Quinn Paul: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Quinn Paul: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7348. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Thank goodness the debate on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill which has gone through three readings and a Committee stage has not finished on such a poor note and that I have the pleasure of winding up the debate on this fantastic legislation. This bill continues to lock into place the law and order policies of this Government. 
I do not intend to speak for too long; I just want to cover three areas. I will briefly touch on the mechanism of submissions and to put the record straight I will also cover the economics of the scheme. Firstly for the information of members opposite I will deal with the submissions because clearly they were asleep doing other things or distracted during the select committee process. There were 13 submissions on this bill. There were six in support two were opposed and four were neutral but offered enhancements. I will provide members opposite—particularly the last speaker—with the range of organisations that supported this bill. There was of course the Sensible Sentencing Trust the National Council of Women of New Zealand fully supported it and the Human Rights Commission strongly supported it. Then of course we had the submissions referred to by my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi who shared with the House the heartfelt submission of Judy Ashton. 
Contrary to the impression given by the Opposition there is absolutely no doubt that the public are overwhelmingly in support of this legislation. What does the bill do? It imposes a $50 levy on all convicted offenders at sentencing either in the District Court or the High Court. The Opposition has scoffed at what it terms an incidental figure. The fact of the matter is that the purpose of this levy is to pay some money to assist the victims of crime. It is just a start in a process which will add to other reparations made by the court and other mechanisms that the outstanding Minister of Justice canvassed in his opening speech on the third reading. He talked about the types of support that this Government is giving to the victims of crime. The revenue generated from this $50 levy will be used to support that fund. So that there is no doubt I want it recorded that the projected net positive revenue from this scheme is $13.6 million after 4 years. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Minus. 
PAUL QUINN 
: No no. I have the figures here in my hand in a document dated 10 June. Net revenue equals gross revenue minus the expenditure. I know that is difficult for Opposition members to understand. They cannot read cash-flow statements they cannot read profit and loss accounts and in fact they probably do not know what a profit and loss account means. The profit and loss accounts from this process say that there will be $13.6 million in net revenue after 4 years. Where the members opposite have been getting their figures from I just do not know. They have probably made them up as they always do. I say to members let the record show that this is cash-flow positive. 
I will also say that the officials who did an outstanding job advised us that current reparation collection rates are at 15 percent. This is based on what the courts order and what comes in. The officials anticipate the courts being able to collect this levy at a 60 percent collection rate in a worst-case scenario which means that the victims of crime will receive much more assistance. 
The last thing I will mention which I was not going to cover but Damien raised it again and it was Lynne Pillay’s favourite is the Sentencing Council. All I can say to the previous speaker is that the council never started. This Government is much more interested in creating a fair and just system that assists victims of crime rather than setting up gravy trains for the Labour Party’s old boy network. They will not have a retirement process. Members opposite probably would have elevated Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Warren Young retired them to the Sentencing Council and they would have sat on the gravy train for the rest of their lives. With those few concluding remarks it gives me great pleasure to have the final word on this outstanding bill.