Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7331. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill provides for a $50 levy to be imposed on all convicted offenders when they are sentenced in the District Court and the High Court for one or more criminal convictions. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that offenders in a general sense contribute towards addressing the harm that criminal behaviour causes to victims. In 2008 only 15 percent of the estimated 120000 sentences that were imposed included a component of reparation. Revenue generated from the offender levy an estimated $13.6 million over the first 4 years will be used to fund additional entitlements and services for victims of serious crime. I wish to thank Ministry of Justice officials for the considerable amount of work that has gone into this legislation by the ministry. 
Last Friday I was very pleased to announce to the Victim Support conference that eight new entitlements and services for the victims of crime will be funded from the offender levy. Five of those eight will be administered and run by Victim Support. The implementation of the new entitlements and services will be phased in over the next 9 months and some services will begin before the legislation comes into force because of the availability of Sentencing Council funding to support the revenue to be generated by the offender levy. 
Four of the new entitlements and services will provide further assistance to the families of homicide victims. First the families of homicide victims will be able to claim up to $10000 an extra $4500 on top of the current entitlement to pay for costs associated with their family member’s funeral. As I said it is an additional $4500 over and above what is currently available to them through the accident compensation scheme. Second the existing Government-funded discretionary grant for the families of homicide victims who are suffering financial hardship which is administered by Victim Support will be increased from $1500 to up to $5000. The eligibility for it has also been expanded. 
Third a new homicide support service will be established. These new paid staff will be managed by Victim Support and will build on its existing volunteer network to provide nationwide assistance to the families of homicide victims. The service will provide practical and emotional support to families from the discovery of the homicide throughout the court process and beyond that time. This will ensure that the families of homicide victims have a central point of contact during their interaction with the justice sector and have a reliable ongoing source of support and advice. The fourth entitlement for the families of homicide victims is a new grant to support families attending High Court proceedings for those accused of killing their family member. Up to five family members will be able to claim $124 each for every day that they attend court. That is double the rate paid to jurors. This grant will help to mitigate the financial impact of families having to take time off work to attend a trial. 
Two of the new entitlements and services to be funded from the offender levy will assist the victims of sexual violence in particular. A new sexual violence court support service will be established to support the victims of sexual violence during court proceedings. Victims of sexual violence report being traumatised and re-victimised by the justice process. It is our goal to ensure that the court system is responsive to the specific needs of those victims. The second initiative for the victims of sexual violence is a new discretionary grant that will assist victims with the modest one-off expenses associated with the justice process such as the loss of clothing due to forensic testing. This Government recognises that the emotional and physical impacts of sexual violence are often compounded by the financial costs associated with the crime. This new grant will provide a starting point of $250 to contribute to victims’ immediate costs. 
The last two entitlements and services will support all victims of serious crime. The Government-funded travel assistance scheme which is administered by Victim Support will be increased to better cover the costs of victims of serious crime when travelling to court proceedings and their associated expenses. For travel to court victims will be able to claim up to $3000. For travel to Parole Board hearings victims will be able to claim up to $1500. That is three times the current amount of the scheme. 
Finally new information resources will be produced for the victims of serious crime. This will assist crime victims to navigate their way through the court process and will hopefully inform them about the services and support that are available to them. I am confident that these new entitlements and services will make a real difference in the lives of the victims of crime. 
I am not ashamed to say the Government is proud of what we have been able to deliver in this case in a very short period of time. I do not pretend and nor does the Government that it will take away the pain of the loss or injury that the victims of crime suffer but we hope it will help in some way to smooth the path towards resolution. My hope is that this is just the beginning of reform in this area. It is these types of new services and assistance for victims that members should bear utmost in their minds when they deliberate for the final time on this bill. It is after all a means to a worthy end. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 We will not stand in the way of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge two points: the Government’s best intentions with regard to this measure and the appropriateness of commending the Minister for some of the programmes that he has outlined in respect of the money and resources that will be provided to victims. I join with him in having a sense of revulsion about the offences against victims especially those involving sexual violation and about the trauma and tragedy that victims have to go through along with their family and extended family as they relive every moment of every day in a court proceeding which is required to ensure that the offender is dealt with. I sympathise with as I think all members do on this side of the House and agree with the motivations behind this bill. 
I know some media have accused us of dragging the chain on these things but I say it is appropriate for Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to raise matters of concern and indeed it has a right to do so because we would like this legislation to work. But without being unkind I say that throughout this debate we have raised some matters—and I do note some of the Minister’s comments—regarding the provision of services to victims of sexual violation. The Minister announced a provision to compensate victims for the loss of clothing for instance—a very practical measure. When the victims of sexual violation have to submit clothing for forensic testing they will get a quantum of money—a couple of hundred dollars. That is appropriate. They will receive some assistance to get through the trauma of a court case and again that is appropriate. They will also receive some assistance in respect of travel as will victims not just of sexual violation but of other offences. 
But if we are dealing with the victims of sexual violation here is the gap. At the same time as the Minister is announcing small quantities of money for the victims of sexual violation the Minister for ACC Nick Smith is tearing away cutting back on and putting new hurdles in front of the victims of sexual assault and sexual violation in respect of accident compensation. So the victims of sexual violation will get some money for clothing some money for travel and some money rightly to assist them through the trauma of a court proceeding and then they are dumped. Their pain and trauma does not simply become cauterised after the verdict and the sentence are delivered by a judge. It continues for the rest of their life and up until recently of course they were eligible for the provision of services from the accident compensation scheme. 
I go back to that horrific case in Taranaki. The grandmother of two young boys who were raped sodomised and beaten was forced to go to the media and to her local member of Parliament to beg for counselling services for her young ones. The counsellor appointed by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) said the children needed counselling and the police said they needed counselling but ACC turned them down. It seems the new step in the procedures could now be sadly trial by media or trial through the advocacy of an MP. We know there are 1100 cases now pending of victims who require sexual abuse counselling which are now in limbo because the Government is sitting on its hands. 
So although I commend the Minister for what he is proposing to do with some of the money I say it is a drop in the ocean to victims. Their trauma and their tragedy and their need for resources and support do not end when the jury says “Guilty” and the judge delivers the sentence. It continues perhaps for the rest of their lives. This Government takes the view that it will put this issue up in a political pamphlet sort of way but there is a complete disconnection between what it is trying to do here— 
Hon Member 
: It’s a shambles. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is a shambles as my colleague says because as Minister Power provides some resources for victims Nick Smith pulls other resources away. We raised issues around the resources. 
Paul Quinn 
: This is a friendly day. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member says it is completely different. Well that shows Mr Quinn up for what he is. If he sees the issue as being completely different for the victim of sexual abuse or of a sexual assault to require assistance during the court proceeding and beyond that time I ask him what the difference is. There is no difference to their trauma. I ask him to go and ask a victim of sexual abuse. 
Then we come— 
Paul Quinn 
: What are you talking about? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well if the member woke up he might know. 
Then we come to the amounts that are projected to be raised through this levy. I pay tribute to the ACT Party and Mr Garrett because Mr Garrett made a very important speech. He said that he and his party are as sceptical as the Labour Party about whether this legislation will work. I believe that with a levy of $50 per offender under this legislation it will cost more than that to collect it. It will cost more to collect the levy than the revenue that is gained to dish out to victims. I predict that the Government will end up topping up perhaps at the next Budget the amount of money that it gets in. I predict that the cost of collection will outstrip the money that is brought in. Mr Garrett said I believe—and he will correct me if I misquote him—he would stand by us and may even propose amendments himself to try to deliver support for victims in an appropriate way if this legislation does not work. 
I say to the Government that if it were really serious about giving the victims of crime direct assistance it would not worry about a levy and the bureaucracy of collecting it. If the Government were serious it would take half the money or maybe a quarter of the money that it has given to independent private schools—$5 million $6 million or any part of the $35 million—and it would give that money to Victim Support directly and to other non-governmental organisations and agencies that deal with victims every day. It would give them that resource and tell them to go away and do the work that it wants them to do. The Government would tell those organisations to put an arm around victims look after them make sure they are OK and not to worry about the bureaucracy around the collection of the funds for that work. 
There would not be any bureaucracy if there were a direct cash injection to those people. But oh no— 
John Hayes 
: Put it on the bill Phil! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: “Put it on the bill” someone said. Who was that genius? No we do not have to put it on the bill Mr Hayes. The Government should take a quantum of the money it is going to give to private schools and give it to those in need if it is really serious about helping victims. That was another silly interjection from that loose member. 
Paul Quinn 
: Oh we are touchy! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yep we are touchy. I believe that we should make provision in this legislation to resource victims appropriately. We should not write a pamphlet because what this is really about is saying we have a thing called a victim’s levy. The issue of whether the money gets to the victims of crime is another thing—that is the difference. So it is not putting it on the bill. I say to Mr Hayes that it is called reallocating the priorities and deciding whether the priority is giving $35 million to private schools or giving $5 million $10 million or $15 million to victims. 
The other problem with this levy is that it is $50 per offender. A triple murderer will pay $50 even though he or she has committed three offences. A shoplifter will pay $50. A rapist will pay $50. A person convicted of manslaughter will pay $50. A person convicted of common assault will pay $50. A burglar will pay $50 even if he or she commits five burglaries in a night affecting five families and creating five sets of victims. We think that is not appropriate. We think that is inequitable and does not recognise the gravity of the crime or the need involved. There again if we were to provide money directly to say Victim Support in the form of an appropriation then it would be up to the specialist agencies like Victim Support and other agencies who in my view deal better than any bureaucrat can with victims every day to make those assessments and to provide the resource that is needed. 
Then there is the issue of collection. As we have said the bureaucracy around collection will cost more than the money that we get in. Then of course we note that if an offender owes only the levy and nothing else then it will not really be collected. Offenders will not be chased for payment of the levy. We did ask the Government time after time how it would ensure that the levy will be paid. In law the levy cannot be taken into account in terms of hardship to the offender by a judge. I thought Mr Borrows made a very good point when he reminded us that fines can be commuted to community service. So a judge can make an assessment on the basis of hardship and if the bill is $300 plus the $50 levy which cannot be touched the judge may commute the other $300 to community service or quite legitimately in law reduce the $300 to $200. The overall impact of that in totality negates any sort of impact that the offender levy might have had because by doing that the judge has taken into account the hardship of the offender. There is no way to collect the levy and at least Minister Power was upfront enough to say he could not guarantee its collection. 
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. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand to take a call on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. As Chester Borrows said Labour will support this bill and we do that because it does deliver something to victims of crime. But we are concerned because of the flat $50 levy that— 
Paul Quinn 
: See if you can get through without mentioning the Sentencing Council. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you very much! I am a little tired of the members on the other side of the House and in the select committee because recently I have found that I have been intimidated every time I mention the Sentencing Council. It is bordering on bullying and it is actually getting quite serious. But now that the member has mentioned it I will plunge straight into talking about the cost of the Sentencing Council. This bill is actually at the cost of the Sentencing Council. I congratulate the Law Commission on all the work it did in terms of its proposals for a Sentencing Council. We know that in terms of supporting giving clarity to and giving some sense to victims of crime particularly serious crime the Sentencing Council would have been a very very sensible commonsense— 
Hon Annette King 
: They’ve got it in the UK and it works. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly; it is proven in the UK. We did it: it was all set to go but it was vehemently opposed at the time by Chris Finlayson. One of the first acts of the National Government was to get rid of the Sentencing Council and that is really sad. The Government dealt to a very progressive action that would have delivered to victims in this country. I thank the member for the prompt and I stand by what I have said and what I will continue to do because I believe that it is the right of victims to expect that there will be a mechanism that provides consistency in sentencing. 
As I said Labour is not opposing the bill but we say that it does very little to actually assist victims of crime. It is just window dressing and it is a shame that quite unrealistic expectations have been raised. Chester Borrows made the point that the levy would not be at the cost of reparation but I ask members of the House to consider that point and we have already had it acknowledged that many offenders will not be in a position to pay this levy. The worst offenders will not be paying it. The levy will be collected once any fines or reparation have been paid. I ask members to consider that the $50 levy will obviously have to be taken into account and it would have an effect on the money available for reparation. That is a natural consequence; when a judge is setting those sorts of costs the offender levy is a cost. It is taking from one hand and giving to the other. 
Labour has serious concerns about the bill and we will monitor it very very carefully. When the scheme was first mooted Simon Power claimed that it would collect around $5 million a year for victims. Then he was forced to scale back that prediction to $13.6 million over the first 4 years. Then we must subtract the estimated $1.3 million—if everything is collected—that it would cost to set up the levy and the estimated $1.5 million each year that it would cost to run. Suddenly we have halved the amount available for victims again. Where is the common sense in that? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It’s a shambles. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is an absolute shambles. The Government’s approach to the levy is the same as its philosophy with accident compensation: charge more— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Being a new member I am not quite sure how to address this point but the member has misrepresented departmental figures because $13.6 million is actually— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order and the member underestimates his breadth of knowledge from his time in the House. He has been through quite a number of debates and knows very well that that is a debating point and does not offend the Standing Orders. I say to him: good try but don’t do it again. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I would have to say that the member often overestimates his talents. The philosophy of the Government in terms of the collection of the levy is very much like its philosophy on accident compensation: pay more get less. It is exactly the same approach: pay more money but put less into the hands of victims. I say to Simon Power that we will acknowledge that there will be some benefit to victims and that is why Labour is supporting this bill. Simon Power is on record as saying that the National Government is absolutely committed to looking after victims so I would really appreciate it if he would sit down and talk to Nick Smith. The irony is that this bill that we are debating in the House today delivers something—not a huge amount—to victims yet on the other hand we see Nick Smith absolutely shafting victims’ rights. If this Government really cared about victims we would not see sexual abuse victims having to go to the media or to their MP to ask for a reversal of the decision to limit accident compensation counselling for those victims. The issue we are facing with the cuts to accident compensation— 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member’s speech appears to be an attack on a Minister and on a subject that has absolutely nothing to do with the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that this is a third reading debate. I generally allow a pretty wide-ranging debate. The member has been by and large on the topic and I am fairly liberal on this. But if the member raising the point of order wants to insist on a very strict reading of the rules and a very strict application of them then he should expect them to be universal and apply to him as well. I would just suggest to him that before he takes another point of order along similar lines he should check his  
Hansard 
 and the Standing Orders and see how narrowly he ran down the rails on other speeches. I am not going to pull the member up but I leave the member to be aware that the debate is on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. I think that was very sensible advice. With the House’s indulgence I would like to recap the previous Labour Government’s commitment to victims. It introduced and passed the Sentencing Act 2002 which introduced a presumption in favour of reparation and resulted in that sentence being used more frequently. It introduced and passed the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 which set the scene for support for victims. 
As a result of the Victims’ Rights Act the proposal for a Victims Charter was announced in February 2002. The Victims Charter which was released only in 2008 gives the ability for victims to be aware of the standard of service and support they should receive. The charter will go a long way to supporting victims of crime. I feel really proud that the charter was introduced by the previous Labour Government. 
I turn again to the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill as Mr Garrett would like me to do and repeat that Labour supports the bill. We will not oppose any measure that gives support to victims but we would rather have seen that money spent more sensibly. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 It will be no surprise to members that I rise to support the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill despite the reservations that I have made known. But before I continue my speech I would like to pay tribute to both the previous speaker Lynne Pillay and the previous Labour Government she represented because it is indeed the case that Labour’s actions in 2002—specifically the Victims’ Rights Act—were a major departure from the common law and very very welcome ones. It actually shocks people who are not lawyers to have explained to them that until quite recently the victim was in fact utterly irrelevant. According to the lofty towers in law schools the crime had been committed against the State and the victim just happened to be the person who was there. It is quite correct that that Labour Government made some very welcome changes in that regard so I think that credit is well due there. 
As I have said in earlier speeches on this bill I think it can be summed up as a great idea but with some major flaws. One of the major flaws is of course the costs and the practicalities of collecting the levy. Mr Cosgrove said for about the fourth time that what could be achieved here is a diversion of money from taxation or more specifically—as he was playing to his audience—a diversion of funds that go to private schools to go to victims instead. Well that misses the point that this is an attempt in a sense at user-pays is it not? It is “offender-pays”. It is a levy on offenders for the wrong they have done. It is a cost to the offender and not if you like a cost to the rest of the taxpayers but that point has been missed. 
I believe that $50 is an entirely appropriate amount for the levy. It is the equivalent of three packets of cigarettes or a couple of slabs of beer to use analogies that will be quite clear to the criminal fraternity. Every villain or his mate has 50 bucks in his pocket or his mum or girlfriend can be prevailed upon to bring 50 bucks down to the court. 
It is also entirely missing the point to say that the levy is the same regardless of the crime. Another of the Labour members referred to a triple axe-murderer. Well fortunately and to my knowledge of crime in New Zealand which is not inconsiderable I do not think we have had one of those. But a member speaking in the recent series of speeches referred to the levy being the same for murder as for assaults and the member said that that was wrong. Again that is missing the point. Recognising the difference in the nature and gravity of crimes is a function of the sentence. The levy is not a sentence. It is if you like simply a price that a person pays for being a criminal. 
The major problem as members opposite have quite rightly pointed out concerns collection. As a new member in something of a flash in the head during the Committee stage I came up with an idea that I believe would have solved the problem beautifully. The idea was that offenders would be held in custody after conviction—say after being sentenced to do 100 hours’ community service—until someone came up with the 50 bucks. It is much like the way in which persons who are granted bail are now held in custody while their bail bond is written up and that may take half an hour or half a day depending on how busy the police are and what sort of a prat the offenders have made of themselves. But if we were to introduce an amendment whereby a convicted person was sentenced to a community service let us say and was remanded down below until someone came up with 50 bucks I believe that compliance would be damn-near 100 percent. We could install a separate Eftpos machine down there a cash tin and a receipt book and compliance costs would be virtually nil. It would take just a bit of extra police time. But in my inexperience I did not realise that such an idea—brilliant though I immodestly claim it to be—had to go the rounds of all the parties and needed much more time. I approached all the parties in the House except the Greens. 
Hon Member 
: Well why not? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I did not bother to approach the Greens because in my view I am sad to say they are criminal sympathisers. They have opposed every single law and order bill that has been introduced in this Parliament. Mr Locke when speaking on the previous two bills we have debated—the car-crushing bill to use the vernacular and the boy-racer bill to again use the vernacular—opposed them. He said in justification that it was wrong to increase the numbers in prison. Well imprisonment is not a penalty for either of those bills. The fact is that the Greens oppose anything that calls criminals to account. On a personal level I see that Ms Bradford is in the House. I think that I have a very cordial relationship with her and I am sad to be saying this about her party while she is here representing it but I believe that that is the case. Every other party I spoke to thought that it was a good idea but that it was too late in the piece. 
Despite our misgivings about the collection aspect we support the bill. I endorse what Ms Pillay said and I hope that she is not offended by that. Anything that helps victims has to be good. Anything that helps victims has to be an advantage even if the collection method is not so efficient. I will confirm again what I said earlier: if the dire predictions of inefficiency made by members opposite prove to be correct then this party will support an amendment to remedy that problem and to have the levy collected more efficiently. As I have suggested I would be interested to hear other members’ views if this comes to pass. But I cannot see how it would be less than a no-brainer to do as I have suggested which is to install an Eftpos machine down in the cells and to have a cash tin and a receipt book there. I believe that compliance would be close to 100 percent and collection costs would be virtually nil. With that small caveat the ACT Party is happy to support this bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora ano tatou. As members of the House will probably be aware—especially after they viewed that awesome programme that screened on Maori Television last Wednesday at about 8.30  
The Maori Party: The People’s Party 
—the Maori Party is a party of the people. The programme was broadcast by that awesome television station Maori Television. 
Hon Annette King 
: Set up by Labour. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: It was set up by Labour— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Opposed by National. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: —and supported by the Maori Party and sort of by National. It is good to say that that issue is dead done and dusted because we will be broadcasting the Rugby World Cup. 
Be that as it may I say to Mr Hughes that the real korero is that we kind of like to think that we are the people’s party. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh! 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I am sure that he would agree with that. A part of that is that we place a lot of emphasis on sending out everything that we talk about in the House that we write and that we think about and we definitely ask for feedback from all of the people on our awesome email tree. Within half an hour of sending out the speech that my colleague Rahui Katene delivered during the first reading debate on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill in February I received an animated email from a person called Rawiri. I want to share his ideas— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Rawiri Garrett? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: —not quite—as they seemed to make quite a lot of sense as have some of the other ideas that members have spoken about thus far in this debate. Rawiri asked a few basic questions: “In regards to the Act I agree with the basic concept of it but trying to police it seems like a nightmare. 1. How are they going to pay the money if they have none? 2. Is there going to be an easy system for victims to get this money (normally there is so much bureaucracy involved) 3. Which Government department is going to handle it.” That is a starting point. He went on: “At the present time I have no confidence in the justice system. Really the only way to bring down crime is to start at family level and make sure that there are decent and proper kaumatua on the Marae who can help educate the families. We all must take responsibility for the way things are not just put back onto individual families.” 
For me Rawiri has summed it all up in a couple of sentences. Of course we agree with the basic premise that crime does not pay. So as a principle we have supported the notion that all offenders who have been convicted of a criminal offence must pay a levy of $50. It is not just the Maori Party that thinks like this. The United Nations Declaration of the Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power states that offenders should where appropriate “make fair restitution to victims their families or dependants. Such restitution should include … payment for the harm or loss suffered”. 
We support the concept of the levy particularly as a way to achieve the restoration of well-being. We are particularly conscious though of the disproportionate likelihood that Maori and Pasifika people will be victims of crime. Among both Maori and Pacific people aged 15 years and over 47 percent had experienced some form of criminal victimisation in 2005. This compares with 43 percent of Asians and 37 percent of Europeans. We have to ask why Maori and Pasifika people are being overrepresented in the status of victimhood. According to the 2008 social report from which these statistics emerge it is due to an association with many factors such as Maori and Pasifika people being more likely to be young to be unemployed to be sole parents and to live in more socioeconomically deprived areas. Probably the most disturbing fact of all was that for Maori women the risk of being assaulted or threatened by a partner was three times the average—that is 18 percent compared with 6 percent for all other respondents. So there are some pretty serious reasons why we want to look seriously at supporting this levy and therefore in effect supporting victims. 
We are a party that has often talked about restorative justice and the expectation that offenders will be required to take responsibility for addressing the harm their offending has caused. We want offenders to be held to account. As in a lot of this the Maori Party has been involved in the establishment of the Youth Court sitting at Manurewa Marae in Auckland. It is an initiative that itself has gone on to be extended out to a judicially-led initiative from Gisborne. Marae-based Youth Court sittings involve the wider community in an attempt to enhance the usual Youth Court processes. They are designed to increase accountability and in the end to reduce reoffending. I have to say that I am in full support of the statement made by Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft earlier this year that court-ordered mentoring compulsory education and attendance at parenting programmes may succeed if the programmes are culturally appropriate and meet the ongoing needs of the offenders and their family and whanau. The important thing to the Maori Party has always been to ensure that the victims and indeed the offenders are connected to whanau and have the support of their community around them to heal to restore their sense of confidence and to forgo the temptation to reoffend. We know that Maori are overrepresented as the victims of crime and as such need to be able to have a role in determining the approved agency and its service priorities and delivery. 
So although we agree in principle with the concept that victims must be supported there are still some questions such as those Rawiri posed a little bit earlier. In short these concerns are first that the cost of administering the scheme may make it unworkable; second the impact the levy will have on the current reparation system; third that the system deals only with victims’ access to services and not real financial support and compensation for victims of serious crime especially if they cannot access accident compensation; and fourth of course the long-term implications for accident compensation and whether this initiative in effect opens the door for privatisation. We wonder too whether the crime tax being imposed by this legislation might end up with minor offenders paying for those at the high end of the criminal spectrum. In other words low-level offenders may end up subsidising the fund for serious offenders sentenced to jail who would be unlikely to pay the levy. To us that seems rather unfair. The proof of course will be all in the implementation. Will this bill end up just adding to the number of so many uncollected court fines? How will the agencies address the practicalities of collecting and distributing the levy and can we be assured that the administration costs justify this? 
Finally I referred to Judge Becroft earlier in my speech. One other idea that I thought was rather sensible was his analysis that because all but one of the orders available to the Youth Court are not considered convictions young people who are dealt with wholly in the Youth Court are excluded from the requirement to pay the levy. This exclusion is consistent with the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 which limits the ability of the Youth Court to impose financial penalties on young people or their families. These provisions recognise that although payments to victims can be a powerful restorative tool many young people appearing before the court or their parents are unlikely to have the means to pay a fine or reparation and any subsequent default could extend their involvement with the court in a way that is at odds with other attempts at rehabilitation. 
I absolutely support these measures. Of course we do not want our children and families to suffer financial penalties and of course we do not want to extend their time in front of the court. But I guess that yet again it raises the issue for me of how we encourage our young people to consider their roles and responsibilities. It is about facing up to the consequences of their actions and restoring to ourselves a sense of collective responsibility. This is a very complex area of legislation but we fully support this bill at its third reading. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is very good to follow Te Ururoa Flavell in this debate on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. He made some very perceptive comments about victims and the sociology of victims. As he made clear and as the statistics and the research show victims more than often are not if we can put this in graphic terms the little old lady who is worried about crime. I suppose that the cruel irony is that crime more often happens to the young seemingly invincible Maori male who thinks that crime will not happen to him but that is where crime is at. The young the poor and the dispossessed are the victims of crime much more often. 
It is good to talk on this bill which is very much about victims and putting victims back at the centre of our justice system. Previously in other parts of the debate on this bill I have talked about the very real benefits that what we are doing here will have for victims of crime. It will mean travel to and from court and that is not insubstantial. It will potentially mean replacing clothing that had to be sent off for DNA testing. It will mean counselling. These things will make a real difference to the victims of crime. This bill is part of a bigger picture. It is a piece of the puzzle in what we and the Minister Simon Power are doing in the justice arena. We are toughening up law and order. We have put through a raft of bills as part of our initial 100-day programme. We have toughened up the bail law sentencing laws and aspects of parole. But what we are also doing and what should not go unnoticed is that we are putting the victims back at the centre of the justice system. We are not just all about offenders. We are also doing something for those on the other side of the coin—the victims. 
I can think of a number of people who came before the Justice and Electoral Committee and also the Law and Order Committee who have been victims of crime who very much feel that they have not been part of the justice system and that they have not been listened to. In our society the system we have is the 
“ 
Queen v Smith 
” not “ 
Smith v Smith 
”. It is the Crown that brings a case. What that means is that often victims do not have control of the case and rightly so because there may be cases where witnesses are reluctant but it is still right and proper for the Crown to bring the case. This bill illustrates that we are hearing what is being said at select committees. We are bringing victims back in. We are trying to do things to make it better for them to ameliorate the conditions in which they find themselves when crime occurs. 
Some of the points made by members opposite are at first blush fair but when analysed they do not hold much weight. One of the things that Clayton Cosgrove said is that judges will be dishonest about this and that they will say: “Well we have got this $50 levy so because of that we will reduce all the other fines and reparation.” I do not believe that is true at all. I think that judges will be much more true to their oath than that. They will read this bill and see quite clearly the intent of Parliament and this $50 levy will not be taken into consideration when they look at other financial penalties. 
Another thing that has quite frequently come out from members on the other side of the House is that it is not right that this levy is per offender rather than per offence. I say two things in relation to that. Firstly if it were per offence we would have a ridiculous situation where for example an offender coming before the court with 100 burglaries would attract exceptionally large penalties. That would be unworkable. Secondly and this is a significant point this levy is not a sentence. It is not about punishing the offender; it is about doing something for the victim. 
I come back to the points I have already made. This bill is a plank in our justice armoury and in our agenda on justice. It is very much about putting victims back at the centre of the justice system where they belong. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 Before I start I want to go back to something that Mr Borrows said earlier about how the National Government has come up with this Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill based on research. I say to Mr Borrows that I find that really interesting. I would love to see that research because I do not believe that we have seen it yet. The fact that the National Government is basing something on research is in complete contrast to what it has done with everything else. I say to Mr Borrows that I would like to see that research if he has it. 
Labour members are not opposed to this bill but we believe that it will do very little to assist victims of crime. That is our major issue with it. Just like much of the National Government’s other legislation this is window dressing. It is another example of the National Government’s ploy to give ordinary New Zealanders the impression that it is taking extreme steps to tackle law and order extreme steps to protect victims and extreme steps to enforce punitive measures to punish criminals but it is all a farce. The word for this Government is farcical. It has bought into the idea that perception is everything and in the process of creating this perception of being tough on crime it has brought to the House a series of bills that although not harmful will do little to help reduce crime to protect New Zealanders and to compensate and care for victims. 
The National Government has raised unrealistic expectations in the public about what it will deliver through this bill. Victims of crime are destined to be disappointed. The legislation sets out a $50 levy that will apply automatically when an offender has been sentenced in criminal jurisdictions. No matter which way we look at this we see that it is quite a shambles. There are questions that have to be asked: what is the likelihood of these sentenced offenders paying the levy; will the cost of the bureaucracy required to enforce and collect this levy outweigh the benefits to the actual victim; and will the money collected to provide any level of assistance to the victim let alone any adequate level of assistance be enough? 
Paul Quinn 
: It’s hard to put passion into the standard rhetoric you’ve been given isn’t it? 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: The bill provides nothing more than lip service—just like that member over there Mr Quinn—to the victims and represents gross Government hypocrisy given the cutbacks to accident compensation entitlements. 
Paul Quinn 
: That’s the problem when you don’t write your own speeches. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: The member over there is going on and on. I know that he finds it difficult to stand up without yelling but I can speak calmly. 
If the Government really cared about victims it would not be attempting to make sexual abuse victims have to go to the media or an MP to reverse Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) decisions to limit their counselling. An earlier speaker commented that this was not related. Well it is related. When we look at the legislation that this Government is proposing we have to look at the entirety of it. We have to look at what it is trying to do on one hand while here it is trying to do something else on the other hand. At the end of the day we are seeing a contradiction. So it is relevant and it is something that the public needs to be aware of. 
With regards to accident compensation we have recently seen a Taranaki grandmother of two young boys who had been raped sodomised and beaten being forced to go to the media and to her local MP Jonathan Young to beg for counselling. The ACC-approved counsellors said that the boys needed counselling and the police said that they needed counselling but ACC turned them down. It seems the new step in the procedures could be trial by media or MPs and that is something that this National Government has imposed on the public. Because this Government has been sitting on its hands there are 1100 cases pending of people needing sexual abuse counselling. If this Government really cared about victims it would not be cutting the entitlements that families of suicide victims currently receive. Does this sound like a Government that cares about victims: “If my doctor told me that I was terminally ill and had 30 days to live with the ACC rules the way they are I’d be finding myself a train to throw myself under on the 29th day because my family would be treated so much more generously.”? 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Who wrote this? 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Well I say to Ms Tolley that I did not write that; it was her colleague Nick Smith and I ask her to remember that. 
The reality for victims is that this approach is getting worse not better. It is astounding that Simon Power can keep a straight face when he says that the negative impact of crime on victims is a priority for this Government. National made a big deal in the election year of being on the side of victims. This bill which levies all offenders regardless of their offence has a paltry $50 as the upshot. The worst offenders who get jail sentences will be unable to pay the levy anyway. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Oh we’ve got back to the bill! 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: The Minister Anne Tolley is going on again about what I am saying but if someone wrote her speeches she would be much better off than standing up and making them up for herself. 
This offender levy scheme will require a bureaucracy to administer it and the collection costs are likely to outweigh the returns. Simon Power claimed that the scheme would collect about $5 million a year for victims and then he was forced to scale back to predictions of $13.6 over the next 4 years—very different from the $5 million a year for victims he initially claimed. When we subtract the estimated $1.3 million that it will cost to set up the levy and the estimated $1.5 million it will cost to run suddenly we have half the amount available for victims. 
It is already difficult enough to collect reparations from criminals so we on this side of the House struggle to comprehend why the National Government thinks that it will be any easier to collect this levy. It is unfair to victims of crime to raise expectations of greater compensation when National members know the reality is that this will make absolutely no difference. It was revealed in the Ministry of Justice document  
Structure of Operations in the Ministry: Proposals for Consultation  
that people who owe the offender levy will be grouped based on their willingness and ability to pay and their attitude towards compliance. The Government is prepared to tolerate targeting only those most likely to pay while hardcore fine-defaulters are let off the hook. Even National’s Minister of Corrections and Minister of Police herself Judith Collins has admitted that fines for crime do not work. She stated: “There’s no point fining people who don’t pay fines when you’ve got other action to take.” Again that was one of National’s own Ministers. 
Increasing victims’ rights is about restoring some fairness to an unfair situation but this scheme will lack the consistency to deliver that. It would be unfair if the amount of compensation varied from year to year depending on the ability of the Ministry of Justice to collect revenue from offenders. Labour had already asked the Law Commission to look into the best options for setting up a proper victims’ compensation scheme to ensure that the inequalities and inefficiencies in National’s scheme could be avoided. By disregarding the Law Commission’s advice National has delivered New Zealanders a substandard scheme. We on this side think that it would be more effective to give the money it would take to set up this bureaucracy to an organisation like Victim Support. 
I want to briefly discuss the Labour view on the issue at hand. Labour members of the Justice and Electoral Committee support increased funding for victims of serious crime. On that basis they support the bill but with reservations. They noted that funding for the scheme is at the cost of the disestablishment of the Sentencing Council which would have improved the justice system by delivering consistency with sentencing. Further they expressed concerns about the high administration costs of the scheme and the possibility that the levy could detrimentally affect reparation payments. The Labour members of the committee stated very clearly that they intend to closely monitor the effectiveness of this scheme and that is what members on this side of the House will be doing. We support this bill for the reason that although it does not help it also does not harm. We have been pushed into a corner and therefore we support the bill. Thank you very much. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 The previous speaker Carmel Sepuloni questioned what this Government is doing for law and order. This Government promised that it would implement an increase of 600 police officers in New Zealand of which 300 would be deployed in South Auckland and that has been implemented. 
The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill applies a $50 levy on offenders. The bill amends the Sentencing Act 2002 and provides that all offenders who have been convicted of an offence must pay an offender levy of $50. The $50 levy will be imposed on all offenders at the point of sentencing. It is intended to help pay victims’ expenses not covered by ordinary State assistance such as travel to and from court. The levy will be in addition to any other penalty imposed by the courts. There have been many submissions from the public and I would like to mention one in particular—the submission of Judy Ashton from Nelson. Her 20-year-old daughter was killed by a drug addict and disqualified driver who was on parole and was on a police witness protection programme. She commented that there is absolutely nothing that could compensate her for her daughter’s death but nevertheless she supports this bill. In her words: “I have a vision that one day the victims of the crime will be truly recognised and regardless of their assets or income they will not be left financially disadvantaged by the crime that was forced upon them.” 
The Government wants to eliminate the all too frequent horror stories that victims are forced to relive which are traumatic simply because the system has been deficient and has let them down and it seems that offenders are getting better deals than the victims. Like all of our law and order policies the victims’ compensation scheme’s overreaching objectives are to ensure there are fewer victims of crime in New Zealand. This levy is set at a rate that most would agree is too low to compensate victims. There is no argument about that particularly for the victims of the most serious crimes. But it is an important first step towards reinforcing the focus of our justice system on to the needs of the victims. It should be noted that the Government will also be introducing other measures to improve the services that the victims receive and to enhance victims’ rights. In other words it is part of a bigger package. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 Classic Tory tokenism—that is what I say about this bill. Although Labour will support this bill because indeed it does no harm the question must be put to the House and I guess to the people of New Zealand that after spending all this money going through the whole process and considering all these issues has it been worth it? I guess we will find out in a year or two’s time. 
Hon Annette King 
: In 4 years’ time. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: That is right. In 2 years’ time I think we will make a judgment and so too will the people of New Zealand. We will see what happens then. 
The terrible reality is that crime creates unfairness. There is no way of avoiding that reality. Whatever crime it is an injustice occurs. Someone is the perpetrator of that injustice and the other person or persons are usually the victims. It is Parliament’s role and responsibility to reduce the unfairness of those crimes and the unfairness across this nation. What will happen when a crime is committed? Usually our good police catch people at an increasing rate—well under a Labour Government they used to do that. Thanks to Minister King and effort focus and encouragement the police caught criminals at an increasing rate. They were then taken through the courts and were convicted if they had committed the crime. The same process will continue but when all criminals are convicted a $50 levy will be imposed on them. 
The question must be about whether we are reducing the unfairness of the process. As I have travelled around this country and as I have been an MP the biggest issue of unfairness relating to crime has been the issue of inconsistency in sentencing. People cannot understand how in one part of the country there will be a sentence for a certain crime and in another part of the country there will be a different sentence for the same crime. So the Labour Government brought in the Sentencing Council and that was the single biggest initiative to reduce unfairness from crime. Victims felt that if a convicted criminal received a lesser sentence then that was a huge unfairness and it reflected poorly on them. But this present Government has said that it will do away with the Sentencing Council because it is not important and that it will set up a bureaucracy to charge every convicted criminal $50 which will address the issue of unfairness. Well that is tokenism and I am sure that Mr Deputy Speaker could understand that if he had the opportunity to say so. But the fact that the Tory Government has disbanded the Sentencing Council the single most important— 
Hon Simon Power 
: It never started. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Mr Power knows that. He knows that the Sentencing Council was the best initiative in terms of addressing unfairness in crime in this country but he was forced to disband it because of ideology. I know that Simon Power agreed with having the Sentencing Council. 
The $50 levy will now be a significant step forward in addressing unfairness in crime. Let us look at some of the costs. It will cost $1.3 million to set up this bureaucracy—this from a Government that says it is reducing bureaucracy. It will then spend $1.5 million a year to run the bureaucracy. Again this is from a Government that claims to be reducing bureaucracy. How much will the Government get? The claim is about $5 million a year or closer to estimates just over $13 million over 4 years. I will let the House or the National members do the arithmetic on that. That is not delivering good value for money for victims in terms of either this Parliament or the Government’s efforts in bureaucracy. 
Let us then look at those this levy will be collected from. The reality is that there has been an obligation in the justice system for some time to pay reparation. It is one of the things that the Labour Government brought in in a genuine attempt—not tokenism like the Tories—to take from those criminals some money to pay back to their victims. But we realise that as with unpaid fines it is sometimes very hard to extract money from criminals for a whole lot of reasons. Many criminals do not have money for a start—that is why they have committed the crimes—and some are just very pigheaded have good lawyers or whatever. But there are tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars—in fact I am not sure what the last count is—in unpaid fines throughout this country so we are therefore going to impose a $50 levy on every convicted criminal. This is big progress for the National Government and for Mr Power! No doubt it is his greatest claim to fame. 
Let us have a look at those we will collect that levy from and whether it will be possible to collect it. The Ministry of Justice itself says that it will be taking money from people who owe the offender levy. I quote from a document: “People who owe the offender levy will be grouped based on their willingness and ability to pay and their attitude towards compliance.” So those criminals who are convicted and charged a $50 levy and who say they would like to pay the levy will no doubt pay it. But the Ministry of Justice will group together those who do not want to pay and say that some criminals are in the too-hard basket and that it will not take the levy from them. Yet some are in the easy basket and it will take it from them. That will create more unfairness in the justice system not less. 
There is some honesty coming from the Minister of Corrections; this happens only infrequently. But she said—and she should have spoken to Mr Power before he set up this legislation—“There’s no point fining people who don’t pay fines when you’ve got other action to take.” We know that the Ministry of Justice will not follow up on those token fines and levies so that again creates an unfairness in the system when in fact the Government claims that it is trying to help victims. This is typical Tory tokenism and that is true of most of the legislation and many of the people on the Government side of the House. 
I will now go to an organisation comprising a learned set of gentlemen and ladies the Law Commission. Let us just see what the commission said about this levy. Mr Power obviously did not listen to the Law Commission when he should have—that is when he was drafting this legislation. The Law Commission report states: “There would be particular difficulties with imposing levies on persons who have been sentenced to long-term imprisonment.” There is no surprise there. The report continues: “Moreover the non-payment rate of small levies imposed on all offenders would probably be so high that the administration cost of enforcement would exceed the amount collected.” Well if we are starting off with best projections that $5 million will be collected and that it will cost $1.3 million to set up the scheme and $1.5 million to run it there is not much margin for leeway there. I say that within a year—certainly within 2 years when the Opposition will be checking the Government on all of these facts and figures before the next election—the Government will be in a negative situation regarding this levy. 
I will talk about the other issue of unfairness in relation to those who will end up paying the levy and I quote again from the Law Commission report: “If levies of the same amount were imposed on all offenders that would raise proportionality issues …”. As my good learned colleague Clayton Cosgrove asked how can anyone justify charging the same levy on a multiple murderer as on someone who might have been involved in some low-level property crime? I continue by quoting the Law Commission: “why should an offender convicted of a very minor offence without any direct victim at all pay the same amount as an offender convicted of rape or wounding with intent to commit grievous bodily harm?”. 
The Labour Opposition will support this legislation but I have to say that we do so reluctantly because in my summation this legislation which was paid for by the removal of the Sentencing Council will create more unfairness in the justice system than we have seen before. This Government ignored the wisdom of the Sentencing Council and closed it down. 
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. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.