Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7145] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Clause 1 as we know is the title clause of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. Some would say that the title is accurate; I am sure the Government members would say that. Others of us on this side of the Chamber would propose other names. Perhaps it could be the “Tug at My Heartstrings Bill” the “Victims Bill” or the “Flimflam Bill”. The “Political Pamphlet Bill” may well be a more accurate title for this legislation. One may ask why. It is because of many of the arguments made tonight. The Minister who took a call failed to take a call on the relevant part to address the questions that I and my colleague Lianne Dalziel put to him and to others especially in relation to providing a guarantee that judges would give effect absolutely and without question to this legislation and not contravene it through other ways such as commuting fines to community service. 
I think the Minister has let the side down with his approach to this legislation. We have not heard much from the Government members in respect of how they support this legislation how they believe in this legislation and how they know that it will help every victim who is a constituent of theirs because apart from Mr Borrows who has kept the sign up and battled away as the good soldier he is very few on the other side of the Chamber have taken a call to deal with the flimflam bill that this is. They know and Simon Bridges proved it by some of the statements he made being a lawyer about what judges would do in respect of a $50 or $200 levy—how judges would effectively contravene it and legally get around it. But very few people on the other side have decided to get up put their heart and soul into it and actually say that this bill will work. 
Victims may be watching or listening to proceedings tonight. They may have seen National’s pre-election political spin and the post-election political spin and certain Ministers like Mr Power and Ms Collins saying they will get tough with offenders and will stand by and support victims. Well an argument has not been put up tonight to defeat the proposition that I Mr Hodgson and others put forward which was to appropriate money from another pot perhaps private schools—I suspect if one took $16 million off the $34 million or $35 million the Government is giving private schools they would not really blink an eye because it would not make a heck of a lot of difference to them—and in an efficient way contract with Victim Support and other agencies to directly assist victims. 
This—sadly I say to those who are listening and watching tonight—is thin legislation. It is a political pamphlet dressed up as legislation. This is from a Government that said that it would not create bureaucracy; in fact it said it would strip bureaucracy out. As I say if it wanted to it could have made a direct appropriation to support victims and then used its role as the Government through the courts and the Ministry of Justice to go after fines defaulters. But the Government has chosen not to do that because it wants a little box and a little line item in the Budget documents and in the court records that says “offender levy”. 
This bill is about a name and a slogan which ironically we are debating in clause 1. It is not a name; it is a slogan. This sadly is a piece of political puffery that—as I have said before and I will repeat again—tugs at the heartstrings of victims. It says to victims that this Government will look after them. It says to victims that somehow $50 per offender no matter how many offences are committed on the given day will mean that the Government will somehow look after them. It says to victims that whether the offence is a heinous offence of murder rape or whatever or whether it be still heinous but on the more minor scale of offending—perhaps common assault burglary shoplifting or whatever—it is still wrong still a crime still an impact on a victim—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Heatley giggles and laughs like some sort of nervous schoolboy. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: Like a giggler. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He says: “Like a giggler.” We debate a very serious issue tonight and at least the Minister has taken it seriously. Although he has not taken a call for a while he has taken it seriously. This is the Minister’s legislation; he has taken this bill seriously but has not provided much of a robust defence. Maybe he was a prosecutor like Mr Bridges not a defence lawyer but he has not provided much of a robust defence. But as he shepherds this bill through the Parliament Mr Heatley’s contribution is to giggle. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: Mr Heatley is giggling! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: “Mr Heatley is giggling” he says. He might want to show some respect to victims. When this legislation goes through and does not work I wonder whether he will be giggling to his constituents up north when they come to him and say that they voted for him because they thought he would look after them and because they thought this bill—the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill as it is named in clause 1—would actually provide some resource for the victims. But it will not. 
I make another prediction tonight. Maybe the title should be the “Delayed Appropriation Bill” because I suspect that as the costs of collection outstrip the revenue gained this Government in a future Budget possibly even next year or the year after will make a special appropriation to top it up. It will be an embarrassment when the bureaucratic costs outstrip the revenue. It will be interesting to talk to victim support agencies to see how much money actually flows directly to them if any so that they can support the people who are at the sharp end: the victims of crime. Then we will have some questions for Mr Power and we will see how tough he really is in respect of offenders. 
Hon Simon Power 
: “Tough”! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes he says “Tough.” Mr Power and Judith Collins are between them beating the drum for victims in a superficial way. They are the people who are going to get tough on offenders and going to support victims. We will be able to question Mr Power and it will be interesting to see what he has to say when victims are let down. The title of this bill could be: “The National Government Lets Victims Down Bill”. The National Government has hyped up victims said that it would look after them and then dropped them like a hot cake. 
Again members opposite ask why Labour is supporting the bill. Well it will become a pivotal point of accountability for this Government. We remember the list of pledges in respect of crime and of victims. I say again for the record that if the Government were really serious in wanting to get resource to the victims directly it would fund victim agencies directly. Then it would take responsibility as a Government for collecting fines and other reparations and it would make offenders pay for their crimes. But the Government will not do that because it wants to say that it has put through an offender levy. It wants to print that on its next campaign pamphlet. That is what it wants to say. That is what this bill is about. 
I say to those people who might be watching this debate on television and might be cynical about the debate from members on our side of the Chamber that we stand by victims and that we have a record of doing so. We have a record of directly helping victims. I know through other parties whom I will not name that there is some scepticism about this legislation but I say that we stand on the side of victims as generally speaking I think most politicians on all sides if not all do. But there is a huge gap between the rhetoric and political pamphleteering and genuinely providing resource—if that is what one believes in and I certainly do—for the victims of crime. It really worries me that this bill appears to be a very cynical attempt. It will be trumpeted. We can almost hear them rolling out the press releases from Simon Power’s office tonight and there will also be self-congratulatory press statements from the Prime Minister’s office I am sure. They will state that this Government has stood beside victims. Well the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and the proof of the pudding will be when we see the dollar figures. The proof will be when the victims of crime come to our constituency offices and say that they thought that the Government would help them assist them to get to the parole hearings and provide them with money to look after themselves. 
As my colleagues have said maybe this could be the “Accident Compensation Amendment Bill No. 2”. From what we have heard tonight from Lianne Dalziel at the same time as Government members are promoting so-called assistance for victims they are stripping it away on the accident compensation side. This bill is a sham and Minister Simon Power will be accountable for it. It may be well intentioned but it will not help victims.