In Committee
Part 1 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour)
: I am pleased that we now have the opportunity in the Committee stage to expand on some of the debate on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill, which started last evening. I think that Part 1 sits at the core of some of the debate that was had, particularly at the Justice and Electoral Committee. Part 1 sets out the order of priority for the payment of the various types of infringements—or punishments, for want of a better word—that can be imposed on an offender at the time of sentencing.
There was quite a lengthy discussion at the select committee about what order the levy, existing fines, and reparation should go in, and also about whether judges should take into account, in the payment of each of those, the ability of an offender to pay. I want to highlight something here when I refer to the ability of an offender to pay. I am not undermining the importance of an offender being held to account for the crime that that offender has been found to have committed. Of course, that is the primary purpose of an offender being brought before our judicial system, and reparation is a very important part of that. But I do see a role for a judge in taking into account the financial circumstances of an offender—the offender’s ability to pay—when awarding reparations, fines, or, in fact a levy. That is important because if a judge awards reparations or a fine that is completely ludicrous and outside the realms of possibility of the offender’s ability to pay, that undermines the system. It not only undermines the system but also creates an expectation for a victim in an unfair way, if the reparation is unable to be paid. So I think there is a balance to be struck between accountability and keeping the viability of a scheme. I guess that in the view of the victim it is about a level of magnitude, but I wanted to make that point.
The discussion that was had at the select committee was very much around the impact of the levy on reparation. I think the select committee agreed that reparation was probably the most important payment that was awarded by a judge, because it is a direct payment from an offender to a victim. Not only does it highlight the accountability
question but also it is a direct restitution of sorts to the victim, in a way that an offender levy never will be. But although the reparation will remain the first thing that must be paid, the judge also cannot take into account the awarding of a levy when reparation is awarded.
We had a big discussion at the select committee about whether it was possible to enforce that. It was a big question. I just want to highlight the way in which it has been set out in Part 1. The proposed new section 12(1A), inserted by clause 4, states: “When considering undue hardship or other special circumstances … a court must not take into account that the offender is required to pay a levy under section 105B.” How does one do that? How does one ensure that when a judge is making a decision on the size of reparation, the judge is not taking into account the payment of the levy? Some might argue that the levy is so small in size that it would not matter, but that raises the question of what the purpose of the levy is in the first place. It is something that the select committee had a significant discussion about.
Clause 6 talks about determining the amount of a fine. It states: “Section 40 is amended by adding the following subsection: ‘(5) When considering the financial capacity of the offender under subsection (1), the court must not take into account that the offender is required to pay a levy …’ ”. So we see that the primary aim of the Government is to have a broad-brush levy, and that it is not to take into account whether the majority of offenders will be able to pay the levy. I think that risks spending an inordinate amount on chasing levies—small levies—across the entire spectrum of offenders before our courts. That raises a question about the legitimacy of the scheme, because if the primary aim of the scheme is to help victims, surely we would try to set it up in an efficient enough manner that we reduce the administration costs as much as possible and we maximise the use of the levy as much as we can. Therefore, we would surmise that the best way for the Government to do that would be to do what we do with fines and reparation, and that is to take into account the offender’s ability to pay.
That leads me to believe that perhaps building a pot of money for victims is not the sole aim of this bill. In fact, I think there is a political message here. The Government is sending a political message that it is tough on crime because every single person who comes before the court will be fined a $50 levy. Perhaps I would have more sympathy for that if it were not for the facts that it will cost $7 million over 4 years to administer a political point and that we will probably get only $7 million into a fund for victim support at great expense and with a great administrative burden. Perhaps it would be better for the Government to look at different ways of ensuring that Victim Support has greater funding and support, or reparation—
Paul Quinn: Obviously failed School C. maths!
JACINDA ARDERN: That is my rough memory of the calculations made before the select committee.
Paul Quinn: Well, they’re completely wrong.
JACINDA ARDERN: I may have them slightly askew, but there were also estimates that it would take 30,000 offenders for this account to break even.
Paul Quinn: You sure you’ve got those right?
JACINDA ARDERN: I would be happy to provide Mr Quinn with those figures, because they were quoted in media reports. There are many other, greater ways in which we can ensure we support victims.
I find it slightly contradictory that we are here discussing this bill, given the changes to accident compensation, and in the light of changes to the criteria for who is eligible for counselling in relation to the victims of serious crimes. I think it is unfortunate that the Minister will not acknowledge that there is a significant difference between the rules that have previously been issued and those that are being administered now.
- Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
JACINDA ARDERN: Before the dinner break we were discussing the split in cost between how much would actually be collected and returned to, presumably, the victim support scheme, and how much would go into administration fees. I will clarify some of the figures I was talking about before the dinner break. Originally, it was thought that perhaps this scheme could collect up to $5 million a year for victims, but that was scaled back to a prediction of about $13.6 million over the first 4 years. Then, of course, we need to subtract what was estimated at $1.3 million—the cost to set up the levy—and an estimated $1.5 million per year in order to run it. That was the point at which I was previously talking, in rough terms, about a halving of the amount that was collected and the amount that would flow on through. That was something I wanted to clarify for the benefit of members on the other side of the Chamber.
In regard to Part 1, we have already talked about the order of priority between reparations, the levy, and fines. I will touch briefly on the amount of the levy. Externally it may seem that the blanket choice of $50 as a levy is quite an arbitrary figure. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s explanation as to why $50 was chosen as the amount that we would apply across the board. I wonder whether it was thought that at $100 one would then have to switch to adding in the disclaimer regarding the ability to pay, or whether that would considerably reduce the number of people who would pay. I am interested in the explanation behind that, and I am also interested in the following questions. If we treated the levy in the same way that we treat fines and reparations by factoring in the ability to pay, would we have been able to considerably increase the amount that the levy could be, and could we have also significantly reduced collection costs?
We would carve out some of the costs if we were already taking into account whether we would spend half our time chasing people around the country, and potentially arresting them and locking them up, for not paying their levy. Perhaps we may have found ourselves in the situation where we would not be talking about such a considerable chunk being taken out for administration costs. Perhaps we could have talked about putting significantly more—more than $50; something more meaningful—into a pot of money set aside specifically for victims. Perhaps we would not be—unnecessarily, in this case—raising expectations for victims about what they might receive.
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui)
: It is good to be able to take some time to address some of the matters that have been raised in the debate on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, made a number of comments about the ability to recover the levy; why the levy has been set at $50; the ranking of reparation, fines, and the levy; community-based sentences and the levy; and the cost of administration. It is interesting to note that the way the court now looks at the recovery of moneys is that reparation sits at the top in priority. Reparation is generally ordered as well as a community-based sentence, or frequently a custodial sentence, and also where a fine has been given as a sentence. So reparation is being paid to the victim or the complainant. It has priority, so it is the first money that is obtained. And so it should be. Community-based sentences go hand in hand with reparations and do not affect their recovery, and energy is put in by the collections unit to get their mitts on the money that is reparation and to forward it to the victim or the complainant. Fines can be commuted to community-based sentences or to prison, and so they should be, but reparation never is.
We heard at the Justice and Electoral Committee—and the previous speaker was obviously there and able to hear all this, so I am surprised that she does not quite have a
handle on it just now—that a lot of time would not be spent on the recovery of a levy, especially if all that was left of a sentence was the recovery of the levy, because of the size of that levy. We also heard that the reason why it was set at $50 is that when we look internationally at comparable schemes, we see that this is about the same dollar figure between currencies. That is why a $50 levy was chosen. We also took into consideration the size of the levy and the likelihood of recovery. If the levy was, say, moved to $100, it would be harder to recover. It may be more worth spending energy and resources on the recovery of a big amount.
What we are aiming for here is for all people who are convicted of an offence before the courts to have a $50 levy imposed on them. We know that the vast majority of them will have no problem in paying it, so we are expecting an initial compliance with the levy of 68 percent straight off. That will glean for the Crown, and therefore for the victims’ fund, about $13 million in the first 4 years. Initially we heard the fairly rash statement from the previous speaker that about $7 million would be obtained but that it would cost about $7 million to recover, so there would be basically a nil gain. That was the initial statement from the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern—
Jacinda Ardern: Stop splitting hairs, Chester!
CHESTER BORROWS: She can tell I was listening. One has to wonder therefore why an astute Labour Party that now finds itself in Opposition would even vote for this legislation. I am not sure that the member even told the Committee that the Labour Party would be supporting it, but for those who were interested and those who are listening at home, I say that Labour is supporting this bill. One has to wonder why, if we take into account the scheme as outlined by the previous speaker. The reason Labour is supporting the bill is that it actually puts victims first. This is what the public want in this country, and this is where we are going.
Let us just examine the fall-back position of the previous speaker, who said the scheme would gain about $13 million over 4 years, and it would cost $6.5 million to $7 million to recover that $13 million. Well, the figures we were given at the select committee showed that the total cost of recovery moved over the 4-year period between $1.126 million and $1.344 million, but the net gain was going to be $2.932 million in the year 2009-10, up to $4.395 million in the year 2013-14. That is actually net revenue, which means it is the revenue after those administrative and recovery costs are taken out. This scheme will recover for the cause of victims of this country $13 million that is not currently able to be gleaned, to cover the costs of being a victim or a complainant. That is a very, very good thing, and I am proud to be part of a Government that has taken that stand.
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice)
: I apologise to the Committee of the whole House for my absence prior to the dinner break. I would like to take up Jacinda Ardern’s question about how the amount of the levy was arrived at. When we were in Opposition we had time on our hands to look around other jurisdictions at how this levy may work. We managed to look at a number of jurisdictions—from within New Zealand, I might add; we did not have to travel overseas to do it—
Hon Lianne Dalziel: What happened to the drivers of crime?
Hon SIMON POWER: I tell Ms Dalziel to watch this space. Just so that members are aware of this, I say that other jurisdictions tend to have a split levy. A good example is New South Wales, where it is A$140 if a person is convicted on an indictment or pleads guilty, split to A$60 if a person is convicted otherwise than on an indictment or pleading guilty. In the Northern Territory the levy for an adult is somewhere in the vicinity of A$60, and A$40 for any other offence that is not one following a prosecution on an indictment. In South Australia, where Mr Cosgrove’s good friend is from, a split levy is run also—[Interruption] Indeed. I say to Mr Cosgrove that it is split three ways,
somewhere in the vicinity of A$20, A$70, and A$120, depending on what the criminal offending is. I will leave Tasmania for one moment. Looking at—
Grant Robertson: It doesn’t support the Minister’s argument!
Hon SIMON POWER: Not at all; quite the contrary. I just wanted to get on to Canada. Canada has a more complicated system whereby a percentage of any fine is imposed on the offender as a levy, which is not the case here. In the absence of a fine, it is Can$50 for summary conviction offences and Can$100 for indictable offences.
When we looked at all of those examples from around the world, it struck us that a tiered system would only add complication to the process. Once we had looked at the range of options that were available to us, we settled on $50 as being a reasonable and payable sum within the context of those international examples.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri)
: In Part 1 of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill I want to look particularly at clause 4 in respect of reparations, which states that a court must not take into account whether an offender is required to pay a levy. Chester Borrows, the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, will recall that I sat in for a number of sessions on this bill. There was quite an interchange with officials about how judges would act in respect of dealing with hardship. Mr Borrows himself said reparations are the top priority, and in respect of the levy the legislation says one cannot take hardship into account. In respect of fines, Mr Borrows made the very good point that a court could commute a fine into, I heard him say, a community-based sentence, and that is correct.
Without criticising our judges, I say to the Government that judges are not fools. Of course a judge would comply with the provision in clause 4, but let me put this to the Minister: if a judge was faced with a case of personal hardship, he or she would acknowledge the $50 levy. If the fine was to be $250 and there was hardship involved, it may be that, as Mr Borrows said, the judge would choose to commute the fine to a community-based sentence. Or it may be that a judge, knowing that a person cannot pay—and I am not defending the offender here; I am just looking at the practicalities of this matter—may say although he or she had the idea of fining the offender $250 at the back of his or her mind, instead the fine will be $200, plus, of course, the levy. In my view, that proves that although we are supporting this bill—and I make that very clear to Mr Borrows—this part of the bill is something of a mockery.
This bill has been very well hyped by the Government. We all believe in the principle of assisting victims, and that is why we did a number of things while we were in Government that we will touch on later, including enacting the Victims’ Rights Act, which gave victims the ability to claim against any compensation monies that criminals receive—and the list goes on. I have to say that this levy tugs at the heartstrings of victims. I will make a couple of predictions. One is that Jacinda Ardern is right and, in essence, we will find that the costs of collection will outstrip the monies that are collected through the levy. I remember asking officials what the problem would be with simply providing that when judges fine somebody, they just up the fine by $50, or, in the case of reparation, they put $50 on directly as part of the reparation and use the existing reparation system. Some answers were given about that; I was not convinced by them. This levy tugs at the heartstrings of victims.
I come back to my point that judges are not fools. They will look at the offender who is before them. They have a menu of sentencing arrangements and options before them, including prison. Mr Borrows said another option was commuting a fine to a community-based sentence, which judges can also do. There is also the offender levy. I think one reason that the Government would not support including the $50 directly in reparation or simply saying it forms part of any convicted person’s fines and
arrangements, and we can use our existing collections system, is that it wants to use the levy as a political pamphlet. It wants to be able to say there is a levy of $50.
There is another issue in respect of Part 1, because the levy is $50 per offender. In the select committee we canvassed the issue of someone who walks into a pub, gets into a brawl, beats up three folks, faces three assault charges, and is fined $50. We could make the argument that $50 divided by three is too little—that it is virtually nothing and will make no difference. Where there are a multitude of offences, the levy is not per offence but per offender. I think people in the community have supported this measure because they like the notion of offenders contributing compulsorily to the well-being of victims. The community has a notion that offenders should pay something back, and I think we would all support that. However, the question is whether this bill—and I say it has the whiff of a political pamphlet about it—will do what it intends. If the Government was serious about helping victims, it could have chosen to take the money it says it will get and, without any bureaucracy, to fund Victim Support directly with $15 million or $16 million. The Government could have given the money directly to Victim Support, the eminent group that it is, and said that because it deals with victims every day and interacts with and supports them, it knows exactly how they feel. The Government could have decided to cut the bureaucracy and fund Victim Support, and to chase those who have outstanding fines.
The question is whether this levy will work. Even Judith Collins, the moderate and venerable Minister who has made modesty an absolute virtue in the police and corrections portfolios, has herself admitted that fines—and essentially this is a fine; it is called a levy, but it is a monetary imposition on an offender, and there is not a lot of difference from a fine apart from the use of another word—do not work. In the
New Zealand Herald on 2 February 2009 she said “There’s no point fining people who don’t pay fines when you’ve got other action to take.” That is what the Minister of Justice’s own colleague said. It is interesting that when we look at a paper in the Ministry of Justice’s own name called
Structure of Operations in the Ministry: Proposals for Consultation, we see that people who owe the offender levy will be grouped based on their “willingness and ability to pay and their attitude towards compliance”. Well, that is tough, is it not? That is the Government talking really tough! So offenders will be grouped based on their attitude towards compliance. In English that means that if the levy is all that someone owes, no one in the Government will come after him or her. If offenders know the Government is not going to come after them, I suspect their attitude will be that they will not pay. That is human nature. It shows that the Government is prepared to tolerate targeting only those offenders who are likely to pay, while the hard-core fines defaulters whistle off into the ether.
We will support this bill and let it pass through the House, and I address this point, which Mr Borrows made: why would we do that if we have problems with the bill? I believe the legislation will be ineffectual, although it is well intended—and I take the ministry’s word on that—but it will also bring a point of accountability over the next year or two. When we see that it is not working, and when victims’ heartstrings have been tugged by this Minister and the Government, then we will see whether this Minister will go to victims’ groups, such as Mr Garrett’s Sensible Sentencing Trust, speak at their conferences, and explain to victims why the Government has let them down and why this offender levy is not delivering on the promises that were made. Substantial promises have been made by this Government. I take up Jacinda Ardern’s point in respect of costs. We have some precedent regarding costs in the fines collection world. The cost of administering yet another layer of fines will be greater than the money that comes in for the victims. The Government could have used other mechanisms if it had wanted to do so.
Another issue was raised before the select committee, and I do not raise this issue lightly. It is that somebody who commits a heinous offence—and every offence, even burglary, is heinous—is fined $50 for murder, $50 for shoplifting, $50 for rape, and $50 for burglary. I acknowledge the point made by the Minister in the chair, Simon Power, about tiered levies and tiered fines, but I say he is sending a pretty awful signal to victims. A rape victim will not get a cheque for $50 sent to him or her, but there is, sadly, some symbolism around the lack of value that is attributed to the grief, tragedy, and trauma that the person has gone through. I will give the Minister this point of respect: I know that that is not his intention. But I think that when this legislation passes, that will be its practical effect, unless the Minister changes his mind about that. If the offence is murder, the levy will be $50. If it is burglary, it will be $50. If it is shoplifting, it will be $50. If it is common assault, it will be $50. If it is rape, it will be $50. If one person commits multiple crimes on a particular occasion—multiple murders, possibly—the levy will be $50.
There are some good intentions in relation to this bill, and we will support it because it will bring in and fine-tune a piece of accountability that we can render home to this Government in a couple of years’ time. I will wait for the Minister to front up to the Sensible Sentencing Trust and other victims’ rights groups when this legislation does not work. Expectations have been raised, and I will expect him to take responsibility for the inaction in relation to this levy.
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga)
: It is good to take a call on Part 1 of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. I will make two or three very brief points in response to some of the things that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove said.
I absolutely agree with him that there was quite a discussion at the Law and Order Committee about the issue of whether judges would take into account the $50 levy and try to add it on to other fines or reparation, but I say to members that I simply cannot see that. I agree with him that judges are not fools—they certainly are not. I also think they take their jobs pretty seriously; they want to be true to their oath. His point would have a lot more power if we were talking about a levy that was at the level of, say, $200. But at $50 I think judges will take clause 6(5) very seriously.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: So they are serious at $50 but not serious at $200?
SIMON BRIDGES: I think that is right, and they will take that amount into account when they decide that.
Because I do not want to take all my time, I will make another very brief point in response to Clayton Cosgrove’s other point—and these are not his words—that it is a slap in the face for the victim of a rape conviction that the levy is only $50. This bill is quite clear about amending section 105B(3), inserted under clause 7, which states: “The levy is not a sentence and is in addition to any sentence.” We are not dealing with something that is trying to punish; the purpose is quite different. It is not about punishing the offender; it is about making a contribution to the victim’s costs. So I do not think it would be proper to see it as somehow commensurate with the kind of offence that the conviction is for.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East)
: I think it is a bit rich for the Government to be introducing the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill at a time when it is undercutting accident compensation for the victims of sexual violence. It is absolutely outrageous that it has come to this House and said it will take $50 off people who are convicted of any crime, no matter what level that crime is at, and said to the victims of sexual violence that they have to tell their story to three different people before it will approve them to have the counselling sessions they previously had access to. The reason why that is relevant to this particular bill is that when we go back to the regulatory impact statement—of course, it has not been mentioned in the debate thus
far, probably because it contains a reminder of what this legislation was designed to fill the gaps of—we see that “Victims of crime often face significant costs associated with the crimes committed against them that are not covered by the ACC, other state help, or by court ordered reparation.”
The Government gives with one hand while it takes away with the other. It has taken away the easy access to the counselling services for people who suffered the most horrific sexual violence crimes in this country, by requiring them to meet a new standard. I do not care how often Nick Smith stands in this Chamber and says otherwise, but the new rules are being applied now. Those new rules say that no longer will the word of the counsellor who has assessed those people be accepted. The rules now require victims to prove they have a mental injury in terms of the diagnostic manual—I think it is the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. I am not sure of the particular phrase that is used in the new requirements. On the one hand the Government is saying that this legislation will fill the gap of costs associated with crimes committed against a person that are not covered by the accident compensation scheme, but on the other hand all of a sudden accident compensation is being cut to the extent that people are no longer able to access the support they need.
I do not know what the net result will be, because there has to be recognition that the cost of collecting this $50 will indeed be significant. The Government does not know how much it will be, and the regulatory impact statement certainly would not have got past me if I had been the Minister on that side of the House, but it must have got past those Ministers. They now have a Minister for Regulatory Reform, the Hon Rodney Hide, but unfortunately the quality of regulatory impact statements has gone down since he has had that role. The point I am making is that nowhere in the regulatory impact statement does the Government indicate what the cost of recovering that amount will be compared with the amount it will be paying out. Who will the money be paid out to? It certainly will not be paid out to counsellors who are supporting people who are partially supported by the accident compensation scheme where they had not been before.
The way it will be paid out—the distribution—will be that the secretary may from time to time pay to an approved agency an amount of money from money that is held in the account. Before approving an organisation as an approved agency, the Secretary for Justice has to be satisfied that the organisation has as one of it roles the provision of services to the victims of crime. But there are so many agencies providing services to the victims of crime that counsellors who work independently will not fall within the category. Therefore, it will mean that the gap that has been left by this change in accident compensation legislation will not be met by this bill, at all. That makes it even more frustrating. We see the Government on the one hand trying to look as if it is doing something for the victims of crime—
Carmel Sepuloni: Window dressing!
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: This is a window dressing bill. I thank the member for that interjection, because I was trying to think of a word to describe legislation that is designed to create—[Interruption]. No, we are not going to use that word. We can say the word “hypocritical” as long as we do not assign it to an individual member of the Committee. If I were to assign it to a member of the Committee, I would be ruled out of order, so I will not do that.
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour)
: I will carry on from where the Hon Lianne Dalziel was, with regard to the amount of money that will be collected through this levy, and the fact that the National Government itself seems a little bit confused over how much the scheme will cost to run.
Just looking at Part 1, we can see that this whole Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill is tied up in some major bureaucracy. The fact is that its provisions
will cost a lot of money to run, and, at the end of the day, the amount of money collected will be minimal. At one point Mr Simon Power was claiming that the scheme would collect about $5 million a year for victims, but it is interesting that he was then forced to scale back that prediction to $13.6 million over the first 4 years. I would not be surprised if we were to see a lot more scaling back as time goes on, as the Government realises that the cost of collecting this money will be a lot more than the amount actually collected. When we subtract the estimated $1.3 million it will cost to set up the levy, and the estimated $1.5 million a year it will cost to run, suddenly we have basically halved the amount the victims will gain.
So we on this side are a little bit disappointed. It is another situation where this Government introduces legislation and all it is is window dressing. At the end of the day, it will achieve very little for the victims the Government is purporting to support. We will not oppose the bill but, as I said, it is another example of legislation that does not hurt much but does not do much. We are kind of on the fence about whether we should support it, because it is not going to hurt anyone but it is also not going to do much. So, yes, it is a very difficult situation to be in.
It is a shame that this National Government is attempting to raise unrealistic expectations among the public about what the Government will be able to deliver through this bill. Victims of crime are going to be disappointed. It is quite sad, because they would have seen the publicity about the bill, they would have heard what the National Government is saying with regard to the perception it is trying to create, and they would have felt hopeful that something would be there for them, but there will be nothing.
As the Hon Lianne Dalziel has said, it is completely contradictory for this Government to pretend that it is setting up this levy because it cares about victims of crime, and at the same time to talk about making cuts to the accident compensation entitlements of victims of crime. As Lianne Dalziel was saying, on the one hand the Government takes away and on the other hand it gives. But at the end of the day what it is giving does not make up for what it has taken away. If this Government really cared about victims, it would not be attempting to make sexual abuse victims go to the media or an MP to have the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) reverse its decisions to limit their counselling. We heard today an example of this. A Taranaki grandmother of two young boys who have been raped, sodomised, and beaten was forced to go to the media and to her local MP to beg for counselling for the children. The ACC-approved counsellor said that they needed counselling, the police said that they needed counselling, but ACC turned them down. It seems that a new step in the procedure could be trial by media or MP; that seems to be what this Government is attempting to do. In terms of the $50 levy, we on this side of the Chamber do not think that it really makes up for what the Government has just taken away with regard to the ACC entitlements that victims of sexual abuse will no longer be entitled to. If this Government really cared about victims, it would not be cutting the entitlements that families of suicide victims currently receive.
This offender levy scheme will require a bureaucracy to administer it. The collection costs are likely to outweigh the returns. Since this Government has come into office all we have heard about is the need to cut back on bureaucracy, and here it is creating more bureaucracy—bureaucracy that will not be effective. It would be more effective if this Government decided to give the money it will take to set up this bureaucracy to Victim Support. It is already difficult enough to collect reparation from criminals, so what makes National think it will be easier to collect this levy? It is going to be very difficult to collect $50 off prisoners to add towards the fund that the Government is creating. It is unfair for victims of crime—
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri)
: I want to touch on an issue that Simon Bridges raised when he spoke as a learned lawyer and, I am told, a former prosecutor in his own home town—
Chester Borrows: I think he was.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, yes. We were having a discussion about how judges would deal with the issue of hardship and whether—let us be blunt about it—they would try to find a way around the imposition of a levy through, say, downgrading fines or commuting fines to community service. I found Mr Bridges’ comments quite astounding because of course we know that judges get around laws—I say bluntly—that are put forward in this Parliament. I will use the analogy of the law I passed a few years ago about boy racers. Judges took away cars permanently from offenders in only 2 percent of cases or fewer. I had advice from the police and learned folk all over the show that this would not happen—that judges would be tough and use the mechanisms within the law we passed—but they did not.
Then Mr Bridges made a very interesting statement, which I was quite astounded at since it came from a learned Perry Mason - like lawyer and prosecutor.
Hon Member: No, no. Perry Mason was a defender.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: He was a defence lawyer, was he? OK. Essentially Mr Bridges said that judges would do their job and adhere to the principles of this law because the levy was $50, but that if the Government had set the levy at $200 then they probably would not adhere to the law; they would get around it. I do not think judges normally act that way and I am very surprised that Mr Bridges, a learned prosecutor, would make such a claim. In essence, he substantiates the point I make: judges will have flexibility through the fine mechanism. Mr Borrows, the chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee, said in a very valid point right at the start of his speech that fines can be commuted to community service, prison, or whatever.
I come back to the point that this is, in my view, quite unworkable legislation. It will be interesting to see how judges will interpret this law, because no one can guarantee how a judge will implement it. I make this claim again: I am not defending the offender, but if an offender comes before the court and makes a so-called legitimate plea of hardship—and there is a combination of perhaps reparation, fines, and the compulsory levy—then a judge quite legally and quite rightly, from the judge’s point of view, has the ability to alter the fine mechanism, if the judge so chooses, to commute a fine to community service. That would be an easy way to do it and still adhere to the law. There would be the 250 bucks. The judge would say: “Johnny cannot pay that. I will make him do community service, but I have to put on the $50 levy, which I will do.”
I ask the Minister in the chair, Simon Power, who I am told is also a learned lawyer, whether he will rise to tell us how he can guarantee that judges would not use that mechanism, which is in adherence with this law, does not break this law, at all—
Hon Simon Power: Contravene.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —it does not contravene this law. I knew he was a good lawyer; he knows the big words. How can he guarantee that that will not occur? I am quite happy to ask him now; in fact, I will ask him now. I will yield to the Minister if he would like to tell us how he can guarantee that a judge will not get around this levy by simply doing what I have said. It happens every day in respect of fines and reparations if a judge feels that the reparation is going to be too tough. Sometimes it is for very practical reasons, perhaps a lack of ability to pay, which is noted in this law. I would love the Minister to get up. I am happy to yield to him through you, Mr Chairman. I am happy to give him 10, 15, 20 minutes, or half an hour tonight—as long as he likes—to convince this Committee that this bill will be absolutely operational in the fashion that he has committed to, both in his pre-election policy and tonight. He
cannot give that guarantee. He is a learned lawyer and a bright chap, I am told, and he knows that it is impossible because he is not a judge. Judges interpret nearly every law, and often interpret them differently.
I recall, as Minister for Building and Construction, after we passed the second generation of the weathertightness legislation on compensatory damages, the learned judge Justice Lynton Stevens, I think, decided to interpret the law quite differently. I thank Mr Chairman for the further call, but I am happy to yield to the Minister if he has changed his mind and wants to answer the question. In that case in respect of damages the judge had interpreted the law and, from memory, struck them out or made certain classes of people ineligible for them, which was, in my view, directly contrary to Parliament’s intentions. I recall that we did a very, very rare thing: we actually suspended the Standing Orders, which is very rare for this House, and literally punched through a bill with a couple of clauses in it to effectively reverse it and clean it up. We had been advised by the officials that the judges would interpret the law in the way Parliament intended. Well, they did not. I make another prediction. I suspect that the Minister will be faced with a choice where he has to come back to this Chamber and tighten up this law. We will see from the figures—and it will be quite easy to analyse—where judges are at in terms of commuting fines as a basis of lessening the overall cost to the offender based on a hardship plea.
This bill’s intent is injecting money from offender to victim—from court, if you will, to victims’ groups. We do not need the Secretary for Justice to set up bank accounts, as in new section 105G, or to make decisions about distribution. We have an organisation, just one of many organisations, called Victim Support. The Minister could go to the Minister of Finance tonight—he might be at his house cleaning it, perhaps—and ask for 60 million bucks a year. The Minister of Finance might tell him to hang on as he does not have that money. Mr Power could then tell him to take half the money he was going to give to private schools, and dish it out to victims. There we go. Done! Just like that. Tonight. If we take $16 million off the $35 million to private schools, we still can give a bit of money to private schools, and we could directly inject the rest into Victim Support and the other agencies that, unlike that member over there, are highly skilled in terms of dealing directly with the needs of victims. There would be no bureaucracy. [Interruption] As the member for Coromandel bleats on, I say that there would be no bureaucracy and no need for this legislation, and we could use the courts to go and chase the fines defaulters and others. We could do things like Labour did when in Government, such as stop people at the border and say that they are not going overseas until they have paid their fines. We could do that directly, tonight, with no bureaucracy. This Minister and this Government railed against red tape and railed against bureaucracy. But if we were really serious, we could make an appropriation of $16 million—or however much the Minister claims the revenue would be; I suspect it would be a lot lower—and inject it directly and contract directly with Victim Support and other non-governmental agencies that help victims today and are skilled in that area.
I say to this Minister, because it is a very important question, that I invite him to stand up and give a guarantee that judges will not contravene this law. If he cannot give that guarantee, then the game is over. Somebody asked what the point is of being here tonight. The game is over, and it is over for victims because this is a sham. Using the words of the former Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating, I say to Mr Borrows and the other members who interjected on Labour speakers asking why we are supporting this that it is because in accountability terms we will do this legislation and this Government slowly. It will be debated here again next year and the year after, as we prove to victims that Simon Power and his Government tugged at the heartstrings and raised expectations, and then the member for Coromandel and her ilk let them down.
If the Minister is prepared to rise tonight and give that guarantee as a lawyer, then we will have another look at it. Labour will support this bill.
Sandra Goudie: People had their chance.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The people had their chance and had their say, and rendered their verdict on this legislation. Every victim who is let down by this legislation will render a verdict on that member, on the Minister, and on their Government. I do not believe, whatever one’s political colour, that we should tug at the heartstrings of the most vulnerable—we have heard about accident compensation—and then try to pull a fast one with this legislation.
Labour will support the bill to use it as a point of accountability with this Government. The truth is that the Government cannot live up to the pledge it has made unless, as I have said, it does the honest thing and makes an appropriation.
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National)
: I move,
That the question be now put.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North)
: I was impressed by the elegance of the argument put forward by Lianne Dalziel. She said, more or less, that tonight we are looking at legislation that will increase our ability to offer assistance to victims of crime, only because the Minister for ACC cannot get the numbers in the House to put in legislation that will reduce the assistance given to victims of accidents. I think that is a really nice little conundrum. The Government has found itself at war again, for the second time this week, but this time it is over accident compensation legislation. The climate change legislation is unravelling in a room in this building as we speak.
In respect of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill, we are looking to improve the lot of victims of crime. I am interested in the money. I did not hear Chester Borrows when he spoke, and I wonder whether he would be kind enough to indicate whether the expected 4-year revenue stream would be $13 million or $30 million.
Chester Borrows: $13 million.
Hon PETE HODGSON: So it is $13 million, and presumably the amount will increase each year, because there will be an implementation period and then there will be a backlog, and the backlog will slowly clear—well, it will never clear, but the payments will increase.
I think, if I heard Chester Borrows correctly, the costs of the collection were thought to be something like $1.1 million or $1.2 million. I have a few things to say about that. Earlier today we passed money-laundering legislation, and when that bill was put into the House the Ministry of Justice attempted to put some figures in the regulatory impact statement, but failed. So we had legislation that had no dollar figure in it. We came to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and found that the dollar figure was, first of all, large, and, secondly, highly contested by the banking industry and the finance sector—highly contested because the regulatory impact statement had been put together around an earlier draft of the legislation. By the time the officials had decided to become prescriptive, the regulatory impact statement was out of date, and the regulatory impact was going to be large. So two things happened. There was no regulatory impact statement at the time of introduction, and, secondly, when the select committee got it, it was wrong.
In this case, the regulatory impact statement, signed off by the Ministry of Justice as being a complete, total, accurate, and full impact statement, does not have a dollar figure anywhere near it. But if we take Chester Borrows as being the man who has the correct figures—let us pretend for the moment that his figures are accurate, and I am sure he has given them accurately, but they will have been derived from the Ministry of Justice, in whom I have little faith in these matters—then we will see that the cost of collection appears to be somewhere in the order of a quarter of the revenue. No inland
revenue system in the world would operate with that level of inefficiency. The question is, given that this Government wants to improve productivity, wants to improve efficiency, and wants to reduce back-office bureaucracy, how could one possibly deal with it? Clayton Cosgrove had a pretty interesting argument, which he put forward, which was that the much more efficient way to do it would be to take money from private schools and give it to victims.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Only need half of it.
Hon PETE HODGSON: We would need only half of it. I think the Minister of Justice would agree that even if we receive up to $4 million a year for Victim Support, that amount does not meet the needs of the Victim Support service. I think people would agree with that. I do not think anyone thinks that we can provide decent victim support for four million bucks. If we have too little money being collected too inefficiently, and the Government does not want to take money from private schools, then maybe 50 bucks is too low. That is a possibility. Maybe 50 bucks is too low.
Then we come to the argument of whether it will be paid. A colleague of mine who spoke earlier, and I think it was Clayton Cosgrove, said that he thought the fact that something would not be struck because it might not be paid went to the heart of decent justice. We would fine someone according to what the fine should be, not according to whether we think it would be paid.
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua)
: I move,
That the question be now put.
STUART NASH (Labour)
: I stand in support of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill, and I want to refer to the explanatory note. This bill primarily amends the Sentencing Act 2002. As we know, it proposes to impose a $50 levy on all convicted offenders—not for offences—when they are sentenced or otherwise dealt with by either the District Court or the High Court.
I did not know much about this bill until I started reading about it. If I had listened to the Minister who proposed this bill, or to anyone on the other side of the Chamber, I would be none the wiser whatsoever. I have not heard anyone on that side of the Chamber propose any reason why this is good legislation. I have heard my colleague Clayton Cosgrove talk a whole lot of sense, for 20 minutes, about why this bill is just window dressing. It will not make much difference, whatsoever.
Let us face the facts. Crime is a disease. It is a plague. It is a scourge on our society and on our country. We all agree that the victims of crime need to be supported—without a question of doubt. There are agencies in place at the moment that support victims. They do a fantastic job. But society has a right to defend victims, and it has a right to make sure that victims are transitioned back to being productive members of society as painlessly as is absolutely possible. But I am unsure how this bill will help.
I would like to pick up on a theme that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and the Hon Pete Hodgson just talked about. National talked about bureaucracy, and how we are wrapped up in red tape.
It is dreadful. What are we going to do about it? We are drowning in it. The courts will love it. And what do we have here? We have another piece of bureaucracy. It astounds me that we have agencies in place at the moment that are prepared to collect this and that are prepared to help victims. Victim Support is a classic one. It is just amazing. But Labour does support this, because—well, I do not know why. What is the point in not supporting it?
I would like to hear from the Minister what this bill is about. I have been sitting here for an hour, and I have heard the Minister stand up and run through a couple of schedules that are done in some states, or a couple of other countries. He should tell us what this bill is about. He should tell us how it is really going to change the lives of victims. He should tell us how it is going to reduce crime. That is what that Government
campaigned upon. It said that it was going to come in and reduce crime, and it was there for the victims of crime. The Minister should tell us how the bill is really going to do that, how it will transform society like the Government promised to do. I have not heard a word on that, I say to Mr Power. I would love him to tell me, and the people of New Zealand, how that will actually happen.
As all of my colleagues have mentioned, there is $35 million going to private schools. The Government should take $13 million back and give it to Victim Support. In fact, why do we not give it to adult and community education? It needs it more. If more people had the ability to seek an adult education, then they would not be in front of the courts. They would be in the classrooms learning productive skills, out there earning in jobs, and they would not need to be in front of the courts.
My first question is—[Interruption] This is quite interesting, my colleagues. That is the most I have heard the members on that side of the House talk about the bill. That is the most I have heard them say, and they are not talking about it at all. They should stand up and tell us about what they will do. Chester Borrows should stand up and tell us how this bill is going to protect us. I want to know why all the policemen in Whanganui voted against that man, and he stands up for victims. It is unbelievable. Does this sound like a message from a Government that cares for victims? I will give members a quote: “if my doctor told me I was terminally ill and I had 30 days to live, with the ACC rules as they are, I’d find myself a train to throw myself under on the 29th day because my family would be treated so much more generously … under the current law.” That was said by the Minister for ACC, Nick Smith. It is unbelievable!
I ask members whether that is a Government that cares about victims’ rights—I do not think so at all. My colleague Carmel Sepuloni said it right when she said this is just window dressing. It is just playing to the public. Well, the public are sick and tired of it. They want real measures that will make real differences.
Sandra Goudie: Ha, ha!
STUART NASH: There is someone over there laughing about it. She is laughing about what the people of New Zealand want. The people of New Zealand want real measures that will make real differences. My colleagues will remember hearing National members say that crime would cease when the National Government came in. Well, it has not, at all. It is unbelievable.
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei)
: I move,
That the question be now put.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East)
: It is important that I follow on from my colleague Stuart Nash, because I think that one of the serious issues that the Government has failed to stand up and address tonight—
Hon Steve Chadwick: In urgency, don’t forget.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes. I think the Opposition, no, the Government, sorry—it will be the Opposition—is being totally unfair and unreasonable about this particular bill, the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. It is introducing it at the same time as it is reducing entitlements for victims in other areas. So it is ironic indeed that we are debating a bill that takes a $50 levy from offenders.
Let us look at who will actually pay it. I think it is extraordinary that the tariff is an equal tariff—it applies right across the board. The level of offending committed does not matter; $50 is the amount paid. When we think about how that $50 tariff is going to play out, we realise that the bottom line is this: people who go to jail and have no income at all will be the ones who do not pay the levy; the ones who do not go to jail, because their offending is at the lower end of the scale, and continue to work, or who get home detention and continue to work, will pay the levy. How is that sending a message that makes any sense to anyone at all?
The bottom line is that the Government has decided that it would like to meet one of the commitments that it made during the election campaign by creating a hugely expensive and bureaucratic system to transfer some money within the system in order to provide additional funding to certain victims’ groups. I am deeply concerned about this, because from the way that the legislation has been framed the levy has to go to victims’ organisations that provide services, and they have to be signed off by the Secretary for Justice. Would it not be more efficient and more cost-effective to provide the money directly, to do a vote line transfer to Victim Support and give it the capacity to assess where the need might lie?
Hon Steve Chadwick: Because they struggle.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Because it does struggle with the work that it does. I know that the work that it does is incredibly valuable. I want to highlight that in respect of a particular crime that occurred in my electorate. Two bodies were discovered in an Aranui house. What happened was that Victim Support was tremendous with the family of Tisha Lowry. It went to them, it supported them, and it offered them the assistance that they needed. The family could not speak highly enough of the work that it did. But there is another set of victims when there is a serious crime, and that is the neighbourhood. I know that the Minister of Justice knows that. The immediate neighbours of that particular criminal offending lived in the other half of that house. A wall separated the two homes, but the floorboards covered the same bit of dirt. There is no way that that family is ever going to be able to live in that house ever again. In fact, I am sure that the house will be removed from the property at some point. The point I am making is that nobody said the immediate neighbours were an obvious victim of the crime, yet immediate neighbours always are. In this case, that was probably more obvious than it would be in many other cases. I have talked to Victim Support about whether, in a situation like that, it might be a good idea for Victim Support to sit down with the police and make some assessments about what support could be given very early on. The neighbours found out from the media that bodies had been dug up from under their floorboards, essentially, the night before—that that was the digging sound and the lifting sound that they could hear from their home.
I feel great sympathy for the individuals caught out in this particular case. I do not agree with some of the statements that they made publicly about the level of support that they got, and I have told them that. But I have also made the point that it is really important to think about these things across the board. I think that is what this sort of funding, if it were given to an organisation like Victim Support, should do.
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui)
: I move,
That the question be now put.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The question is—[Interruption]—that the question be put.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri)
: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You are right to proceed as you do. The only plea I would make in mitigation is that my colleague Lianne Dalziel called for her second call immediately the bell went—
Hon Member: Third call.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —for her third call, and there are other colleagues on this side who wanted to have a call. Secondly, Mr Borrows has already spoken. I do not know whether that member has the ability—I am not sure what the count is—to move that the question be put.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I will draw this to a quick conclusion. There is some conjecture on the Opposition side as to whether a member who has already spoken can move a closure motion. My advice from the Clerk is that, yes, that
member can. That is point No. 1. The second point is whether I am entitled to put the question to the House. I say that that is without dispute. I make the point that in this debate there seems to be no contest about whether to be for or against. The last two speeches were not Committee stage speeches; they were second reading speeches of a very general nature. So I thought the Committee had come to the end of its wind on this part.
- Motion agreed to.
- The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 67 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 1 be agreed to.
- Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Part 2 Consequential amendments to other enactments
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice)
: Part 2 as introduced amended the definition of “fine” in the Social Security Act to include the offender levy. That was to allow Work and Income to disclose information such as addresses and telephone numbers to the court to enable the location of any beneficiary who is in default on payment of the offender levy.
The Justice and Electoral Committee amended Part 2 by creating a schedule of amendments, moving the proposed amendment to the Social Security Act to the schedule, and adding four other Acts. The definitions of “fine”, or “fines defaulter” in the case of the Tax Administration Act, are amended to include the offender levy. The amendments allow people who owe levies to be matched as part of the authorised information-matching programmes run by the Ministry of Justice. The schedule also amends the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 to ensure that if the court makes a payment order under sections 81 or 83, payments received from an offender are paid in the order of priority set out in new section 105C of the Sentencing Act. That order—for the sake of absolute clarity—is reparations first, offender levies second, and fines third.
Supplementary Order Paper 67 removes reference in the schedule to the Immigration Act 1987, because the intent of the amendment has been affected by a Supplementary Order Paper to the Immigration Bill.
Schedule
- The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 67 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to the schedule be agreed to.
- Schedule as amended agreed to.
Clauses 1 to 3
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri)
: Clause 1, as we know, is the title clause of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. Some would say that the title is accurate; I am sure the Government members would say that. Others of us, on this side of the Chamber, would propose other names. Perhaps it could be the “Tug at My Heartstrings Bill”, the “Victims Bill”, or the “Flimflam Bill”. The “Political Pamphlet Bill” may well be a more accurate title for this legislation. One may ask why. It is because of many of the arguments made tonight. The Minister, who took a call, failed to take a call on the relevant part to address the questions that I and my colleague
Lianne Dalziel put to him and to others, especially in relation to providing a guarantee that judges would give effect absolutely and without question to this legislation, and not contravene it through other ways, such as commuting fines to community service.
I think the Minister has let the side down with his approach to this legislation. We have not heard much from the Government members in respect of how they support this legislation, how they believe in this legislation, and how they know that it will help every victim who is a constituent of theirs, because apart from Mr Borrows, who has kept the sign up and battled away as the good soldier he is, very few on the other side of the Chamber have taken a call to deal with the flimflam bill that this is. They know, and Simon Bridges proved it by some of the statements he made, being a lawyer, about what judges would do in respect of a $50 or $200 levy—how judges would effectively contravene it and legally get around it. But very few people on the other side have decided to get up, put their heart and soul into it, and actually say that this bill will work.
Victims may be watching or listening to proceedings tonight. They may have seen National’s pre-election political spin and the post-election political spin, and certain Ministers like Mr Power and Ms Collins saying they will get tough with offenders and will stand by and support victims. Well, an argument has not been put up tonight to defeat the proposition that I, Mr Hodgson, and others put forward, which was to appropriate money from another pot, perhaps private schools—I suspect if one took $16 million off the $34 million or $35 million the Government is giving private schools, they would not really blink an eye, because it would not make a heck of a lot of difference to them—and in an efficient way contract with Victim Support and other agencies to directly assist victims.
This—sadly, I say to those who are listening and watching tonight—is thin legislation. It is a political pamphlet dressed up as legislation. This is from a Government that said that it would not create bureaucracy; in fact, it said it would strip bureaucracy out. As I say, if it wanted to, it could have made a direct appropriation to support victims and then used its role as the Government through the courts and the Ministry of Justice to go after fines defaulters. But the Government has chosen not to do that, because it wants a little box and a little line item in the Budget documents and in the court records that says “offender levy”.
This bill is about a name and a slogan, which, ironically, we are debating in clause 1. It is not a name; it is a slogan. This, sadly, is a piece of political puffery that—as I have said before, and I will repeat again—tugs at the heartstrings of victims. It says to victims that this Government will look after them. It says to victims that somehow $50 per offender, no matter how many offences are committed on the given day, will mean that the Government will somehow look after them. It says to victims that whether the offence is a heinous offence of murder, rape, or whatever, or whether it be still heinous but on the more minor scale of offending—perhaps common assault, burglary, shoplifting, or whatever—it is still wrong, still a crime, still an impact on a victim—[Interruption] Mr Heatley giggles and laughs like some sort of nervous schoolboy.
Hon Phil Heatley: Like a giggler.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: He says: “Like a giggler.” We debate a very serious issue tonight, and at least the Minister has taken it seriously. Although he has not taken a call for a while, he has taken it seriously. This is the Minister’s legislation; he has taken this bill seriously but has not provided much of a robust defence. Maybe he was a prosecutor like Mr Bridges, not a defence lawyer, but he has not provided much of a robust defence. But as he shepherds this bill through the Parliament, Mr Heatley’s contribution is to giggle.
Hon Phil Heatley: Mr Heatley is giggling!
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: “Mr Heatley is giggling”, he says. He might want to show some respect to victims. When this legislation goes through and does not work, I wonder whether he will be giggling to his constituents up north when they come to him and say that they voted for him because they thought he would look after them and because they thought this bill—the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill, as it is named in clause 1—would actually provide some resource for the victims. But it will not.
I make another prediction tonight. Maybe the title should be the “Delayed Appropriation Bill”, because I suspect that as the costs of collection outstrip the revenue gained, this Government in a future Budget, possibly even next year or the year after, will make a special appropriation to top it up. It will be an embarrassment when the bureaucratic costs outstrip the revenue. It will be interesting to talk to victim support agencies to see how much money actually flows directly to them, if any, so that they can support the people who are at the sharp end: the victims of crime. Then we will have some questions for Mr Power and we will see how tough he really is in respect of offenders.
Hon Simon Power: “Tough”!
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, he says “Tough.” Mr Power and Judith Collins are between them beating the drum for victims in a superficial way. They are the people who are going to get tough on offenders and going to support victims. We will be able to question Mr Power, and it will be interesting to see what he has to say when victims are let down. The title of this bill could be: “The National Government Lets Victims Down Bill”. The National Government has hyped up victims, said that it would look after them, and then dropped them like a hot cake.
Again, members opposite ask why Labour is supporting the bill. Well, it will become a pivotal point of accountability for this Government. We remember the list of pledges in respect of crime and of victims. I say again for the record that if the Government were really serious in wanting to get resource to the victims directly, it would fund victim agencies directly. Then it would take responsibility, as a Government, for collecting fines and other reparations, and it would make offenders pay for their crimes. But the Government will not do that, because it wants to say that it has put through an offender levy. It wants to print that on its next campaign pamphlet. That is what it wants to say. That is what this bill is about.
I say to those people who might be watching this debate on television and might be cynical about the debate from members on our side of the Chamber that we stand by victims and that we have a record of doing so. We have a record of directly helping victims. I know, through other parties whom I will not name, that there is some scepticism about this legislation, but I say that we stand on the side of victims, as, generally speaking, I think most politicians on all sides, if not all, do. But there is a huge gap between the rhetoric and political pamphleteering, and genuinely providing resource—if that is what one believes in, and I certainly do—for the victims of crime. It really worries me that this bill appears to be a very cynical attempt. It will be trumpeted. We can almost hear them rolling out the press releases from Simon Power’s office tonight, and there will also be self-congratulatory press statements from the Prime Minister’s office, I am sure. They will state that this Government has stood beside victims. Well, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and the proof of the pudding will be when we see the dollar figures. The proof will be when the victims of crime come to our constituency offices and say that they thought that the Government would help them, assist them to get to the parole hearings, and provide them with money to look after themselves.
As my colleagues have said, maybe this could be the “Accident Compensation Amendment Bill No. 2”. From what we have heard tonight from Lianne Dalziel, at the same time as Government members are promoting so-called assistance for victims, they are stripping it away on the accident compensation side. This bill is a sham, and Minister Simon Power will be accountable for it. It may be well intentioned, but it will not help victims.
DAVID GARRETT (ACT)
: I will remove all doubt with regard to Mr Cosgrove’s polite inference that other parties have some scepticism, because I recall that in my first reading speech on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill, I expressed openly some doubts about this legislation. This has been a very informative debate. It seems to me that with the sad exception of the Greens, everyone in the Chamber is in favour of doing something for victims.
The problem that the Labour Opposition and I see and have some scepticism and concern about is whether this bill will work and whether the administration costs will soak up the levy. It has occurred to me tonight, rather late in the piece, that there is a way to solve that problem, in my view, but this is not the time to attempt to do it. I think it is well known in the House that Mr Cosgrove and I do not always see eye to eye—that would be an understatement. But I think that his speech was a very good one. If we find ourselves in the position next year where this levy has not been collectable and needs to be topped up with something else, then I will look to supporting an amendment to make it work.
To me, there is one very simple and obvious amendment. It is this: when offenders are bailed in our courts, they go downstairs to the cells while the bail bond is drawn up, and they do not walk out of the door until the bail bond has been signed. It seems to me that we could do this very simply with this levy. An offender who is convicted is sent downstairs and told that when his mum, his girlfriend, or his scumbag mate comes up with 50 bucks, then he will go. He will start his community service, negotiate with the registrar over the fine, or whatever. The collection costs are virtually nil.
Hon Lianne Dalziel: It’s only going to be paid by people who don’t go to jail.
DAVID GARRETT: Yes, perhaps so. I am giving notice that the ACT Party and I will be following carefully whether this measure works. If it does not, then I do not think I will need to support Mr Cosgrove in this matter. The initiative may well come from us to pass an amendment in the nature of the one that I have just described. Everyone can come up with 50 bucks. For the idiots who smoke cigarettes, that is three packets of fags. They will all have access to 50 bucks. If this bill does not work, and if the dire predictions of Mr Cosgrove come true, then we will be looking to support an amendment to make it work. Thank you.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East)
: My colleague Clayton Cosgrove has made some very good points about the nature of the title of this bill. Describing it as the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill is designed, I guess, for National to send the message that it has delivered on its 100 days of action at the beginning of its term in office, and that this measure is part of that. But, unfortunately—and this is what really bothers me about this bill—it will not really achieve any of the objectives that the Government has set for it, and ultimately victims will feel let down. That is the last thing that we want to do at this time, when we are all trying to address the needs of victims.
Alongside the point that was made by the ACT Party member David Garrett, I would have thought that one of the things that would be the most effective way to address the needs of victims would be to take steps to ensure there were fewer victims in our society by trying to reduce the levels of crime that are being committed. The point that I would make is to do with the fact that I attended the Drivers of Crime summit 6 months
ago here in this building at Parliament, and the member David Garrett attended it, as well. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, was also at the summit. The summit had some very fine objectives, and after that particular meeting I went away and did a lot of study on the issues that had been raised. I met a number of people who participated in that meeting. I worked long and hard on a considered paper on the subject, which I took to our Labour caucus. Our caucus went through a very careful and deliberative process around the drivers of crime, and wanted to show willingness in terms of working collaboratively with the Government in order to make some real difference over time.
Have we had a positive response from the Government? No, and that was 6 months ago. I wrote to the Government 5 months ago, because I think I took about a month to do the work I wanted to do, and the response I got was essentially that the Government would be considering the matters that I had raised at some stage in the near future.
Hon Simon Power: Just wait, just wait.
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Well, I hear the Minister say that I should just wait, but it would be quite nice to hear something a little more than “just wait”. If we are going to talk genuinely about something collaborative, then it would be quite nice to actually sit down and talk about something collaborative, but I will not let that get in the way of the issue we are dealing with here. I am saying that if we could do something to address the potential for fewer future victims of crime to be created, then we would be doing so much more as a Parliament than we are doing by simply passing a $50 offender levy, regardless of the type of offence that the individual has been convicted of, and also regardless of the sentence that has been handed down.
I know that this legislation says that the levy is not part of the sentence, but the bottom line—and I think David Garrett from the ACT Party agrees with me—is that the only people who have any chance of actually paying it are those who do not go to jail. They are the only people who will have an ongoing income at the point at which they are convicted of the offence. I am not disagreeing with the member’s solution for how to get the levy out of the individual at the point of sale, as it were—you know, like an EFTPOS system for offender levies. I am actually not disagreeing with him; I am just saying that when the person goes to jail, the chances of getting the $50 offender levy out of anyone else associated with that individual will be kind of like waiting until hell freezes over. Not only will the tariff be the same regardless of the level of offence but also the payment will depend on the type of sentence that the individual gets. The more serious the offence and the more serious the sentence that is imposed on the offender, the less likely it will be that they will be called upon to pay the offender levy. To me, that just smacks of hypocrisy. I am worried that we have unsuccessful legislation here.
My colleague Clayton Cosgrove came up with the “National Party Hype Bill”, the “Letting Victims Down Bill”, and the “Tugging on the Heart Strings of Victims Bill”. I think I would add the “Give with One Hand and Take with the Other Bill”.
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga)
: I move,
That the question be now put.
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour)
: I will make a couple of points. First of all, it is great to see that our colleague in the ACT Party, David Garrett, is in touch with his socialist side. It is wonderful to hear him supporting Clayton Cosgrove.
It was interesting to hear Mr Garrett say that the ACT Party will be looking at the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill and seeing whether it works. The question I have is what the measure of this bill working is. Will we see a reduction in crime? Will we see empty prisons? I wonder what the measure of success will be for this bill. Those are the questions that I have. Perhaps Mr Garrett would like to speak to those questions later.
I turn to the title of the bill. We heard some great alternative titles for this bill from Lianne Dalziel, who spoke just before me. One new title could be the “Sentencing (Increased Bureaucracy) Bill”, because we have heard that it will take more effort, more time, and more money to collect the $50 levy than if it was not in place. The bill could be called the “Undervalued Victims Bill”, because we see that the family of a murder victim will receive $50 from this levy. Similarly, a jaywalker will have to pay $50, and a person convicted of speeding or drink-driving will have to pay $50. To me, that undervalues the lives of those people who have had serious crimes committed against them.
Do not get me wrong; I agree that offenders need to pay. I believe that. But I think there is a better way that offenders could be made to pay, and I do not think that this $50 levy is equitable. As I say, a jaywalker will have to pay $50 and a triple axe murderer will have to pay $50. The triple axe murderer would have to pay the $50 only once, not $50 for each of his victims.
This bill could also be called the “Sentencing (Missed Opportunity for Victim Support) Bill”. It is ironic that Victim Support has been mentioned a number of times in the House, because my father and 11 others from Mid North Victim Support spent 6 or 7 hours on the road yesterday, coming down from the north, and another 6 or 7 hours on the road today so that they can attend the Victim Support conference being held tomorrow at the Brentwood Hotel. Unfortunately for them, I believe they have had to pay the costs of the van, gas, accommodation, and their meals—except for one, which was the meal that my father made me buy for them tonight at Bellamy’s. Half of them came up here and sat in the gallery to have a look at the proceedings and the other half stayed back at the buffet and finished off the seafood. However, of the dozen people—
Hon Mita Ririnui: You’re the victim there!
KELVIN DAVIS: —thanks!—who have come down in the van from the far north, not one is under 65 years of age. They are all retired. They are living on superannuation. If this levy had been gathered up, it could be used to bolster Victim Support so that people like my father are not dipping into their superannuation and into my inheritance to come down to the Victim Support conference being held in Wellington tomorrow. I believe that an opportunity has been missed for Victim Support. It is a fantastic organisation. I know that people up in the north, as are people in other Victim Support organisations around the country, are woken up in the middle of the night. They have to go out and counsel people. My father has brought people to our place, to be comforted and consoled after being the victim of a crime or incident, and there is a huge cost involved. Like I say, just about all of the counsellors in Mid North Victim Support are over the age of 65. We could have used this fund to support bringing younger people into Victim Support, training them, and getting them accustomed to what Victim Support counsellors do.
KEVIN HAGUE (Green)
: I take a call because my colleague David Garrett effectively challenged me to do so by suggesting that the Green Party does not support victims’ rights. The Green Party is a party in this Parliament that has an extremely sound and proud record of supporting victims’ rights. For example, I think of the work that Nandor Tanczos contributed towards restorative justice over the years he spent in this House. The Green Party also has a proud record of addressing the drivers of crime. When we come to bills in the justice or law and order area, or indeed in many other areas of social policy, our approach is to ask what we can do to prevent this problem occurring in the first place. That is always our focus.
The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill provides for a levy that does not provide a deterrent to other people committing crimes and does not provide a deterrent to an offender recommitting a crime. It responds to the pain, suffering, and needs of
victims in an entirely tokenistic way. The term “window dressing” has been used tonight, and I think that term is absolutely appropriate. We part company with other parties where, if we see a bill that achieves nothing and is entirely tokenistic in its effect, our response is to vote against it. That is why the Green Party has voted against this bill at every stage and will continue to do so.
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National)
: I move,
That the question be now put.
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour)
: I appreciate the opportunity to take a call. I am sure there is not a member in the Chamber who would not love to think that this legislation not only is a good idea but also will actually work. I am not famous for my cynicism. I know that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, as a former Minister for Courts, and I, as a former probation officer and former employee of the courts, know the difficulties not only of collecting levies, should this legislation go through, but also of collecting fines.
Being the cynic that I am, this evening I would probably entitle this bill the “Wishful Thinking Bill”, because basically I think that is what it is. I am sure the Minister in the chair is committed to the legislation and has some pretty strong theories about how it could possibly work. From having worked for the Department of Corrections and the courts in the past I know—as Mr Power and many of the members in this Chamber know, and as my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel mentioned before—it is all very well if the offender does not go to prison, but if the offender goes to prison, what will be the case? How does the court apply the levy, given that this particular individual will be incarcerated and unlikely at any time in the near or distant future to have the chance to pay any levy whatsoever? There is a huge list in the courts at the moment of individuals who have outstanding fines. I think that is quite a huge dilemma. The Chair himself, Rick Barker, knows this from having attempted to deal with that matter in the past, as some of his colleagues have.
It is interesting that although we might take advice from officials, design particular policies, and implement them by way of legislation, in the real world, where the rubber meets the road, it is not as simple as that. As I said earlier, and as other colleagues have mentioned, it is all very well if the individual is in the position to make that contribution or to pay the levy, but historically that has not always been the case. We have good examples in terms of unpaid fines. I know the member for Whanganui, Chester Borrows, also has a track record in the police force and, as such, would have had some involvement in court procedures and in sentencing procedures, as well. He would know that there are problems when we attempt to extract money from offenders, whether they go to prison or not. So I think that although the Labour Opposition is in favour of a genuine attempt to apply a levy, from my experience—and I am sure from the experience of many members in this Chamber in their previous roles in the community—it is not quite as simple and straightforward as that.
I want to hear from the Minister in the chair what the contingency plan is if this legislation does not work. I want to know whether we are going through this process under urgency just for the sake of it, or whether there is a grand plan somewhere that basically will be able to deal with the failures of implementing a procedure such as this legislation to impose certain requirements on individuals. The Minister in the chair really needs to explain that position to the Committee. I am sure that he has heard in the Committee stage this evening that there is some considerable support for this approach, but at the same time he has also heard members take calls and express concerns about whether this approach will be effective, and whether it will even work. My colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove has gotten to his feet a few times and asked what the go is if the Minister is not able to make this work.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Appropriation!
Hon MITA RIRINUI: Well, there is something: appropriation. I do not think the Minister of Finance would be too happy to hear that. But it is one option, because we have to ask ourselves who the victim is in this game.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri)
: Given the ACT Party’s contribution, we could rename the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill the “ACT Party Deep down Does Not Really Like It Either and Does Not Think It Will Work Bill”. Mr Garrett is right on this occasion, although he and I do disagree somewhat on a number of issues. I commend Mr Garrett. He did not have to get up on his feet and make that statement, but he did so tonight. He is a man who has very genuinely held views on law and order issues. I commend him on this occasion, rare though it may be, for getting up and saying that deep down he does not believe, and the ACT Party really does not believe, that this legislation will work. As Mr Garrett said in his first reading speech, he is very, very sceptical about this bill. So the “ACT Party Does Not Believe It Will Work Bill” would be a very good title, I think, for this legislation.
It is interesting that Mr Garrett made the point that, in essence—I am paraphrasing what he said, and I am sure he will stand up and correct me if I am wrong—if in his view this legislation does not meet the mark, he will propose amendments. I presume maybe that will be to require the Government to appropriate funds, although I suspect he may not have to do that. I suspect what will happen is that Ms te Heuheu, the Minister for Courts, will have another few dollars put on the line item budget in that area. The extra dollars will be glossed up in a whole lot of words to hide what they are for, but they will be to top up the offender levy when the money does not come in and does not flow directly to victims. This bill could be called the “We Will Toughen Up in This Next Budget Round Bill”. That is, I suspect, what the Government will do, because it knows that it will have some problems.
So I commend Mr Garrett on this occasion. We do disagree somewhat on a very large number of issues, but he did not have to say what he said tonight. He got up and said he was sceptical about the bill. Well, he did effectively say that OK, the ACT Party will wander into the stalls with the National Party and put the yes stamp on the vote, but in essence ACT does not really support the bill because ACT is sceptical as to whether it will actually work and whether its implementation will provide victims with the necessary support that they want. I think, in all seriousness, a good title would be “ACT Party Government Coalition Partner: We Did Not Support It Deep down and Do Not Think It Will Work Bill”. That would be a very, very good title. The ACT Party is honest enough to say that is the case.
I invite the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, to get up and comment about the fact that the Government’s coalition partner, through its honesty tonight, has whipped the rug right out from under the Government. It would be very interesting to know what Government members will say when they go back to their electorates and the Sensible Sentencing Trust knocks on the door and asks why even the ACT Party does not believe that this legislation will work. Perhaps it will ask Mr Bridges, in his patch; I wonder what he will say. In Wanganui, where half my people come from, I wonder what Mr Borrows will say when the Sensible Sentencing Trust or other victims’ rights agents or organisations knock on his door to ask why ACT got up and honestly said it did not think this legislation would work either, and to ask why the ACT members were so sceptical about it that they foreshadowed that they would propose amendments to sort it out if it did not work. I want to hear what Mr Borrows will say then, because the rug has been pulled out from under this Government tonight at about 9 p.m., when Mr Garrett made an honest, heartfelt contribution.
The truth is that the party that purports to be the toughest party on law and order issues—and we will not debate the veracity of that—is now on the record as saying it does not think this legislation will really meet the mark. ACT does not really believe that this measure will actually assist victims; it does not believe that it will give victims the resources that they need. What the ACT members really believe is what most of us, I think, believe on this side. We all stand for victims, and we all stand with and beside victims, but we want to put legislation through this House that is not about politics but about achieving a practical effect. We want to make the levy work and to look after victims. Tonight the Government has been exposed. This is one of three or four such occasions over the last week. But tonight the party that purports to be the toughest in the House on law and order issues has basically pulled the rug out from under the credibility of this legislation. I will enjoy these speeches and I will keep them in the filing cabinet, ready to take out at the appropriate time. I think Mr Garrett will be a man of his word on what he has proposed.
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National)
: I move,
That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the question be now put.
| Ayes
69 |
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; United Future 1. |
| Noes
52 |
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. |
| Motion agreed to. |
A party vote was called for on the question,
That clause 1 be agreed to.
| Ayes
113 |
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. |
| Noes
8 |
Green Party 8. |
| Clause 1 agreed to. |
A party vote was called for on the question,
That clause 2 be agreed to.
| Ayes
113 |
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. |
| Noes
8 |
Green Party 8. |
| Clause 2 agreed to. |
A party vote was called for on the question,
That clause 3 be agreed to.
| Ayes
113 |
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. |
| Noes
8 |
Green Party 8. |
| Clause 3 agreed to. |
- Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
