs, but probably more like $500 in tangible costs. So the level is quite inadequate, but, as I said at the beginning of my speech, there is no point in making it $200 if we cannot even collect $50.
In conclusion, ACT supports the bill in principle and because we are committed to doing so, but there has to be a better way, and, hopefully, that will emerge at the select committee, or the very bright people out in the community will come up with a better way to fund the proposed scheme.
RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this
The word “victim” has taken on tragic connotations this week with at least 180 people confirmed dead and a death toll predicted to rise to about 300 people from the ferocious wildfires in Victoria, Australia. Over and above the suspected arson, there have been reports of looters robbing from the dead—stealing precious memories from the families left behind.
Victims come in many forms: they may have been offended against directly; their property may have been lost or damaged; or a family member may have died or may be unable to make decisions about his or her welfare. Victims may have been psychologically traumatised, physically abused, sexually violated, or emotionally harmed. They may be financial fatalities, having fallen prey to the actions of corporate crooks such as the nine directors of failed finance companies Bridgecorp and Nathans Finance. If we think of Bridgecorp, for instance—which I try hard not to do—we are thinking of some 14,300 victims owed a grand total of some $459 million, including my small savings.
The Māori Party believes that the country should invest in a restorative justice system where victims are empowered and where Government agencies work with whānau to support them on issues affecting them. We are mindful that there are particular concerns around the disproportionate overrepresentation of Māori in victims of crime. Māori victims experience almost twice as many victimisations as non-Māori. Even worse, Māori women victims have the highest victimisation rates, with an average number of 4.8 reported offences per victim. Māori women are overrepresented among victims of domestic violence and are more likely to experience repeat victimisation from a partner. Māori are 50 percent more likely to be victims of property offences like theft, and twice as likely to fall prey to violent offences. Interestingly, the high rates for Māori and Pacific peoples have been linked to other risk factors associated with victimisation; they are more likely to be young, unemployed, sole parents, and to live in more socio-economically deprived areas.
All those are part of the group we might loosely define as “victims”. The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill responds to the moral imperative to support and respond to the needs of this group, giving new meaning to the concept that crime never pays. All offenders convicted of a criminal offence must pay an offender levy of $50 at the point of sentencing. It is a levy in addition to any other fine imposed on the offender, such as a prison sentence, community service, a fine, or any reparation to be paid to the victim. In its most basic form, the Māori Party supports the concept of what is essentially a crime tax. We support the contention that offenders should contribute in a tangible, practical way towards addressing the harm that their offending has caused.
Of course, although the $50 fee is a start we are under no illusion that it is a straightforward solution to the complex range of problems that are associated with victimhood. The Māori Party wonders, firstly, whether all victims will be eligible, and if they are not, what the specific criteria will be to determine who can access the fund. We look forward to attending the select committee to hear the experience of providers and advocacy groups around whether all convicted offenders should be required to pay the levy or whether there should be exceptions, and, similarly, whether all victims will be entitled to have access to the service. In particular, we will be interested to learn whether all prisoners will have access to the fund and its services, if they are victims of crime while incarcerated. This is a situation of especial relevance to the situation of many female inmates, of whom an estimated 90 percent have been identified as survivors of sexual abuse. Researchers describe it as poly-victimisation, in which offenders may well reveal a history of extensive sexual abuse. A Ministry of Health survey of New Zealand prisons found that more than a third of women inside had experienced post-traumatic stress disorder. So the question we would ask of the Minister is whether such offenders, who are also victims, will be able to claim support.
Another set of concerns for the Māori Party is that this initiative may push open the door for privatisation and whether there are any long-term implications for the operations of the accident compensation scheme. There is also the more philosophical question around the value of financial reparation—the levy and the fine—in contrast with what we might broadly call the loss of enjoyment of life. Perhaps, instead of compensation alone, there could be work undertaken on alternative strategies to produce benefits for those who have offended and those who are offended against. I am thinking of something like Aroha Terry’s work with SL Group Ltd. SL Group has been developing a programme designed to provide healing techniques and solutions from the inside out. The programme Te Mana Wānanga gives emphasis to the restoration of the mana of offenders, victims, and whānau through the promotion of key concepts—wairua, tinana, tīpuna. I believe this is an area where far more emphasis could be given, if we are to truly support more recognition of victims in the justice system.
In the victims’ rights inquiry undertaken by the Justice and Electoral Committee, one of the key concerns put forward was the need for improved support services for complainants and victims, including information, legal advice, and counselling. A biggie from that inquiry was the need to improve access to restorative justice. Under the current system of justice, a victim of crime is hardly acknowledged in the process. If anything, the victim’s role is likened to that of a witness, with victims feeling they have been sidelined in the whole process. My colleague Te Ururoa Flavell has been calling for a marae-based restorative justice system in the wake of the slaying of the young boy in Murupara. It would be a process by which everyone faces up, eyeball to eyeball. Nā te whakamā mātou i patu; it is about the group bearing the burden of the collective shame. I whakamā mātou mō ngā mahi i mahia e tētahi o mātou; we are ashamed of what one of us did.
This bill and the associated offender levy are an important stage in empowering the victims of crime, and, at the same time, forcing offenders to face up to what they have done and to make it right. The levy is, however, only one part of a much bigger issue about how to create a more humane and more restorative justice system. The current system of justice is failing Māori and, indeed, New Zealand. The Māori Party is determined that we must see much more change in the system as a whole, if we are to achieve a system that truly promotes justice over injustice, that demonstrates fairness instead of bias, and in which all participants have due access to the law. Kia ora.
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this
It is a great pleasure to take a call and speak in favour of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill after Rahui Katene, who gave a thought-provoking and thoughtful speech on the wider issues of justice in relation to victims and victimisation. It is also good to be on my feet because, although Labour members might not like to hear it, this Government clearly has a mandate to pass this law. It is something we talked about again and again on the campaign trail. It is certainly something I talked about and it is something the people of Tauranga were very, very glad to hear about.
This bill takes a very positive step towards greater rights for victims. It is a step towards putting victims at the centre of the justice system, and that is entirely as it should be. This is something that is very dear to my heart. In my maiden speech I spoke about victims, victimisation, and the neglect of victims by our criminal justice system. This bill helps in two very real ways, as well as in other ways. It helps victims to travel to and from court and it helps with additional counselling. Let me deal with those points one by one.
Hon Steve Chadwick Link to this
What a big help, with the trauma they have been through. That’s an insult.
I can hear the Labour members. For many of them who live in Wellington Central it is not far to the closest court; it is a nice walk down the road. There might be a bit of wind but they will be there very quickly. However, in most parts of New Zealand it is a very long way to the courthouse for the victims. In Tauranga and its surrounding areas—
I am surprised at Steve Chadwick, whose husband I have a great deal of time for and with whom I have done jury trials. He well knows about the victims.
The court in Tauranga services much of the Bay of Plenty. It services Whakatāne, which is an hour and a half away; Ōpōtiki, which is two and a quarter hours away; and Te Kaha, which is nearly 3 hours away, making it a round trip of 6 hours to get to and from court. Sadly, for many victims coming to and from the jury trials and sentencing it is a 6-hour round trip.
The victims of crime are, disproportionately, poor people—those whom the Labour Party says it stands for. Metiria Turei says it is Māori who will be paying. I say to her that the victims who will benefit from this bill will also be Māori. They will get the benefit of offenders paying this levy, and that is a good step.
Of course, the poor do not come to Tauranga the night before the court date and stay at the Sebel. They do not come to Tauranga the night before and have a nice meal out; they come very, very early in the morning to meet with the police or the prosecutor. Frankly, they have more than enough to worry about. Coming to court is a traumatic enough experience for them, and worrying about travelling costs is the last thing they should be doing. It is traumatic enough that they will be in court opposite the family members of the accused—of the criminal—and that they will be there in the same court as those who have intimidated them before and who will be intimidating them again. I know that Steve Chadwick knows about this. It is the kind of thing that can make a grown man cry.
Those people have enough to worry about without having to worry about travelling and the costs of getting to and from court. Fifty dollars or $100 would make all the difference to those people. It is hard enough getting to court, let alone having to worry about the economics of it.
I agree with Labour members that this measure is banal and ordinary, but it is practical. It is a practical step towards more rights for victims. It is funny, because Labour started to do a reasonable job for victims. It passed the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002, and in doing that it allowed victims to read the victim impact statement in court, and many a victim is empowered by that. I am surprised that Labour members cannot put politics aside and support this practical measure towards helping victims and doing something for the victims of crime.
One has to wonder whether Labour is now the party of the criminal. It liberalised the bail laws. It made it easier for criminals to get bail. It liberalised the parole laws and made it easier—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice about that comment, Mr Assistant Speaker. I suggest that labelling a party “a party of criminals” is right out of order.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) Link to this
The member is skirting a bit far into insinuation. I think it would be appropriate for him just to continue but to mind his language.
Measures passed by the Labour Government, such as liberalising the bail laws, did not help victims; they helped the criminal. Labour members do not like to hear it, but Labour liberalised the parole and sentencing laws, and here we have a bill that helps victims and puts them first in a small and modest way, but Labour members cannot support it. Labour members put politics first in this debate. It is cheap point-scoring ahead of helping victims in Te Kaha, Whakatāne, and places that Steve Chadwick knows about, yet she cannot bring herself to speak wholeheartedly in favour of this bill, which supports women, children, the disempowered, the weak, and the vulnerable—those who are the victims of crime. Getting $50 from offenders goes towards making a lot of money to help those who need help the most.
I want to say something about the morality and value of this bill. It is good that offenders contribute to addressing the harm they helped cause to victims. Labour members do not believe in cause and effect. They think they can do whatever they like and it does not matter, but in National we believe in consequences for what we do. With this bill, offenders will be putting money forward to help those who have been collectively hurt by crime in this country. It is good, and it is right that those who cause harm and are culpable should be held accountable. That is just desserts; that is accountability. Those are values that the National Party and the National Government are very much in favour of.
The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill is a good bill. It is a very positive step in a journey towards having greater victim rights in this country and putting victims at the centre of the criminal justice system, which is as it should be. Labour seems to have forgotten about victims in all of this. It puts petty politics first. We certainly will not, and I commend this bill to the House.
SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this
It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the House for the first time in 2009. Unfortunately, I would prefer that it was on a bill that I could wholeheartedly support. Labour is supporting the referral of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill to a select committee, though it is doing so with significant reservations. We have already heard that Labour is not the only party that has reservations about the bill. In fact, it is hard to find a party that is wholeheartedly supporting this bill through its first reading and referral to a select committee, because all parties except the National Party have already expressed their significant reservations about the bill.
This bill does carry on a theme that the Government has demonstrated, in its first 100 days of action, of making itself appear to be busy working in a way that our grandmothers would have called “making very busy work”. If people are not familiar with that saying, I tell them it was used to describe people who went around looking as though they were very, very busy and trying very hard to look as though they were generating a lot of outcomes, but who did not actually have any outcomes. “Making very busy work” typifies the National Government’s first 100 days of action.
This bill is another very good example of “making very busy work”, because although the Government is trying very hard to look as though it is doing something substantial that will make a big difference, everyone has identified in this debate so far—apart from the members on the Government benches—that this bill tinkers around the edges. That is another theme that has developed in this Government’s first 100 days of action. It tinkers around the edges. When it comes to victims’ rights, when it comes to looking after victims and looking for victims’ compensation, then this bill also tinkers around the edges. Many speakers have already indicated that that is the case.
This bill also typifies the new National Government’s legislation, because it misses the mark in terms of what it is trying to achieve. It reminds me of the employment relations amendment that National brought in late last year under urgency too—“making very busy work”, again under urgency. At a time when job security was on the minds of most New Zealanders, I ask what the National Government rushed into this House to do. It rushed in to undermine job security for working people, again completely missing the mark. New Zealanders are after job security. What did the Government introduce? It introduced legislation that undermines job security. It is doing the same thing here. National has responded to a very genuine concern within the New Zealand community about victims and their needs under difficult circumstances to have certain costs met. I think that is a genuine concern by our communities. However, National has picked up that concern as some sort of political theatre—some sort of political game—and has brought out this legislation, which just tinkers around the edges.
As we have heard, National believes it will be able to impose a $50 levy on criminals and collect that levy without too much drama, cost, and bureaucracy. We know National is the party that does not like administration and does not like bureaucracy, so that $50 will just be handed over and find its way into the hands of victims! Clearly that will not happen. It is completely naive to believe that that would happen. I listened very carefully to the Government speakers on this bill and heard them finding it very difficult to justify the levy. They resorted to telling stories about very tragic crimes—heart-rending stories, and true stories. But this bill will do nothing to address those concerns.
I am sure one of the Ministers must agree with that. Recently we heard the Minister of Corrections, Judith Collins, admit that fines for crime do not work. She said: “There’s no point fining people who don’t pay fines when you’ve got other action to take”. That was Judith Collins talking about fining boy racers. She is agreeing with me; she is nodding. I wonder whether she is willing to support this legislation, which, in fact, exactly demonstrates her point. The Government is asking for a $50 levy, but it will most probably not be able to collect it without going through a whole lot of drama, costs, and yes, folks, good old bureaucracy that is needed in order to administer this fund.
Even in the best-case scenario the calculations are that if everyone paid up, if it did not cost too much, and if it was based on the number of offences committed—not the number of offenders committing them, because we do not know what that all means—it might gather $5 million. I know the Government does not like to admit this, but the measures the Labour Government took had a much larger impact than any of that: $116.47 million was paid in reparation because of law that Labour passed through this House. That was paid directly from criminals to victims. There was no bureaucracy along the way. Nothing was taken out of it—no costs, and no concerns about getting that money. It was paid directly across to victims. The $5 million that we may or may not get pales into insignificance in comparison with $116.7 million. Whether we get the $5 million, it will cost us money anyway. We may get it one day, but we still have not seen any regulatory impact statements to that effect.
This bill tinkers around the edges. It misses the mark. It is “making very busy work”, and, of course, we are doing it in urgency, so it must be very important and it feels very important. Not only are we debating this bill under a bungled urgency but also—and I apologise to my good colleague Clayton Cosgrove—it is what I would call a Clayton’s urgency, because we actually have not been here beyond 10 o’clock on any night this week. I am not sure how that counts as urgency, but it looks as though we are doing a lot and it makes the Government look as though it is taking this issue very seriously. But we have not been working urgency hours at all as we have been debating this bill.
I want to talk about the impact of this scheme on women, because as we know—and many other speakers have referred to this already—women are disproportionately the victims of crime. I want to make sure that we do something important in this area. I noted that in almost all of the stories that we heard before, women were the victims of those crimes. It is very important that we take responsible action about that. Labour had already asked the Law Commission to look into the best options for setting up a proper victims’ compensation scheme. We need a proper victims’ compensation scheme, not this tinkering around the edges. We and every party apart from the National Party in this House seem to understand the reality of why this scheme will not work.
In conclusion, I say we are talking about $50—three blocks of cheese, probably, on the current market. That is what getting tough on crime is about under the National Government. Of course, we are doing this bill in urgency. We are “making very, very busy work”, but it will not have the necessary impact. I think that really characterises every piece of legislation that has come before this House so far under this National Government. There has been a lot of heat, but not much light, and practical outcomes will not be there at the end of the day. Labour will support this bill going through its first reading and its referral to a select committee. We are very pleased to see that at least one bill brought to the House by this new Government will have some public input through a public submission process. This one certainly needs to be given a lot of scrutiny by the public.
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) Link to this
I am pleased to rise tonight to take a call in support of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill, which will set up the victims compensation scheme that this country has been looking for for some time. This scheme is intended to help victims with one-off expenses that are not already covered for them, such as travelling to and from court, additional counselling, and the sorts of things members have heard my colleague Mr Bridges talk about in his excellent speech. It helps victims and it supports them.
I ask this House why offenders should not be held accountable for the extra costs that they put on victims. Why should they not be held accountable? It is a general principle in our law that if a person causes someone cost, or does someone harm, it is up to that person to put it right. Why should we as a Government not demand that offenders contribute to and be held accountable for the extra costs that they put on their victims? We are not prepared, as a Government, to sit back and let that cost sit with victims, who have had no hand in causing it, while the offenders keep that money. We will make the offenders stand up and take some more accountability for that. We are sick of hearing the all too frequent horror stories of when victims are further traumatised by having to deal with this extra cost. Members have heard that this scheme has already been endorsed by many of the significant victims’ rights bodies. These people know what will help victims, and they are endorsing it. This mirrors what already happens in many overseas jurisdictions; we are hardly out on a limb here.
I suggest that members who are listening to people in their electorates—as I have done in Selwyn—will know that law and order is a massive issue for the people in our communities. I know that it is a massive issue in Selwyn. After the economy, it is the single-biggest issue and the single-biggest concern that people in our communities have. This National Government is listening to them, and we are focused on helping them. If law and order is concerning them, then it is concerning us. We are a Government that gets things done; we do not just pay lip-service. We will not spend 9 years paying lip-service to victims’ rights; we will get things done. This is yet another example of us doing exactly what we said we would do when we were out on the streets talking to people.
We are prioritising law and order bills in the early part of this parliamentary term for that reason—because we know that this is what New Zealanders are looking for. They have not had it, and we will give it to them. All our law and order policies are part of a wider strategy to make sure that we can reduce the number of victims that we have in New Zealand. We want there to be fewer victims. It is not a radical concept, but it is about time somebody stood up and said so. We want there to be fewer victims, and we want to help victims deal with the impact of crime on them. We want to lessen that impact. I wish that we could take the impact away from victims. I wish we could. We cannot, but what we can do is to assist them with some of those additional financial costs that currently fall on their shoulders.
Fifty bucks is more than the zero bucks they are getting at the moment. We have already heard that under the victims’ compensation scheme there will not be hardship waivers. I think that is a good thing, because it is a clear signal by the National Government that victims’ rights are more important than offenders’ rights. It is pretty simple: victims’ rights are more important than offenders’ rights. It will not in any way reduce or lessen the sentence those offenders have to serve, or the reparations or fines they have to pay. We are here to put victims first, which is why this levy will be paid before court costs or fines.
You see, we do not think that bureaucracy is more important than victims; we think that looking after victims is more important than bureaucracy. That might be a hard concept for the members on the other side of the House to deal with, but we think that victims should get their money before court costs are paid. That is why, in this victims’ compensation scheme, we have taken funding from two underperforming bureaucracies. We have funding of $5.8 million coming from the disbanded Sentencing Council, and the $90,000 it costs to run the Criminal Justice Advisory Board. The National Government has said: less bureaucracy, more help for victims.
Phil TwyfordI know bureaucracy is a matter dear to Mr Cosgrove’s heart, and I know he would like to see more bureaucracy, but we would rather help victims, and we make no apology to him for that. [ Interruption] I do not think I have sat down.
Interestingly enough, victims have been promised compensation schemes for more than a decade by the Labour Government and the Labour Party. By my reckoning, for close to 15 years Labour has been talking about having a victim compensation scheme. We have not seen it. Nothing has been delivered. It was 1994 when Helen Clark stated: “Labour also intends to consult widely on an appropriate victim compensation scheme.” Well, we know how much Mr Cosgrove loves due process, but is 15 years enough consultation for him? In 2005 the Labour Party election manifesto once again stated: “Labour will inquire into the level of immediate financial support available to the victims of serious crime, especially homicide.”
Hon Gerry BrownleeNo, and Labour was going to examine the options for providing more support—lip-service! Labour members are prepared to talk about it, they are prepared to look into it, but have they done anything? No, they have not.
I stand here as the representative of the people of Selwyn, and I know that the people of Selwyn are looking for a Government that gets in behind victims, that helps victims, that says victims are more important than offenders, and that says to victims that it will hold those offenders accountable and make them contribute to compensating for the harm they have caused victims. We put victims first. We recognise that more needs to be done to support them. The psychological impacts of crime are bad enough. As I have said, we wish we could do more to help victims with those impacts, but what we can do is to help them financially. We will give them more money than they ever got under the previous Labour Government, and I am very proud that we are doing it. It has not taken us 15 years of talking about it; it has not taken us long at all. We said we would do this over the campaign period, because we listened to our people. We listened to the people and we know that putting victims first, and saying that victims are more important than offenders, is what New Zealand is asking for. Rather than just talking about it, we are going to do it. Thank you.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
I repeat what has been said by previous speakers from around the House: we all feel for victims and we all wish that more could be done for them. Unfortunately—
Nathan GuyWe are voting for the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill to go a select committee. I seriously doubt whether it will have our vote once it comes back from the select committee, because it does not withstand scrutiny. The issue here is this: why pay more than $50 to collect $50? Essentially, that is the equation here.
The regulatory impact statement included in the bill from the Government—wholly inadequate as it is—refers to the fact that extra costs will arise for both the court and the ministry collections. Vote Courts will pay. It will cause additional cost, both in the court process and in collections. I will just drill down on that point a little bit, because no one from the Government has. Its totally inadequate regulatory impact statement does not have even one figure in it as to these costs.
The Opposition has asked members of the Government repeatedly to give us some estimate as to what the cost is. This estimate has not come from them, so I thought that I would look at the Budget documents and see how much is spent on the collections vote in order to get some estimate of what this measure will cost. It just does not make common sense to me that we can recover $50 from an offender for less than $50. I do not know of any corporate people who recover $50 debts from unwilling payers, because it costs more than $50 to do it. Quite apart from the court filing fees, the processing time costs more than $50. I thought I would look into this. How much do members think the appropriation is for fines collection by the courts?
Hon Dr Richard WorthI tell Dr Worth that he is out by a factor of 10—the appropriation for fine recovery and civil debt collection is $66 million, the vast majority of which is for fine collection. The appropriation is $66,232,000.
Let us think about this. How many offenders come to court and do not go into the fines collection system? There are quite a number of them. Quite a number of them get community service or periodic detention and do not have to pay a fine. We have heard from the National Government that everyone will be in this system.
Another fiction being run here is that, somehow, this will always add an extra $50. Well, an offender makes a statement of position that goes up to the bench, and the judge thinks about what is realistic reparation, because there is no point in being completely unrealistic. The court may add on $50 for victims of crime, but often the amount will be taken off the fine, the reparation, or the court costs. So, in reality, if we take these things into account, $50 less will be paid by offenders.
Let us put that aside and assume that the full $50 is added. We will tease that point out at the select committee, and I think we will get an acknowledgment from officials that, in reality, $50 less per offender will be asked for. But let us assume that the full $50 is asked for. What will have to happen that does not happen now? The court will have to do something extra for every offender that comes before it.
It will be another transaction for the court.
An estimated 100,000 offenders go through the court system every year, which means that 100,000 people will pay the $50, and that is where we get the $5 million figure from. Currently, $66 million is spent to recover about $200 million worth of fines. If we look at the $5 million as a proportion of all fines collected, we see that this cannot be done for less than 10 percent of the cost of collecting all fines, and no one is kidding himself or herself about that. We cannot collect the amount from everyone rather than just from some people and say that it is likely to cost no more than 10 percent of what is currently spent on the collection of fines.
We know that that amount is currently over $60 million. So this will add about $5 million to $6 million to the cost of fine collection for the Ministry of Justice.
I say to Mr Power that we will dig down on this at the select committee. He should be embarrassed with the outcome, because this is poor policy. He wants to pay $5 million to victims, and that is a good thing to do. But why does he not just pay it out of the money already being collected from fines? That would be far more cost-effective. Why spend more than $5 million to collect $5 million? He is wasting taxpayers’ money. It will cost more than $5 million in order to collect the $5 million, and he as much as acknowledges that fact in the regulatory impact statement. He states that it will be some years before enough money is collected to cover even the start-up costs: “It is anticipated that over time the revenue generated from the levy will cover ongoing collection costs and will rise to sufficient levels to fund services for victims of crime.” The Government will not collect any money from this; this will cost money.
We look forward to exposing this point at the select committee. I am pretty confident that this bill will be so discredited that in the later readings it will not get the support of as many parties in this House as it will do at the first reading.
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) Link to this
The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill deals with a very important principle that many New Zealanders feel has been insufficiently appreciated and acknowledged at a Government level, at least for the last 9 years, and possibly longer. Having been subjected to the barrage of speeches and interjections from members opposite for the last half an hour or so, I can say that it is quite clear that New Zealanders are absolutely right in coming to that conclusion.
I am proud to be part of a Government and to support a Government that is demonstrating its responsiveness to the electorate. Do Labour members not know what New Zealanders are saying about crime? Do they not care what New Zealanders are saying about the consequences of crime? The National Government has come into office with a very clear mandate, and it is demonstrating its absolute determination to put victims’ rights and concerns at the forefront of criminal justice policy. I am absolutely gobsmacked that Labour members say they want to support the bill but have said absolutely nothing in this debate so far to demonstrate that they mean what they say they intend to do. Few subjects have provoked greater anger in the Hamilton West electorate than the sharp rise in violent crime during the term of the last Labour Government, when many victims suffered greatly but appeared to be forgotten in the legal proceedings that followed, if, indeed, any legal proceedings did follow the crime.
So the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill is a very important step. It is only a step, but it is an important step towards acknowledging that it is victims who should receive our support and compensation, not those who inflict the misery upon them. That is the principle that clearly eluded Clayton Cosgrove when he focused solely on the administrative costs associated with the scheme, and on Labour’s sorry record in this area. Mr Cosgrove claims that he supports the bill, but it is absolutely impossible to detect anything in his speech that demonstrates why he came to that conclusion. Jacinda Ardern, Sue Moroney, and David Parker all followed him in a similar vein. All were more concerned with costs and process than with dealing with the substantive issue. It is absolutely fascinating to hear Labour speaker after Labour speaker claiming that the bill will not work and that it is just a piece of theatre. When my colleague Simon Bridges was speaking I think I even heard Steve Chadwick say the bill was an insult to victims, and Clayton Cosgrove definitely made that remark when Amy Adams was on her feet.
Apparently, even though the bill is an insult to victims, Labour will support the bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Well, that sounds like a totally unconvincing each-way bet to me, and it will not fool any of Labour’s disillusioned voters, who abandoned them in such great numbers at the polling booths last year.
Absolutely no one will be fooled. Those members and other members opposite have demonstrated that although they have made all sorts of empty promises over a dozen years and more, Labour, throughout its term of office, consistently ignored the needs and concerns of victims, and now it is in real danger of making that same mistake again. Those members can scoff at this bill and ignore the issue as much as they like, but they need to reflect on the mess they bequeathed to the new National Government, which will do something about cleaning it up. They need to realise that their soft approach badly let down those most deserving of help in our justice system.
Yes, it will make a difference, I say to Mr Twyford, and that is why we are doing it. I say to Mr Twyford that its success will be measured by the increased assistance that victims receive with their one-off expenses that are not currently covered by accident compensation, with their travel costs to and from the court—well, apparently that is a bad thing for members opposite; I cannot see why that is—and by additional counselling, which I would have thought members opposite would welcome.
The levy is set at a rate that most would agree is far too low to compensate victims—there is no argument about that—particularly those who are victims of our most serious crimes, but it is an important first step towards refocusing our justice system on the needs of victims. It should be noted that the Government will also introduce measures to improve the services that victims receive, and to enhance victims’ rights. In other words, it is part of a bigger package.
The simple fact, which may be unpalatable to members opposite but they should be quiet and think about it for a moment, is that New Zealanders voted overwhelmingly in support of this matter just 3 months ago. We are absolutely determined to get on with the job that New Zealanders elected us to do. I commend this bill to the House, and so do the overwhelming majority of my constituents in Hamilton West.