Borrows Chester: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7132] 
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.