Pillay Lynne: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Pillay Lynne: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7337. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand to take a call on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. As Chester Borrows said Labour will support this bill and we do that because it does deliver something to victims of crime. But we are concerned because of the flat $50 levy that— 
Paul Quinn 
: See if you can get through without mentioning the Sentencing Council. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you very much! I am a little tired of the members on the other side of the House and in the select committee because recently I have found that I have been intimidated every time I mention the Sentencing Council. It is bordering on bullying and it is actually getting quite serious. But now that the member has mentioned it I will plunge straight into talking about the cost of the Sentencing Council. This bill is actually at the cost of the Sentencing Council. I congratulate the Law Commission on all the work it did in terms of its proposals for a Sentencing Council. We know that in terms of supporting giving clarity to and giving some sense to victims of crime particularly serious crime the Sentencing Council would have been a very very sensible commonsense— 
Hon Annette King 
: They’ve got it in the UK and it works. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly; it is proven in the UK. We did it: it was all set to go but it was vehemently opposed at the time by Chris Finlayson. One of the first acts of the National Government was to get rid of the Sentencing Council and that is really sad. The Government dealt to a very progressive action that would have delivered to victims in this country. I thank the member for the prompt and I stand by what I have said and what I will continue to do because I believe that it is the right of victims to expect that there will be a mechanism that provides consistency in sentencing. 
As I said Labour is not opposing the bill but we say that it does very little to actually assist victims of crime. It is just window dressing and it is a shame that quite unrealistic expectations have been raised. Chester Borrows made the point that the levy would not be at the cost of reparation but I ask members of the House to consider that point and we have already had it acknowledged that many offenders will not be in a position to pay this levy. The worst offenders will not be paying it. The levy will be collected once any fines or reparation have been paid. I ask members to consider that the $50 levy will obviously have to be taken into account and it would have an effect on the money available for reparation. That is a natural consequence; when a judge is setting those sorts of costs the offender levy is a cost. It is taking from one hand and giving to the other. 
Labour has serious concerns about the bill and we will monitor it very very carefully. When the scheme was first mooted Simon Power claimed that it would collect around $5 million a year for victims. Then he was forced to scale back that prediction to $13.6 million over the first 4 years. Then we must subtract the estimated $1.3 million—if everything is collected—that it would cost to set up the levy and the estimated $1.5 million each year that it would cost to run. Suddenly we have halved the amount available for victims again. Where is the common sense in that? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It’s a shambles. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is an absolute shambles. The Government’s approach to the levy is the same as its philosophy with accident compensation: charge more— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Being a new member I am not quite sure how to address this point but the member has misrepresented departmental figures because $13.6 million is actually— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order and the member underestimates his breadth of knowledge from his time in the House. He has been through quite a number of debates and knows very well that that is a debating point and does not offend the Standing Orders. I say to him: good try but don’t do it again. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I would have to say that the member often overestimates his talents. The philosophy of the Government in terms of the collection of the levy is very much like its philosophy on accident compensation: pay more get less. It is exactly the same approach: pay more money but put less into the hands of victims. I say to Simon Power that we will acknowledge that there will be some benefit to victims and that is why Labour is supporting this bill. Simon Power is on record as saying that the National Government is absolutely committed to looking after victims so I would really appreciate it if he would sit down and talk to Nick Smith. The irony is that this bill that we are debating in the House today delivers something—not a huge amount—to victims yet on the other hand we see Nick Smith absolutely shafting victims’ rights. If this Government really cared about victims we would not see sexual abuse victims having to go to the media or to their MP to ask for a reversal of the decision to limit accident compensation counselling for those victims. The issue we are facing with the cuts to accident compensation— 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member’s speech appears to be an attack on a Minister and on a subject that has absolutely nothing to do with the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that this is a third reading debate. I generally allow a pretty wide-ranging debate. The member has been by and large on the topic and I am fairly liberal on this. But if the member raising the point of order wants to insist on a very strict reading of the rules and a very strict application of them then he should expect them to be universal and apply to him as well. I would just suggest to him that before he takes another point of order along similar lines he should check his  
Hansard 
 and the Standing Orders and see how narrowly he ran down the rails on other speeches. I am not going to pull the member up but I leave the member to be aware that the debate is on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. I think that was very sensible advice. With the House’s indulgence I would like to recap the previous Labour Government’s commitment to victims. It introduced and passed the Sentencing Act 2002 which introduced a presumption in favour of reparation and resulted in that sentence being used more frequently. It introduced and passed the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 which set the scene for support for victims. 
As a result of the Victims’ Rights Act the proposal for a Victims Charter was announced in February 2002. The Victims Charter which was released only in 2008 gives the ability for victims to be aware of the standard of service and support they should receive. The charter will go a long way to supporting victims of crime. I feel really proud that the charter was introduced by the previous Labour Government. 
I turn again to the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill as Mr Garrett would like me to do and repeat that Labour supports the bill. We will not oppose any measure that gives support to victims but we would rather have seen that money spent more sensibly. Thank you.