Moroney Sue: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Moroney Sue: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1293] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the House for the first time in 2009. Unfortunately I would prefer that it was on a bill that I could wholeheartedly support. Labour is supporting the referral of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill to a select committee though it is doing so with significant reservations. We have already heard that Labour is not the only party that has reservations about the bill. In fact it is hard to find a party that is wholeheartedly supporting this bill through its first reading and referral to a select committee because all parties except the National Party have already expressed their significant reservations about the bill. 
This bill does carry on a theme that the Government has demonstrated in its first 100 days of action of making itself appear to be busy working in a way that our grandmothers would have called “making very busy work”. If people are not familiar with that saying I tell them it was used to describe people who went around looking as though they were very very busy and trying very hard to look as though they were generating a lot of outcomes but who did not actually have any outcomes. “Making very busy work” typifies the National Government’s first 100 days of action. 
This bill is another very good example of “making very busy work” because although the Government is trying very hard to look as though it is doing something substantial that will make a big difference everyone has identified in this debate so far—apart from the members on the Government benches—that this bill tinkers around the edges. That is another theme that has developed in this Government’s first 100 days of action. It tinkers around the edges. When it comes to victims’ rights when it comes to looking after victims and looking for victims’ compensation then this bill also tinkers around the edges. Many speakers have already indicated that that is the case. 
This bill also typifies the new National Government’s legislation because it misses the mark in terms of what it is trying to achieve. It reminds me of the employment relations amendment that National brought in late last year under urgency too—“making very busy work” again under urgency. At a time when job security was on the minds of most New Zealanders I ask what the National Government rushed into this House to do. It rushed in to undermine job security for working people again completely missing the mark. New Zealanders are after job security. What did the Government introduce? It introduced legislation that undermines job security. It is doing the same thing here. National has responded to a very genuine concern within the New Zealand community about victims and their needs under difficult circumstances to have certain costs met. I think that is a genuine concern by our communities. However National has picked up that concern as some sort of political theatre—some sort of political game—and has brought out this legislation which just tinkers around the edges. 
As we have heard National believes it will be able to impose a $50 levy on criminals and collect that levy without too much drama cost and bureaucracy. We know National is the party that does not like administration and does not like bureaucracy so that $50 will just be handed over and find its way into the hands of victims! Clearly that will not happen. It is completely naive to believe that that would happen. I listened very carefully to the Government speakers on this bill and heard them finding it very difficult to justify the levy. They resorted to telling stories about very tragic crimes—heart-rending stories and true stories. But this bill will do nothing to address those concerns. 
I am sure one of the Ministers must agree with that. Recently we heard the Minister of Corrections Judith Collins admit that fines for crime do not work. She said: “There’s no point fining people who don’t pay fines when you’ve got other action to take”. That was Judith Collins talking about fining boy racers. She is agreeing with me; she is nodding. I wonder whether she is willing to support this legislation which in fact exactly demonstrates her point. The Government is asking for a $50 levy but it will most probably not be able to collect it without going through a whole lot of drama costs and yes folks good old bureaucracy that is needed in order to administer this fund. 
Even in the best-case scenario the calculations are that if everyone paid up if it did not cost too much and if it was based on the number of offences committed—not the number of offenders committing them because we do not know what that all means—it might gather $5 million. I know the Government does not like to admit this but the measures the Labour Government took had a much larger impact than any of that: $116.47 million was paid in reparation because of law that Labour passed through this House. That was paid directly from criminals to victims. There was no bureaucracy along the way. Nothing was taken out of it—no costs and no concerns about getting that money. It was paid directly across to victims. The $5 million that we may or may not get pales into insignificance in comparison with $116.7 million. Whether we get the $5 million it will cost us money anyway. We may get it one day but we still have not seen any regulatory impact statements to that effect. 
This bill tinkers around the edges. It misses the mark. It is “making very busy work” and of course we are doing it in urgency so it must be very important and it feels very important. Not only are we debating this bill under a bungled urgency but also—and I apologise to my good colleague Clayton Cosgrove—it is what I would call a Clayton’s urgency because we actually have not been here beyond 10 o’clock on any night this week. I am not sure how that counts as urgency but it looks as though we are doing a lot and it makes the Government look as though it is taking this issue very seriously. But we have not been working urgency hours at all as we have been debating this bill. 
I want to talk about the impact of this scheme on women because as we know—and many other speakers have referred to this already—women are disproportionately the victims of crime. I want to make sure that we do something important in this area. I noted that in almost all of the stories that we heard before women were the victims of those crimes. It is very important that we take responsible action about that. Labour had already asked the Law Commission to look into the best options for setting up a proper victims’ compensation scheme. We need a proper victims’ compensation scheme not this tinkering around the edges. We and every party apart from the National Party in this House seem to understand the reality of why this scheme will not work. 
In conclusion I say we are talking about $50—three blocks of cheese probably on the current market. That is what getting tough on crime is about under the National Government. Of course we are doing this bill in urgency. We are “making very very busy work” but it will not have the necessary impact. I think that really characterises every piece of legislation that has come before this House so far under this National Government. There has been a lot of heat but not much light and practical outcomes will not be there at the end of the day. Labour will support this bill going through its first reading and its referral to a select committee. We are very pleased to see that at least one bill brought to the House by this new Government will have some public input through a public submission process. This one certainly needs to be given a lot of scrutiny by the public.