Borrows Chester: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7335. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to note that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition is supporting the Government in respect of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. It will address the cost of being a victim in this country because for too long victims have been ignored. Given that there have been gains under the previous Government as there were under the Government previous to that it is time that we started working with the scales of justice to show a little more equity in respect of the costs of being a victim. 
In respect of this bill it is important to strike a balance between the money that is required to be able to make some real gains and what is recoverable. We heard from the previous speaker Clayton Cosgrove about the inconsistencies or inequities that he saw in respect of the fact that the $50 levy will be imposed on each appearance as opposed to each individual conviction. He said that some people will make on the deal because their crimes may be more serious or more prolific than those of a person who appears now and then for individual offences. The point is that in doing the research towards this bill we found that if we aimed the levy at $50—at that level of offending and at that level of recovery—then we would be able to recover the maximum amount of money and do the most good with it. 
The previous speaker also made comments about the ability to help victims by taking money out of one part of the Government’s Budget and putting it into another. He mentioned for instance the budget for independent schools but he did not hold his hand up at all and acknowledge that the previous Government allowed a whole fleet of new independent schools but kept the cap on funding at exactly the same level thereby dropping the budget per student for students attending those independent schools. He also failed to note that the money granted to independent schools is actually only about a quarter of what the Government gives to students attending State schools. So as far as a bang for a buck goes the Government does very very well out of it. 
Given the parlous state of the Government’s coffers when National took over government and given the world recession that we found ourselves having to cope with the Government needed to find new money from somewhere. So for instance if we look at the education budget we see $521 million worth of promises and pledges made by the previous Government but no money left to fund them. To take accident compensation as an example—because that was what the previous speaker mentioned in respect of services able to be offered by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) especially in respect of victims of sexual assaults—we know there was well over $2 billion of debt there. At the same time we know that when that debt was discovered 18 more entitlements were made available to the public which cut down the money that was available through ACC. If that level of debt had not been there and if those extra entitlements had not been pledged to the public of New Zealand who knows how much we would have been able to do? It does not really matter because this is the pickle that we find ourselves in. 
The other two or three points I will make about the previous speaker’s comments are these: I find it difficult to accept time and again that he does not trust the judiciary. Time and again the previous speaker said that the judiciary will always reduce a penalty on the grounds of hardship even though it is not allowed to and even though it is written into legislation that it is not allowed to make allowances for the fact that reparation will be ordered or for the fact a community-based or custodial sentence may be awarded. The previous speaker the Hon Clayton Cosgrove does not trust the judiciary to fulfil its function according to the statutes it is charged to operate under. I believe that in the separation of powers that we have trust is a very very important element. He should not be so duplicitous as to speak out of both sides of his mouth in respect of the way that Parliament operates and the way the judiciary operates. I do not think that it is fair to say that in this particular forum where the judiciary does not have the opportunity to respond; if it does it gets caned. He should not be so hard on the judiciary or so duplicitous in respect of the way it is operating. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I regret interrupting the member but on two occasions now he has accused a member using an unparliamentary term. It does not add to the debate at all. I think it should be suggested to him that he withdraw and apologise for the unparliamentary remark he has made against my honourable colleague on two occasions. 
David Garrett 
: As I understand the Standing Orders—and I am a new member—the member referred to thus must object himself or herself and that has not occurred. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have just consulted with the Clerk at the Table. The Clerk advises me that if a member is to withdraw and apologise on the basis of offence it is for the member concerned to have taken offence. In this particular case the member to whom the comments were directed was not present in the House. So then the issue is about whether it is an unparliamentary term. The term “duplicitous” is a graphic term and it is a strong term but I do not think it is necessarily offensive in itself. I will not require the member to withdraw and apologise but I want the member to take into account that he is getting into the sensitivities of the House and he might wish to redirect his comments from this point forward. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker; I accept your counsel. 
In conclusion I am grateful that the members of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition have seen fit to support this bill. I accept that they agree that it is proffered in good faith in spite of their stated misgivings about the ability to recover the money and the cost of that recovery. We recognise the work that the officials from the Ministry of Justice have put into the research on this legislation. They have advised the House—and it has been used many times in debate on this bill—that over the next 4 years we can expect to gain $13 million net that is not currently available to victims. We trust those officials from the Ministry of Justice in the same way that the current members of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition trusted them when they happened to be Her Majesty’s Government. I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to its implementation and all that it will do for victims in the future.