4. Question No. 4—JusticeNICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 4—Justice4. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: Does she agree with reports that the managing director of Cultural Reports NZ said that even if a report costs up to $6000 if it leads to a lengthy prison sentence term being reduced by say a year the fiscal benefits alone are huge"; if so is prioritising fiscal benefits over victims consistent with a "victim-centric approach"? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): To the first part of the question: the managing director of Cultural Reports NZ does not of course speak for the Government. However I do agree that taxpayers—rightly—expect fiscal responsibility for Government spending. To the second part of the question: no and that is not what the Government is prioritising. Nicole McKee: How can the Minister claim that she is taking a victim-centric approach when costs for commissioning cultural reports increased from around $865000 in 2019 to more than $6 million in 2021 while she stated in response to my oral question on 22 June that only $5 million had been given to victims in the previous year? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Two parts. To the first the policy hasn't changed since 1985. Cultural reports have made up a part of our criminal justice environment since 1985 and carry through to 2022. Secondly what I'd say to the member is that this Government has doubled the support for victims since the previous Government and we are continuing that support again in 2022. Nicole McKee: Does the Minister believe that section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 takes a victim-centric approach when it enables offenders such as the pair of Mongrel Mob members who ran a major meth operation in September to commission a cultural report to receive a discount of between 10 and 30 percent off their sentence? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refer to my previous answer. Cultural reports have made up a critical part of New Zealand's criminal justice process since 1985—nothing has changed. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it not the case that the justice system under her Government is more offender-centric than victim-centric and that to young ram-raiders it offers more excuses than consequences and if so what is she going to do about it? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refer to my answers in the House just yesterday. This side of the House has introduced new offences that prioritise victims for example in circumstances of sexual and family violence. Over $1 billion has gone into ensuring that victims of these particular types of crime are supported. This side of the House has doubled the funding available to victims. So no I disagree with that member's proposition. Nicole McKee: Is the Minister convinced there is a need for section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 considering that section 8(i) requires the court "must take into account the offender's personal family whanau community and cultural background in imposing a sentence" and if so can she explain why this taxpayer spend is necessary when the Act already requires these factors to be considered? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As I have previously stated section 27 has been a part of the Sentencing Act since 2002 which was a carry-over proviso from 1985. Additionally I will note that these reports are one of many factors that any sentencing judge takes into consideration at sentencing. Nicole McKee: What cause does the Minister think is more worthy of spending $6 million of taxpayer money on: giving victims of crime their due reparations or commissioning cultural reports in exchange for reduced sentences? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On this side of the House that's a fundamentally flawed proposition. It's not an either/or. Cultural reports make up a part of our criminal justice process as does supporting our victims and this side of the House will continue to do that."