Dalziel Lianne: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7136] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I think it is a bit rich for the Government to be introducing the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill at a time when it is undercutting accident compensation for the victims of sexual violence. It is absolutely outrageous that it has come to this House and said it will take $50 off people who are convicted of any crime no matter what level that crime is at and said to the victims of sexual violence that they have to tell their story to three different people before it will approve them to have the counselling sessions they previously had access to. The reason why that is relevant to this particular bill is that when we go back to the regulatory impact statement—of course it has not been mentioned in the debate thus far probably because it contains a reminder of what this legislation was designed to fill the gaps of—we see that “Victims of crime often face significant costs associated with the crimes committed against them that are not covered by the ACC other state help or by court ordered reparation.” 
The Government gives with one hand while it takes away with the other. It has taken away the easy access to the counselling services for people who suffered the most horrific sexual violence crimes in this country by requiring them to meet a new standard. I do not care how often Nick Smith stands in this Chamber and says otherwise but the new rules are being applied now. Those new rules say that no longer will the word of the counsellor who has assessed those people be accepted. The rules now require victims to prove they have a mental injury in terms of the diagnostic manual—I think it is the  
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition 
. I am not sure of the particular phrase that is used in the new requirements. On the one hand the Government is saying that this legislation will fill the gap of costs associated with crimes committed against a person that are not covered by the accident compensation scheme but on the other hand all of a sudden accident compensation is being cut to the extent that people are no longer able to access the support they need. 
I do not know what the net result will be because there has to be recognition that the cost of collecting this $50 will indeed be significant. The Government does not know how much it will be and the regulatory impact statement certainly would not have got past me if I had been the Minister on that side of the House but it must have got past those Ministers. They now have a Minister for Regulatory Reform the Hon Rodney Hide but unfortunately the quality of regulatory impact statements has gone down since he has had that role. The point I am making is that nowhere in the regulatory impact statement does the Government indicate what the cost of recovering that amount will be compared with the amount it will be paying out. Who will the money be paid out to? It certainly will not be paid out to counsellors who are supporting people who are partially supported by the accident compensation scheme where they had not been before. 
The way it will be paid out—the distribution—will be that the secretary may from time to time pay to an approved agency an amount of money from money that is held in the account. Before approving an organisation as an approved agency the Secretary for Justice has to be satisfied that the organisation has as one of it roles the provision of services to the victims of crime. But there are so many agencies providing services to the victims of crime that counsellors who work independently will not fall within the category. Therefore it will mean that the gap that has been left by this change in accident compensation legislation will not be met by this bill at all. That makes it even more frustrating. We see the Government on the one hand trying to look as if it is doing something for the victims of crime— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Window dressing! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: This is a window dressing bill. I thank the member for that interjection because I was trying to think of a word to describe legislation that is designed to create—[ 
Interruption 
]. No we are not going to use that word. We can say the word “hypocritical” as long as we do not assign it to an individual member of the Committee. If I were to assign it to a member of the Committee I would be ruled out of order so I will not do that.