Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill

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.

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!

“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”!

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.

I will remove all doubt with regard to Mr Cosgrove’s polite inference that other parties have some scepticism, because I recall that in my first reading speech on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill, I expressed openly some doubts about this legislation. This has been a very informative debate. It seems to me that with the sad exception of the Greens, everyone in the Chamber is in favour of doing something for victims.

The problem that the Labour Opposition and I see and have some scepticism and concern about is whether this bill will work and whether the administration costs will soak up the levy. It has occurred to me tonight, rather late in the piece, that there is a way to solve that problem, in my view, but this is not the time to attempt to do it. I think it is well known in the House that Mr Cosgrove and I do not always see eye to eye—that would be an understatement. But I think that his speech was a very good one. If we find ourselves in the position next year where this levy has not been collectable and needs to be topped up with something else, then I will look to supporting an amendment to make it work.

To me, there is one very simple and obvious amendment. It is this: when offenders are bailed in our courts, they go downstairs to the cells while the bail bond is drawn up, and they do not walk out of the door until the bail bond has been signed. It seems to me that we could do this very simply with this levy. An offender who is convicted is sent downstairs and told that when his mum, his girlfriend, or his scumbag mate comes up with 50 bucks, then he will go. He will start his community service, negotiate with the registrar over the fine, or whatever. The collection costs are virtually nil.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: It’s only going to be paid by people who don’t go to jail.

Yes, perhaps so. I am giving notice that the ACT Party and I will be following carefully whether this measure works. If it does not, then I do not think I will need to support Mr Cosgrove in this matter. The initiative may well come from us to pass an amendment in the nature of the one that I have just described. Everyone can come up with 50 bucks. For the idiots who smoke cigarettes, that is three packets of fags. They will all have access to 50 bucks. If this bill does not work, and if the dire predictions of Mr Cosgrove come true, then we will be looking to support an amendment to make it work. Thank you.

My colleague Clayton Cosgrove has made some very good points about the nature of the title of this bill. Describing it as the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill is designed, I guess, for National to send the message that it has delivered on its 100 days of action at the beginning of its term in office, and that this measure is part of that. But, unfortunately—and this is what really bothers me about this bill—it will not really achieve any of the objectives that the Government has set for it, and ultimately victims will feel let down. That is the last thing that we want to do at this time, when we are all trying to address the needs of victims.

Alongside the point that was made by the ACT Party member David Garrett, I would have thought that one of the things that would be the most effective way to address the needs of victims would be to take steps to ensure there were fewer victims in our society by trying to reduce the levels of crime that are being committed. The point that I would make is to do with the fact that I attended the Drivers of Crime summit 6 months ago here in this building at Parliament, and the member David Garrett attended it, as well. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, was also at the summit. The summit had some very fine objectives, and after that particular meeting I went away and did a lot of study on the issues that had been raised. I met a number of people who participated in that meeting. I worked long and hard on a considered paper on the subject, which I took to our Labour caucus. Our caucus went through a very careful and deliberative process around the drivers of crime, and wanted to show willingness in terms of working collaboratively with the Government in order to make some real difference over time.

Have we had a positive response from the Government? No, and that was 6 months ago. I wrote to the Government 5 months ago, because I think I took about a month to do the work I wanted to do, and the response I got was essentially that the Government would be considering the matters that I had raised at some stage in the near future.

💬 Hon Simon Power: Just wait, just wait.

Well, I hear the Minister say that I should just wait, but it would be quite nice to hear something a little more than “just wait”. If we are going to talk genuinely about something collaborative, then it would be quite nice to actually sit down and talk about something collaborative, but I will not let that get in the way of the issue we are dealing with here. I am saying that if we could do something to address the potential for fewer future victims of crime to be created, then we would be doing so much more as a Parliament than we are doing by simply passing a $50 offender levy, regardless of the type of offence that the individual has been convicted of, and also regardless of the sentence that has been handed down.

I know that this legislation says that the levy is not part of the sentence, but the bottom line—and I think David Garrett from the ACT Party agrees with me—is that the only people who have any chance of actually paying it are those who do not go to jail. They are the only people who will have an ongoing income at the point at which they are convicted of the offence. I am not disagreeing with the member’s solution for how to get the levy out of the individual at the point of sale, as it were—you know, like an EFTPOS system for offender levies. I am actually not disagreeing with him; I am just saying that when the person goes to jail, the chances of getting the $50 offender levy out of anyone else associated with that individual will be kind of like waiting until hell freezes over. Not only will the tariff be the same regardless of the level of offence but also the payment will depend on the type of sentence that the individual gets. The more serious the offence and the more serious the sentence that is imposed on the offender, the less likely it will be that they will be called upon to pay the offender levy. To me, that just smacks of hypocrisy. I am worried that we have unsuccessful legislation here.

My colleague Clayton Cosgrove came up with the “National Party Hype Bill”, the “Letting Victims Down Bill”, and the “Tugging on the Heart Strings of Victims Bill”. I think I would add the “Give with One Hand and Take with the Other Bill”.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will make a couple of points. First of all, it is great to see that our colleague in the ACT Party, David Garrett, is in touch with his socialist side. It is wonderful to hear him supporting Clayton Cosgrove.

It was interesting to hear Mr Garrett say that the ACT Party will be looking at the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill and seeing whether it works. The question I have is what the measure of this bill working is. Will we see a reduction in crime? Will we see empty prisons? I wonder what the measure of success will be for this bill. Those are the questions that I have. Perhaps Mr Garrett would like to speak to those questions later.

I turn to the title of the bill. We heard some great alternative titles for this bill from Lianne Dalziel, who spoke just before me. One new title could be the “Sentencing (Increased Bureaucracy) Bill”, because we have heard that it will take more effort, more time, and more money to collect the $50 levy than if it was not in place. The bill could be called the “Undervalued Victims Bill”, because we see that the family of a murder victim will receive $50 from this levy. Similarly, a jaywalker will have to pay $50, and a person convicted of speeding or drink-driving will have to pay $50. To me, that undervalues the lives of those people who have had serious crimes committed against them.

Do not get me wrong; I agree that offenders need to pay. I believe that. But I think there is a better way that offenders could be made to pay, and I do not think that this $50 levy is equitable. As I say, a jaywalker will have to pay $50 and a triple axe murderer will have to pay $50. The triple axe murderer would have to pay the $50 only once, not $50 for each of his victims.

This bill could also be called the “Sentencing (Missed Opportunity for Victim Support) Bill”. It is ironic that Victim Support has been mentioned a number of times in the House, because my father and 11 others from Mid North Victim Support spent 6 or 7 hours on the road yesterday, coming down from the north, and another 6 or 7 hours on the road today so that they can attend the Victim Support conference being held tomorrow at the Brentwood Hotel. Unfortunately for them, I believe they have had to pay the costs of the van, gas, accommodation, and their meals—except for one, which was the meal that my father made me buy for them tonight at Bellamy’s. Half of them came up here and sat in the gallery to have a look at the proceedings and the other half stayed back at the buffet and finished off the seafood. However, of the dozen people—

💬 Hon Mita Ririnui: You’re the victim there!

—thanks!—who have come down in the van from the far north, not one is under 65 years of age. They are all retired. They are living on superannuation. If this levy had been gathered up, it could be used to bolster Victim Support so that people like my father are not dipping into their superannuation and into my inheritance to come down to the Victim Support conference being held in Wellington tomorrow. I believe that an opportunity has been missed for Victim Support. It is a fantastic organisation. I know that people up in the north, as are people in other Victim Support organisations around the country, are woken up in the middle of the night. They have to go out and counsel people. My father has brought people to our place, to be comforted and consoled after being the victim of a crime or incident, and there is a huge cost involved. Like I say, just about all of the counsellors in Mid North Victim Support are over the age of 65. We could have used this fund to support bringing younger people into Victim Support, training them, and getting them accustomed to what Victim Support counsellors do.

I take a call because my colleague David Garrett effectively challenged me to do so by suggesting that the Green Party does not support victims’ rights. The Green Party is a party in this Parliament that has an extremely sound and proud record of supporting victims’ rights. For example, I think of the work that Nandor Tanczos contributed towards restorative justice over the years he spent in this House. The Green Party also has a proud record of addressing the drivers of crime. When we come to bills in the justice or law and order area, or indeed in many other areas of social policy, our approach is to ask what we can do to prevent this problem occurring in the first place. That is always our focus.

The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill provides for a levy that does not provide a deterrent to other people committing crimes and does not provide a deterrent to an offender recommitting a crime. It responds to the pain, suffering, and needs of victims in an entirely tokenistic way. The term “window dressing” has been used tonight, and I think that term is absolutely appropriate. We part company with other parties where, if we see a bill that achieves nothing and is entirely tokenistic in its effect, our response is to vote against it. That is why the Green Party has voted against this bill at every stage and will continue to do so.

I move, That the question be now put.

I appreciate the opportunity to take a call. I am sure there is not a member in the Chamber who would not love to think that this legislation not only is a good idea but also will actually work. I am not famous for my cynicism. I know that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, as a former Minister for Courts, and I, as a former probation officer and former employee of the courts, know the difficulties not only of collecting levies, should this legislation go through, but also of collecting fines.

Being the cynic that I am, this evening I would probably entitle this bill the “Wishful Thinking Bill”, because basically I think that is what it is. I am sure the Minister in the chair is committed to the legislation and has some pretty strong theories about how it could possibly work. From having worked for the Department of Corrections and the courts in the past I know—as Mr Power and many of the members in this Chamber know, and as my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel mentioned before—it is all very well if the offender does not go to prison, but if the offender goes to prison, what will be the case? How does the court apply the levy, given that this particular individual will be incarcerated and unlikely at any time in the near or distant future to have the chance to pay any levy whatsoever? There is a huge list in the courts at the moment of individuals who have outstanding fines. I think that is quite a huge dilemma. The Chair himself, Rick Barker, knows this from having attempted to deal with that matter in the past, as some of his colleagues have.

It is interesting that although we might take advice from officials, design particular policies, and implement them by way of legislation, in the real world, where the rubber meets the road, it is not as simple as that. As I said earlier, and as other colleagues have mentioned, it is all very well if the individual is in the position to make that contribution or to pay the levy, but historically that has not always been the case. We have good examples in terms of unpaid fines. I know the member for Whanganui, Chester Borrows, also has a track record in the police force and, as such, would have had some involvement in court procedures and in sentencing procedures, as well. He would know that there are problems when we attempt to extract money from offenders, whether they go to prison or not. So I think that although the Labour Opposition is in favour of a genuine attempt to apply a levy, from my experience—and I am sure from the experience of many members in this Chamber in their previous roles in the community—it is not quite as simple and straightforward as that.

I want to hear from the Minister in the chair what the contingency plan is if this legislation does not work. I want to know whether we are going through this process under urgency just for the sake of it, or whether there is a grand plan somewhere that basically will be able to deal with the failures of implementing a procedure such as this legislation to impose certain requirements on individuals. The Minister in the chair really needs to explain that position to the Committee. I am sure that he has heard in the Committee stage this evening that there is some considerable support for this approach, but at the same time he has also heard members take calls and express concerns about whether this approach will be effective, and whether it will even work. My colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove has gotten to his feet a few times and asked what the go is if the Minister is not able to make this work.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Appropriation!

Well, there is something: appropriation. I do not think the Minister of Finance would be too happy to hear that. But it is one option, because we have to ask ourselves who the victim is in this game.

Given the ACT Party’s contribution, we could rename the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill the “ACT Party Deep down Does Not Really Like It Either and Does Not Think It Will Work Bill”. Mr Garrett is right on this occasion, although he and I do disagree somewhat on a number of issues. I commend Mr Garrett. He did not have to get up on his feet and make that statement, but he did so tonight. He is a man who has very genuinely held views on law and order issues. I commend him on this occasion, rare though it may be, for getting up and saying that deep down he does not believe, and the ACT Party really does not believe, that this legislation will work. As Mr Garrett said in his first reading speech, he is very, very sceptical about this bill. So the “ACT Party Does Not Believe It Will Work Bill” would be a very good title, I think, for this legislation.

It is interesting that Mr Garrett made the point that, in essence—I am paraphrasing what he said, and I am sure he will stand up and correct me if I am wrong—if in his view this legislation does not meet the mark, he will propose amendments. I presume maybe that will be to require the Government to appropriate funds, although I suspect he may not have to do that. I suspect what will happen is that Ms te Heuheu, the Minister for Courts, will have another few dollars put on the line item budget in that area. The extra dollars will be glossed up in a whole lot of words to hide what they are for, but they will be to top up the offender levy when the money does not come in and does not flow directly to victims. This bill could be called the “We Will Toughen Up in This Next Budget Round Bill”. That is, I suspect, what the Government will do, because it knows that it will have some problems.

So I commend Mr Garrett on this occasion. We do disagree somewhat on a very large number of issues, but he did not have to say what he said tonight. He got up and said he was sceptical about the bill. Well, he did effectively say that OK, the ACT Party will wander into the stalls with the National Party and put the yes stamp on the vote, but in essence ACT does not really support the bill because ACT is sceptical as to whether it will actually work and whether its implementation will provide victims with the necessary support that they want. I think, in all seriousness, a good title would be “ACT Party Government Coalition Partner: We Did Not Support It Deep down and Do Not Think It Will Work Bill”. That would be a very, very good title. The ACT Party is honest enough to say that is the case.

I invite the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, to get up and comment about the fact that the Government’s coalition partner, through its honesty tonight, has whipped the rug right out from under the Government. It would be very interesting to know what Government members will say when they go back to their electorates and the Sensible Sentencing Trust knocks on the door and asks why even the ACT Party does not believe that this legislation will work. Perhaps it will ask Mr Bridges, in his patch; I wonder what he will say. In Wanganui, where half my people come from, I wonder what Mr Borrows will say when the Sensible Sentencing Trust or other victims’ rights agents or organisations knock on his door to ask why ACT got up and honestly said it did not think this legislation would work either, and to ask why the ACT members were so sceptical about it that they foreshadowed that they would propose amendments to sort it out if it did not work. I want to hear what Mr Borrows will say then, because the rug has been pulled out from under this Government tonight at about 9 p.m., when Mr Garrett made an honest, heartfelt contribution.

The truth is that the party that purports to be the toughest party on law and order issues—and we will not debate the veracity of that—is now on the record as saying it does not think this legislation will really meet the mark. ACT does not really believe that this measure will actually assist victims; it does not believe that it will give victims the resources that they need. What the ACT members really believe is what most of us, I think, believe on this side. We all stand for victims, and we all stand with and beside victims, but we want to put legislation through this House that is not about politics but about achieving a practical effect. We want to make the levy work and to look after victims. Tonight the Government has been exposed. This is one of three or four such occasions over the last week. But tonight the party that purports to be the toughest in the House on law and order issues has basically pulled the rug out from under the credibility of this legislation. I will enjoy these speeches and I will keep them in the filing cabinet, ready to take out at the appropriate time. I think Mr Garrett will be a man of his word on what he has proposed.

I move, That the question be now put.