Ardern Jacinda: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1283] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 Discussions around legislation such as this will always draw out quite heartfelt stories of heinous crimes and the victims they leave in their wake. I think it would do a disservice to this House to purport that either side does not feel massive amounts of sympathy for those victims. That is not what we are here to debate; we are here to debate whether this bill will do anything for those victims. Labour members have various strong reservations about that. Although we support this bill going to a select committee that is so that we are able to have a constructive discussion on the support that is in place for victims and also so that we can expose the political theatre that this bill represents. 
I will go on to discuss why it is mere political theatre but I will begin with two points I wish to highlight. Our reservations are based on the fact that this levy does not make criminals directly accountable to their victims. In fact it makes them accountable to the State through a tax. As I will demonstrate the bill takes the levy away from the victims because it is likely to be deducted from reparations. Secondly the cost of collection—this is something my colleague Clayton Cosgrove touched on—is likely to outweigh the cost of the levy itself. I will also expand on that. 
Firstly I will go over the accountability point. The explanatory note of the bill states: “The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that offenders contribute to addressing the harm they cause to victims.” How will they do that? They will do that through a levy. They will pay 50 bucks to the Secretary for Justice it will then be transferred to a victims’ services bank account and it will sit there go through a bureaucracy and be churned out the other side. How does that show direct accountability to the victim of that crime? 
I can tell members that we already have in place systems and mechanisms that draw out accountability for crime. Restorative justice is one of them. That is one of the most direct ways that a criminal can be brought to account in regard to his or her victim. The second way is through reparations. Those who have read the Sentencing Act 2002 will know that it requires the court to impose a sentence of reparation unless the court is satisfied that such a sentence would result in undue hardship. We directly imposed a requirement on judges to place higher priority on direct reparation to victims. What has been the consequence of that? It has been significant. The Ministry of Justice has stated that as a result $148.4 million in reparation was ordered between 2001 and 2008. That equates to about $21 million per annum over 7 years. It is much more direct and it is much more significant than the offender levy that members on the Government side of the House are talking about. 
One might argue that more money in the pot is good; that if we add on an extra 50 bucks per person it will equate to $5 million and that can only be good right? Wrong! It will come at the cost of that direct reparation to victims. How will that be? Well clause 4 amends section 12 of the Sentencing Act 2002. It states that when a judge is considering an award of reparation he or she must consider undue hardship; he or she must take into account ability to pay. If the judge knows that 50 bucks already has to be paid regardless of ability to pay that 50 bucks will come off the reparation. So the Government is saying to the victims that it will give them their reparation but it will whip 50 bucks off it and stick it in a State bank account which will cost a huge amount to administer and therefore the sum that goes back to the victims is likely to be much depleted. The Government is robbing from reparation and putting the money in a different account. 
Where will the new money come from? It is likely to come from offenders guilty of victimless crimes because under the Sentencing Act 2002 everyone else is required to pay reparation where possible. 
Having outlined that issue with regard to the bill which I would be very eager to hear the Minister’s response to I come to the issue of administering the account itself—the cost of issuing the $50 levy and collecting it. As we have already heard ability to pay is not being taken into account any more. First of all there is not much that can be said based on the explanatory note of the bill; it has a very weak regulatory impact assessment. There is almost no analysis of collection costs. In fact there is a very telling statement in the explanatory note under the heading “Costs”: “the costs relating to the collection of the levy in the first year of operation. It is anticipated that over time the revenue generated from the levy will cover ongoing collections costs . . .”. It says that “over time” we will be able to cover the cost of collection. How long will it take for the levy itself to cover even the cost of administrating it? Eventually it “will rise to sufficient levels to fund services for victims of crime.” 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How long? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Eventually. I know that the select committee will be very eager to see a full cost-benefit analysis. This bill has been rushed through so quickly that one has not been included in the explanatory note. 
What do we have to go on to assess how much collection might cost? Well it helps if we look at the existing legal ability to collect fines. Of course it is held under the Summary Proceedings Act which contains an extensive code for the enforcement of payment of fines. What can the State do to collect its 50 bucks? It can issue a warrant of seizure of property. That sounds quite expensive if you ask me; perhaps there would be a bailiff call-out. If that sounds as though it could be a bit much one can make an attachment order that deducts a specified amount from the offender’s salary or wages. We know that if the offender is working for a small to medium enterprise a deduction order on the offender’s wages will come at a cost to the business owner—so where is that going? One could issue a notice requiring the bank to deduct a specified amount from the offender’s account. Banks will love that. Or one could publish a notice in a newspaper containing the name last known address and age of the offender. I believe—someone may correct me—that the cost of a classified ad these days is about $45. That will give 5 bucks at the end of it. 
One could also refer the matter to a judge who may impose on the offender a sentence of home detention community detention or community work. That is saying: “Sorry you did not pay your $50; come back in and we will deal with you with another court sentence.” I am not sure—perhaps the Minister could clarify—whether the offender is charged an extra $50 offender levy at that point. The court may issue a writ of sale against the personal property of the offender or a warrant for the collection of the fine. It may impose a period of imprisonment community work or community detention. 
A final option something that the Labour Government introduced to improve the collection of fines is fines collection at airports. That is one final mechanism but I note that generally we use it only for fines of $5000 or more such is the cost of that method of fines collection. 
I question which of those mechanisms the Government will choose to use to collect its $50 levy and I question as well what the total cost will be. 
I want to highlight finally that in considering this bill it is necessary that the Government reconsider what is involved in providing a comprehensive suite of mechanisms for victims. The Labour Government looked well beyond compensation. We looked at direct reparation as I have talked about but we looked well beyond it. We introduced the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002 and the Evidence Act in 2006 to enable people to give evidence in a way that protected vulnerable people. We amended the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act to ensure that victims of youth crime could attend Youth Court hearings and we introduced the Victims Charter. We also promised $1.7 million in 2008-09 to establish a central contact point for victims that would provide information and additional services totalling $5.8 million in 2008-09 and $6.2 million in subsequent years for an independent victim advocate/support person for victims of domestic violence. It is not just about travelling to court; it is about the place we give the victim in the entire justice system. That is what Labour concentrated on when it was in Government—the totality of the package. 
What we have seen from the National Government is political theatre. It is conning the public it is conning victims and victims will only be let down if this offender levy legislation is allowed to go any further.