Put yourself in a victim's shoes for a moment.
Maybe you were assaulted, or robbed, or had your car stolen. Maybe you were unfairly fired from your job or booted out of your home.
You go to the authorities, the perpetrator is found, the case goes to a court or some other authority.
You're trying to move on but at the same time, you must participate in the justice system - prepare a statement, give evidence, maybe sit through a trial.
The perpetrator is found guilty and, as part of sentencing, the judge makes an order for reparation to be paid to you.
The money might be to replace belongings, make up for a period where you couldn't work, or acknowledge the emotional harm you suffered.
You know that no amount of money will erase that trauma, which can be life-altering. Nothing could do that. But you also understand that reparation is a way for the justice system to acknowledge your trauma in a way meant to directly benefit the victim in a way other punishments do not.
Maybe you're lucky and the money comes promptly. You put it to use and get on with life.
Or maybe it comes in dribs and drabs, overseen by the court. Each payment is a help but also a reminder of what happened.
In plenty of cases, the money doesn't come at all. It's a rare and unusually forgiving person who could view this as anything other than the very definition of insult to injury - a second helping of distress.
As reported today, $8.3 million worth of Tauranga court-ordered reparation is overdue. In Rotorua, it's $500,000.
The issue of offenders not being able or willing to pay reparation has been around since the concept of having them compensate victims first came about.
According to Te Ara, the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1963 was the first attempt to compensate crime victims for personal injury, but they had to take civil action to get anything and redress for emotional suffering was "virtually impossible".
The Criminal Justice Act 1985 introduced reparation as a sentence but it proved time-consuming to administer, especially as many offenders could not or would not pay.
Reforms since then have strengthened laws and systems that benefit victims, but the original problem of non-payment remains.
Victims can seek other forms of compensation, through insurance or ACC, but studies have found they still end up out of pocket.
This isn't right. Victims should not need to bear the burden of the wait or the chase for reparation owed to them, dragging the trauma of the event out in perpetuity.
In the great scheme of crime and punishment, reforming our system of reparation for victims so that it doesn't re-victimise people seems like the least we can do.