Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1279] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill could quite possibly be the most controversial of the suite of law and order bills that the Government has proposed because there is a whole host of unanswered questions within it. Again here we go the bill is being rushed through under urgency after Mr Brownlee gave his Golden Globe-winning performance of “Messed-up Standing Orders”—something for which he may have to pay 50 bucks to the victims on his own side. He might be the first to pay as an offender. 
This bill will sit before the Justice and Electoral Committee for 6 months so again one wonders why it is being rushed through without consultation. The bill is very interesting when we look at it as a whole. It is about a very strange system which we will examine in the select committee. It puts aside the fact that the Ministry of Justice tells us that in the period between 2001 and 2008 $146.5 million in reparation was ordered and $116.5 million was paid. So around 80 percent of the reparation that was ordered was paid. I accept that that is not perfect but it goes some way. 
We could have a number of alternative ways of looking at this issue in terms of helping victims. One could say that if the reparation system is not working as well as it should then let us deal with that or one could come up with this bill. 
We on this side of the House raise some real problems and questions about it. This bill says that for every offence $50 will be paid upon conviction. That means that if somebody murders somebody then he or she will pay $50. If somebody shoplifts and is convicted then he or she will pay 50 bucks. To me that does not seem right. The scale and the enormity of the tragedy involved in one of those crimes—obviously murder—far outweighs but does not excuse the damage or trauma caused by a petty crime such as shoplifting or a petty assault such as a bar fight when somebody takes a swing at somebody. It is not excusable but I would have thought that committing murder rape or serious serious violent offences would not be equivalent somehow to a $50 shoplifting tax. 
It is interesting that Mr Power talks about how reparations will not be undermined. If we actually look at the Act and look at the court precedents we see that courts when setting reparations—I think as Mr Power said himself—take into account the economic circumstances and the ability of the offender to pay presumably based on the principle that one cannot get blood out of a stone. We should remember that 80 percent of reparations go through and are paid. I suspect that judges are likely simply to decrease the reparation by 50 bucks. It is their decision; not Mr Power’s not Mr Brownlee’s and not the Government’s. It is quite rightfully the judge’s decision. Therefore the 50 bucks will not go directly in reparation to the victim; it will be taken and then administered. 
Then we come to this wonderful thing called bureaucracy. Mr Brownlee Ms Wilkinson and all the other so-called specialists on that side paraded round electorates saying they were going to kill off bureaucracy. I would like some answers to some interesting questions. If there are 110000 crimes a year this measure will raise about $5 million. What is the cost of chasing the $50? 
Ms Collins the Minister of Police whose priority is somewhat undefined at this point has said “There’s no point fining people who don’t pay fines when you’ve got other action to take.” Ms Collins was referring—quite rightly I have to say—to boy racers because they do not pay fines which is why the law was changed. So if people do not pay fines as Ms Collins quite rightly points out how on earth are they are going to pay another fine? 
What the judges will then do is deduct the fine from the reparation because the reparation goes directly to the victim. But this $50 will get sucked back into the Ministry of Justice and some sort of bureaucracy. I would like to know from the Government speakers whether they have costed the administration of firstly fining the extra $50 and secondly chasing the extra $50 from people who as Ms Collins quite rightly says will not pay it. Exactly how much is that going to cost? 
I argue and take a bet with some of the members over there that based just on the raw figures—the $5 million they will gain from this measure not the top-up they say they will make—the cost of administrating the measure will far exceed the resource of $5 million that is supposed to help victims. I ask the National Government to reflect on that because we are going to have a very interesting time examining this legislation. 
I say again that $116.5 million was paid—of $146.5 million in reparation—between 2001 and 2008. That is 80 percent. So if one wanted to really help victims directly as one should then surely if one was not satisfied that the reparation system was working one would deal to that reform it and make it happen. 
My colleague the then Minister of Courts set up a very good system in terms of fine collections for situations whereby people want to whip off to Oz or whatever—or Maui as Mr Key did—and not pay their fines. Say Mr Key before he went on his Pacific odyssey had not paid his fines. He could have been stopped at the border and told that he could not go until he had paid them. 
This bill is interesting because it is political theatre from the National Government. It is political theatre but it will be examined by the select committee. Labour has been criticised as usual. National members get up on their hind legs and say that Labour did nothing and all that sort of thing. I have talked about the regime that the then Minister of Courts put in place. Labour was the Government that introduced and passed the Sentencing Act 2002 which introduced a presumption in favour of reparation and resulted in reparation sentences being used more frequently. As I said 80 percent of reparations are paid. It was the Labour Government of 2003 and the Ministry of Justice that launched a campaign to trace owed money because—and again Ms Collins is right—people try to evade paying fines. There was an advertising campaign and other resources were put in. Before that is criticised I point out that we established a collection centre and further bolstered collection and disbursement of reparation. In 2003 $9 million was allocated in the Budget to hunting that money down and trying to get it directly to victims. 
It was Labour that passed the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act which ensured that victims of inmates awarded compensation could claim against that compensation using all practical measures. That was a particularly important measure because people have said quite rightly that if a person is inside and something happens to him or her then there needs to be a sanction. Two wrongs do not make a right but that person should not benefit as a prisoner from that compensation while victims of the original crime sit outside and get nothing. So that was dealt with. 
I ask National members—and it will be interesting to see whether speakers look at this—what the cost of this measure will be. How will they stop a judge from lowering the reparation? I do not see a clause directing a judge to maintain reparation and not lower it by 50 bucks because the person may not have enough dough in the eyes of the judge. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: And they’ll laugh. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: And they will laugh as my colleague says. So that is $50 that does not go directly to the victim. But everybody will pay the same: the shoplifter will pay 50 bucks the murderer will pay 50 bucks and the rapist will pay 50 bucks. 
Chris Hipkins 
: And how much to collect it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes. How much will it cost to collect it? It does not go to the victim; it goes into the bureaucracy. I am sure Treasury will have a view as it had a view—which was scathing—on the DNA bill. We will have a wee chat to Treasury about the administrative cost of collection. I remember all the National Party MPs railing against bureaucracy. That is a problem. 
I wonder also what the murder victim’s family will say about the amount being 50 bucks which they will not see. I wonder what that family will think when they see the shoplifter come in and pay 50 bucks. What will they think when they see the rapist pay 50 bucks and when they see the guy who has assaulted somebody in a bar and given them a bit of a nudge pay 50 bucks? 
This bill has not been thought out. This bill is tantalising for the public and I mean no disrespect to the public. They expect that people should pay and that is why Labour set up a whole series of victim support measures when it was in Government. I can understand people saying that this measure is not a bad one but it will be really interesting to see in a year’s time or whenever this legislation gets through and is being administered how much of the 5 million bucks—as Mr Heatley grins like a Cheshire cat— 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: I’ve got every reason to smile. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Maybe he looks like the other end of a Cheshire cat. It will be interesting to see Mr Heatley go to his constituents and explain to the murder victim’s family and to the rape victim why the $5 million disappeared into the ether and was sucked up in administration costs. It will be interesting to hear Mr Heatley explain why this bill is a piece of political theatre rather than something substantial.