Rebecca Harris is the General Manager of the Academy Publishing Group.
It’s been reported recently organisations providing counseling to rape victims and their families are having difficulty dealing with the demand for services. The apparent rise in sexual assaults is driven mostly by an increasing number of people reporting family violence, and the increased national awareness of it being “ok” to speak up.
After an investigation into funding issues for sexual violence, ACC funding for victims was cut drastically in 2009. However, the need for counseling, education and awareness programmes, as well as emotional support for victims and families, no doubt extending to physical and financial support, has increased.
We have an offenders’ levy – a measly $50 automatic deduction that is required by law to be paid by anyone sentenced in the District or High Court. This levy is used to fund a range of new services for victims of serious crime and ensure that offenders contribute to addressing the harm that their crimes cause.
Fifty whole dollars – wow; that’s a deterrent!
This levy is clearly not cutting the mustard if organisations are still struggling. This prompted an idea; what about a new tax code of “O” for offender. The idea grows on you – not only can the funds from this new tax be used for rape victims, but all victims of all crime.
Tabacco products are taxed heavily to help cover expenses incurred by smokers. This is not just a one off levy of $50, they are continually taxed. The question I ask is why not tax offenders to cover expenses incurred as well?
I’ve actually re-written the rest of this rant a number of times. Originally I had the idea of $1 a day tax for all offenders, but then there is petty crime at one end of the scale, and at the other end, the life sentences – these offenders would not have a taxable income for a number of years. The other problem I came across was the poor payroll team. In many work places there are bound to be a number of employees who the proposed tax code O will apply to – so how then do you stop the payroll team assuming all O’s are mass murderers, or violent rapists, when they could just be a petty criminal from way back?
I guess it’s just too hard, but we’re still left with victim related organisations scraping for funding and relying on the support of philanthropists or the uncertainty of government funds.
There is currently M, SL, ME, ML, SB, S, SH, ST, WT, CAE, EDW, NSW and STC (possibly others…) and combinations of the above. So I pose the question – why not chuck in O and use it for the specific purpose of supporting victims of offenders?
How would it work? I guess we’ll leave that to the government. Perhaps they could set up a sub-committee that can report to an executive committee, who then reports to the committee for… who knows what? I’ll leave that thought with you.
