Flavell Te Ururoa: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7340. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora ano tatou. As members of the House will probably be aware—especially after they viewed that awesome programme that screened on Maori Television last Wednesday at about 8.30  
The Maori Party: The People’s Party 
—the Maori Party is a party of the people. The programme was broadcast by that awesome television station Maori Television. 
Hon Annette King 
: Set up by Labour. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: It was set up by Labour— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Opposed by National. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: —and supported by the Maori Party and sort of by National. It is good to say that that issue is dead done and dusted because we will be broadcasting the Rugby World Cup. 
Be that as it may I say to Mr Hughes that the real korero is that we kind of like to think that we are the people’s party. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh! 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I am sure that he would agree with that. A part of that is that we place a lot of emphasis on sending out everything that we talk about in the House that we write and that we think about and we definitely ask for feedback from all of the people on our awesome email tree. Within half an hour of sending out the speech that my colleague Rahui Katene delivered during the first reading debate on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill in February I received an animated email from a person called Rawiri. I want to share his ideas— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Rawiri Garrett? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: —not quite—as they seemed to make quite a lot of sense as have some of the other ideas that members have spoken about thus far in this debate. Rawiri asked a few basic questions: “In regards to the Act I agree with the basic concept of it but trying to police it seems like a nightmare. 1. How are they going to pay the money if they have none? 2. Is there going to be an easy system for victims to get this money (normally there is so much bureaucracy involved) 3. Which Government department is going to handle it.” That is a starting point. He went on: “At the present time I have no confidence in the justice system. Really the only way to bring down crime is to start at family level and make sure that there are decent and proper kaumatua on the Marae who can help educate the families. We all must take responsibility for the way things are not just put back onto individual families.” 
For me Rawiri has summed it all up in a couple of sentences. Of course we agree with the basic premise that crime does not pay. So as a principle we have supported the notion that all offenders who have been convicted of a criminal offence must pay a levy of $50. It is not just the Maori Party that thinks like this. The United Nations Declaration of the Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power states that offenders should where appropriate “make fair restitution to victims their families or dependants. Such restitution should include … payment for the harm or loss suffered”. 
We support the concept of the levy particularly as a way to achieve the restoration of well-being. We are particularly conscious though of the disproportionate likelihood that Maori and Pasifika people will be victims of crime. Among both Maori and Pacific people aged 15 years and over 47 percent had experienced some form of criminal victimisation in 2005. This compares with 43 percent of Asians and 37 percent of Europeans. We have to ask why Maori and Pasifika people are being overrepresented in the status of victimhood. According to the 2008 social report from which these statistics emerge it is due to an association with many factors such as Maori and Pasifika people being more likely to be young to be unemployed to be sole parents and to live in more socioeconomically deprived areas. Probably the most disturbing fact of all was that for Maori women the risk of being assaulted or threatened by a partner was three times the average—that is 18 percent compared with 6 percent for all other respondents. So there are some pretty serious reasons why we want to look seriously at supporting this levy and therefore in effect supporting victims. 
We are a party that has often talked about restorative justice and the expectation that offenders will be required to take responsibility for addressing the harm their offending has caused. We want offenders to be held to account. As in a lot of this the Maori Party has been involved in the establishment of the Youth Court sitting at Manurewa Marae in Auckland. It is an initiative that itself has gone on to be extended out to a judicially-led initiative from Gisborne. Marae-based Youth Court sittings involve the wider community in an attempt to enhance the usual Youth Court processes. They are designed to increase accountability and in the end to reduce reoffending. I have to say that I am in full support of the statement made by Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft earlier this year that court-ordered mentoring compulsory education and attendance at parenting programmes may succeed if the programmes are culturally appropriate and meet the ongoing needs of the offenders and their family and whanau. The important thing to the Maori Party has always been to ensure that the victims and indeed the offenders are connected to whanau and have the support of their community around them to heal to restore their sense of confidence and to forgo the temptation to reoffend. We know that Maori are overrepresented as the victims of crime and as such need to be able to have a role in determining the approved agency and its service priorities and delivery. 
So although we agree in principle with the concept that victims must be supported there are still some questions such as those Rawiri posed a little bit earlier. In short these concerns are first that the cost of administering the scheme may make it unworkable; second the impact the levy will have on the current reparation system; third that the system deals only with victims’ access to services and not real financial support and compensation for victims of serious crime especially if they cannot access accident compensation; and fourth of course the long-term implications for accident compensation and whether this initiative in effect opens the door for privatisation. We wonder too whether the crime tax being imposed by this legislation might end up with minor offenders paying for those at the high end of the criminal spectrum. In other words low-level offenders may end up subsidising the fund for serious offenders sentenced to jail who would be unlikely to pay the levy. To us that seems rather unfair. The proof of course will be all in the implementation. Will this bill end up just adding to the number of so many uncollected court fines? How will the agencies address the practicalities of collecting and distributing the levy and can we be assured that the administration costs justify this? 
Finally I referred to Judge Becroft earlier in my speech. One other idea that I thought was rather sensible was his analysis that because all but one of the orders available to the Youth Court are not considered convictions young people who are dealt with wholly in the Youth Court are excluded from the requirement to pay the levy. This exclusion is consistent with the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 which limits the ability of the Youth Court to impose financial penalties on young people or their families. These provisions recognise that although payments to victims can be a powerful restorative tool many young people appearing before the court or their parents are unlikely to have the means to pay a fine or reparation and any subsequent default could extend their involvement with the court in a way that is at odds with other attempts at rehabilitation. 
I absolutely support these measures. Of course we do not want our children and families to suffer financial penalties and of course we do not want to extend their time in front of the court. But I guess that yet again it raises the issue for me of how we encourage our young people to consider their roles and responsibilities. It is about facing up to the consequences of their actions and restoring to ourselves a sense of collective responsibility. This is a very complex area of legislation but we fully support this bill at its third reading.