Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7333. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 We will not stand in the way of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge two points: the Government’s best intentions with regard to this measure and the appropriateness of commending the Minister for some of the programmes that he has outlined in respect of the money and resources that will be provided to victims. I join with him in having a sense of revulsion about the offences against victims especially those involving sexual violation and about the trauma and tragedy that victims have to go through along with their family and extended family as they relive every moment of every day in a court proceeding which is required to ensure that the offender is dealt with. I sympathise with as I think all members do on this side of the House and agree with the motivations behind this bill. 
I know some media have accused us of dragging the chain on these things but I say it is appropriate for Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to raise matters of concern and indeed it has a right to do so because we would like this legislation to work. But without being unkind I say that throughout this debate we have raised some matters—and I do note some of the Minister’s comments—regarding the provision of services to victims of sexual violation. The Minister announced a provision to compensate victims for the loss of clothing for instance—a very practical measure. When the victims of sexual violation have to submit clothing for forensic testing they will get a quantum of money—a couple of hundred dollars. That is appropriate. They will receive some assistance to get through the trauma of a court case and again that is appropriate. They will also receive some assistance in respect of travel as will victims not just of sexual violation but of other offences. 
But if we are dealing with the victims of sexual violation here is the gap. At the same time as the Minister is announcing small quantities of money for the victims of sexual violation the Minister for ACC Nick Smith is tearing away cutting back on and putting new hurdles in front of the victims of sexual assault and sexual violation in respect of accident compensation. So the victims of sexual violation will get some money for clothing some money for travel and some money rightly to assist them through the trauma of a court proceeding and then they are dumped. Their pain and trauma does not simply become cauterised after the verdict and the sentence are delivered by a judge. It continues for the rest of their life and up until recently of course they were eligible for the provision of services from the accident compensation scheme. 
I go back to that horrific case in Taranaki. The grandmother of two young boys who were raped sodomised and beaten was forced to go to the media and to her local member of Parliament to beg for counselling services for her young ones. The counsellor appointed by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) said the children needed counselling and the police said they needed counselling but ACC turned them down. It seems the new step in the procedures could now be sadly trial by media or trial through the advocacy of an MP. We know there are 1100 cases now pending of victims who require sexual abuse counselling which are now in limbo because the Government is sitting on its hands. 
So although I commend the Minister for what he is proposing to do with some of the money I say it is a drop in the ocean to victims. Their trauma and their tragedy and their need for resources and support do not end when the jury says “Guilty” and the judge delivers the sentence. It continues perhaps for the rest of their lives. This Government takes the view that it will put this issue up in a political pamphlet sort of way but there is a complete disconnection between what it is trying to do here— 
Hon Member 
: It’s a shambles. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is a shambles as my colleague says because as Minister Power provides some resources for victims Nick Smith pulls other resources away. We raised issues around the resources. 
Paul Quinn 
: This is a friendly day. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member says it is completely different. Well that shows Mr Quinn up for what he is. If he sees the issue as being completely different for the victim of sexual abuse or of a sexual assault to require assistance during the court proceeding and beyond that time I ask him what the difference is. There is no difference to their trauma. I ask him to go and ask a victim of sexual abuse. 
Then we come— 
Paul Quinn 
: What are you talking about? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well if the member woke up he might know. 
Then we come to the amounts that are projected to be raised through this levy. I pay tribute to the ACT Party and Mr Garrett because Mr Garrett made a very important speech. He said that he and his party are as sceptical as the Labour Party about whether this legislation will work. I believe that with a levy of $50 per offender under this legislation it will cost more than that to collect it. It will cost more to collect the levy than the revenue that is gained to dish out to victims. I predict that the Government will end up topping up perhaps at the next Budget the amount of money that it gets in. I predict that the cost of collection will outstrip the money that is brought in. Mr Garrett said I believe—and he will correct me if I misquote him—he would stand by us and may even propose amendments himself to try to deliver support for victims in an appropriate way if this legislation does not work. 
I say to the Government that if it were really serious about giving the victims of crime direct assistance it would not worry about a levy and the bureaucracy of collecting it. If the Government were serious it would take half the money or maybe a quarter of the money that it has given to independent private schools—$5 million $6 million or any part of the $35 million—and it would give that money to Victim Support directly and to other non-governmental organisations and agencies that deal with victims every day. It would give them that resource and tell them to go away and do the work that it wants them to do. The Government would tell those organisations to put an arm around victims look after them make sure they are OK and not to worry about the bureaucracy around the collection of the funds for that work. 
There would not be any bureaucracy if there were a direct cash injection to those people. But oh no— 
John Hayes 
: Put it on the bill Phil! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: “Put it on the bill” someone said. Who was that genius? No we do not have to put it on the bill Mr Hayes. The Government should take a quantum of the money it is going to give to private schools and give it to those in need if it is really serious about helping victims. That was another silly interjection from that loose member. 
Paul Quinn 
: Oh we are touchy! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yep we are touchy. I believe that we should make provision in this legislation to resource victims appropriately. We should not write a pamphlet because what this is really about is saying we have a thing called a victim’s levy. The issue of whether the money gets to the victims of crime is another thing—that is the difference. So it is not putting it on the bill. I say to Mr Hayes that it is called reallocating the priorities and deciding whether the priority is giving $35 million to private schools or giving $5 million $10 million or $15 million to victims. 
The other problem with this levy is that it is $50 per offender. A triple murderer will pay $50 even though he or she has committed three offences. A shoplifter will pay $50. A rapist will pay $50. A person convicted of manslaughter will pay $50. A person convicted of common assault will pay $50. A burglar will pay $50 even if he or she commits five burglaries in a night affecting five families and creating five sets of victims. We think that is not appropriate. We think that is inequitable and does not recognise the gravity of the crime or the need involved. There again if we were to provide money directly to say Victim Support in the form of an appropriation then it would be up to the specialist agencies like Victim Support and other agencies who in my view deal better than any bureaucrat can with victims every day to make those assessments and to provide the resource that is needed. 
Then there is the issue of collection. As we have said the bureaucracy around collection will cost more than the money that we get in. Then of course we note that if an offender owes only the levy and nothing else then it will not really be collected. Offenders will not be chased for payment of the levy. We did ask the Government time after time how it would ensure that the levy will be paid. In law the levy cannot be taken into account in terms of hardship to the offender by a judge. I thought Mr Borrows made a very good point when he reminded us that fines can be commuted to community service. So a judge can make an assessment on the basis of hardship and if the bill is $300 plus the $50 levy which cannot be touched the judge may commute the other $300 to community service or quite legitimately in law reduce the $300 to $200. The overall impact of that in totality negates any sort of impact that the offender levy might have had because by doing that the judge has taken into account the hardship of the offender. There is no way to collect the levy and at least Minister Power was upfront enough to say he could not guarantee its collection.