KEY POINTS:
It could be a red letter year for the debt collecting industry. This week the first demand notices will be mailed out to users of Auckland's new toll road, the Northern Gateway. On top of that, Justice Minister Simon Power has confirmed his intention to proceed with National
Party promises to slap a $50 "victim tax" on everyone convicted in a New Zealand court.
When you consider that in the 2008 financial year, 1,163,737 fines were imposed - and that doesn't include the people locked up without being fined - that's an awful lot of $50 cheques to go find. If the present rate of "resolution" of fines and reparation payments is anything to go by, Mr Power's new tax will have the debt collectors enjoying boom times.
In the Law Commission's October 2008 report on "Compensation for Victims of Crime", it was noted that of the fines imposed in the 2008 financial year, only 32.37 per cent had been paid. Of fines two to three years old, only 68.06 per cent had been "resolved". Even looking back to fines five to six years old, 124,366 - 14 per cent - had not been collected.
The same pattern was revealed for the resolution of court imposed reparations. Here, $80 million worth of court-ordered payouts from criminals to their victims are unpaid.
The Commissioners sagely observed that given the above scenario, "the non-payment rate of small levies imposed on all offenders would probably be so high that the administration costs of enforcement would exceed the amount collected".
If Mr Power hasn't requested a breakdown of the probable administration costs related to tolling every miscreant passing through one of Her Majesty's court rooms - it's not clear whether speeding tickets and the like are to be included - he might like to see the research done related to levying tolls on the Northern Gateway - then known as Alpurt B2.
In August 2005, Cabinet papers revealed a standalone electronic tolling system on Alpurt B2 would require ongoing subsidies and that $1.35 of the proposed $1.80 toll would be gobbled up in administration. A year later we were told the road authority had gone for the cheaper camera-based system now in place, which would cost $140 million for the infrastructure and ongoing costs of 30 cents per transaction. In other words, collecting money, especially from the reluctant, is costly.
Promising to tax the baddies to compensate the goodies was no doubt a vote-winner. Few can resist a slogan like "Tough on Crime" or not sympathise with the sentiment behind National's pledge of "putting victims at the centre of the justice system". But endeavouring to squeeze a few more dollars out of the pockets of everyone who falls foul of the law - for whatever reason - is not going to make the victim king.
Mr Power's $50 levy will not, despite the promise to put victims at the centre of the justice system, do anything of the sort. As National's election brochure small print says, it will just raise around $5 million a year to fund a Victims Compensation Scheme which "will help victims with one-off expenses not covered by Accident Compensation or other state help". It's hard to argue against providing funds for victims to travel to court or pay for counselling, but if it is considered
a function of a compassionate state to do so, then why not increase the direct funding out of the Justice vote already going to such activities. This year $7.931 million has been budgeted for "purchasing support for victims". Given that the vote for Legal Aid for criminals this year totals $130 million, who would begrudge a top-up in emergency aid to victims.
The Law Commission warns against singling out the victims of criminals as more worthy of state compensation than "the victims of other misfortunes". It is, they say, "in essence an emotional rather than a rational argument".
They point out that "also deserving of society's recognition and compassion" are, for example, "people whose uninsured houses are damaged by flood, parents whose children suffer cancer, and so on. If more than the usual welfare entitlements are given to crime victims, why are these other victims precluded? And where do we draw the line"?
The commissioners do concede funding could be increased for targeted victims assistance, but query the merits of funding it from a criminal levy. Aside from the costs of administration, they have philosophical and equity concerns. If there was a set levy for all convictees, "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".
They also query funding victim services using such an unpredictable source of cash. Annual funding levels would fluctuate based on decisions unrelated to the needs of the service. Also, "earmarked funds of this sort are inherently undesirable because they bypass the normal process of government priority setting".
Since the Sentencing Act 2002, reparation must be awarded unless the court is satisfied it would result in "undue hardship" for the offender or his/her dependants, or there are other circumstances that would make it inappropriate. Our judges lead the world in this field.
I say leave it to them. Plans for a levy are just a side show. One that could lose money. If victims need more emergency support then let's fund it directly.
