Fines Amendment (Payment of Victims Compensation Levies) Bill 2006
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, I am pleased to speak to the Fines Amendment (Payment of Victims Compensation Levies) Bill. The object of this bill is to amend the Fines Act 1996 to authorise and validate the collection of compensation levies from inmates’ prison earnings, and also to clarify that the enforcement of compensation levies will be carried out under the Fines Act 1996. The latest statistics published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that there were 25,353 prisoners in Australia on 30 June 2005. The imprisonment rate of 163 prisoners per 100,000 adult population represents a 3 per cent increase on the rate of 157 prisoners per 100,000 adult population in the previous year. Three-quarters of all prisoners are held in New South Wales—approximately 10,000 prisoners. In Queensland there are approximately 5,000 prisoners and in Victoria 3,692.
Between 2004 and 2005, the prison population increased in New South Wales by 5 per cent. Notably, decreases in prison populations have occurred in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. The reasons for the decrease in prison populations in those States ought to be noted by our authorities. Overall, the prison population has increased by a massive 45 per cent since 1995. This increase has exceeded the 15 per cent growth in the Australian adult population rate, resulting in the adult imprisonment rate increasing from 127 to 163 prisoners per 100,000 adult population between 1994 and 2005. With this increase, it is clear that the capacity of corrective services agencies and the resources that are given to them must also increase.
I point out the following fact because there is a good side to it. A study conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology shows that there is a direct correlation between the increase in prison populations and decrease in crime outside prison.
As a result, people in the community feel safer. According to the Institute of Criminology, in the past two years in particular there has been a sharp drop in murders, robberies, burglaries and theft. For example, the robbery rate peaked at 137 per 100,000 people in 2001 before declining 40 per cent to only 82 per 100,000 last year. The institute report also stated that violent crimes carried out at transport and retail locations had the sharpest falls—by 31 per cent and 36 per cent respectively. Violent crime in homes fell by 11 per cent, on the streets by 17 per cent and in parks and other recreational places by 25 per cent.
Sadly, nearly one in two prisoners committed a most serious offence that involved violence or the threat of violence, including offences such as acts intended to cause injury, robbery-extortion, sexual assault and homicide. These statistics indicate one of many things. Perhaps we have more and improved laws, which have resulted in a larger number of people being imprisoned. Perhaps the police are doing a better job of catching those who breach New South Wales laws. Perhaps the increase in the prisoner population is a reflection of the social and moral conditions in sections of our society. All in all, effective legislation and the resources to match must be in place to manage our prisoner population in New South Wales and across Australia.
A report by the Productivity Commission, entitled “Report on Government Services 2006”, provides statistics on expenditure by governments on the justice system. Nationally, the expenditure to provide justice services in 2004-05 was $412 per person. “Justice services” means police services, civil and criminal court administration and corrective services. In 2004-05 the New South Wales Government spent, in real terms, $96 per person to provide services for persons within the corrective services system. That figure is much lower than the national average of $412 per person.
Crime exacts a devastating cost on society. As can be gleaned from the statistics I have quoted, the cost is widespread and pervasive. For every perpetrator of crime within our correctional facilities, at least one other person’s life has been adversely affected. The Victims Compensation Tribunal chairman’s report for 2004-05 noted that the tribunal received approximately 5,000 applications for compensation. In 2004-05, 5,616 claims for compensation were determined and $61.56 million paid out in statutory compensation. Approximately $3.6 million was recovered by restitution action, which is the highest in any year. That is the very tip of the iceberg on meeting victim’s needs and upholding their rights.
This bill seeks to entrench a mechanism to compensate victims of crime, albeit in some small fashion. The bill upholds the ability of the Office of State Revenue to levy a fine from persons convicted on indictment or otherwise. The levy will be $70 when the person is convicted on indictment and $30 in other cases. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said that the compensation levy will be paid into the Victims Compensation Fund, from which compensation under the Act is paid to the victims of acts of violence. The Christian Democratic Party applauds this measure. The stated purpose of the bill is to force those who commit criminal offences to make a personal contribution to the compensation of victims of crime. As many will say, it is about time. Most importantly, the levy is additional to the restitution that an offender is required to pay when the offender’s victim receives compensation under the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996. It is important that all moneys levied in such a fashion are given to victims. Transparent mechanisms are necessary to ensure that this occurs. I would be interested to find out exactly how this money is given to victims and for what particular purpose.
The levying of this fine has occurred for almost a decade. Clause 7 of the Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 previously authorised the deduction of such levies from inmates’ prison earnings. Section 80 of the Victims Compensation Act 1996, which allowed for such a regulation to be enacted, was repealed when the Fines Act 1996 commenced operation. Within the Fines Act 1996 the phrase “compensation levy” was included in the definition of a “fine”. It follows that when section 80 of the Victims Compensation Act 1996 was repealed, clause 7 of the Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 was also repealed, albeit implied. Further, the entire Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 later lapsed under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989. However, compensation levies continued to be deducted from the earnings of inmates in accordance with established procedures. This bill seeks to remove any doubt that a compensation levy can be exacted from prisoners under the Fines Act 1996.
This bill inserts section 18 into the Fines Act 1996. Section 18 is similar to clause 7 of the Victims Compensation Regulation 1997 and will ensure that compensation levies can continue to be deducted from inmates’ prison earnings. Compensation levies are defined as “fines” for the purpose of the Fines Act 1996. The Act allows the State Debt Recovery Office to enforce fines imposed by courts. The office enforces such levies against offenders who are not imprisoned and this money is also paid into the Victims Compensation Fund.
It has been suggested that a compensation levy payable under the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 might be construed as not being “imposed by a court”. The bill inserts new section 4 (2A) in the Fines Act 1996 to provide that a compensation levy is taken to be a fine imposed by a court. This will put the enforcement of compensation levies under the Fines Act 1996 beyond doubt. Schedule 3 to the bill retrospectively validates the past collection of compensation levies, provided they could have been collected if the provisions of the bill were in force. As to the retrospective nature of this schedule, the Legislation Review Committee said:
Given that the bill only affects the means of enforcement of levies owed and not the imposition of such levies, and that the legality of such enforcement is only in doubt due to a legislative oversight, the Committee does not consider that the retrospective validation of the enforcement of compensation levies unduly trespasses upon personal rights and liberties.
The bill simply entrenches the current practice of levying inmates for the purpose of compensating victims. The Christian Democratic Party commends the bill to the House.