Mia Schlicht On Criminal Justice Reform ABC Melbourne – 30 October 2023

In this interview, Research Analyst Mia Schlicht discusses the need for criminal justice reform and better sentencing options.

All media appearances posted onto the IPA website are directly related to the promotion and dissemination of IPA research

Below is a transcript of the interview.

Ali Moore:

I also want to know from you whether you think jail is always the answer. Is it time that we maybe looked for an alternative, and what could that alternative be? And have you heard of a offender super tax levy? I raised the question because last week, the former state politician, Russell Northe, who served as the member for Morwell for 16 years, he was sentenced to 21 months in prison after pleading guilty to misconduct in public office. It included claiming over $175,000 in false administrative expenses. Now housing the former minister in prison will cost taxpayers more than that every year, which has led to a call for him to be financially penalised instead of imprisoned. 1300222774 is the number. Now that call for financial penalty has come from Mia Schlicht who’s a criminal justice reform research analyst at the Institute of Public Affairs. Mia, welcome to Drive.

Mia Schlicht:

Hi. Thank you for having me.

Ali Moore:

Why shouldn’t Northe go to jail for what he did, especially given his role as the public officer?

Mia Schlicht:

Well, first of all, it’s really important to note that Russell Northe has done the wrong thing, and there is no doubt that he absolutely needs to be punished and punished harshly. However, he is a nonviolent offender who poses very limited physical safety threat to the community. His sentence, however, will ultimately end up costing taxpayers over half a million dollars. So our reform proposes that instead of placing this burden on taxpayers to pay for Russell Northe’s crime, he himself should be forced to pay through the form of a super taxation offender levy, which would ultimately see him pay a one-off fine in the form of $180,000, which would go back to the victims. And then a further levy, which would see him pay off his crimes over a longer period of time as a reminder of his wrongdoing.

Ali Moore:

So there’s the one-off that basically would match the amount that he is … what he was found guilty of abusing, and that was the 175,000. And then this super tax levy, how would that be measured and how long would it go for?

Mia Schlicht:

So the super taxation levy would basically work as a normal form of taxation, however, it would be a higher degree. So two thirds of the total income derived by the offender will be payable as taxation, and the total payable would be double the amount wrongfully obtained. And he would continue to pay this off until the total debt is repaid.

Ali Moore:

So it would be done in accordance with how much he was earning. So basically his tax rate would be 75%?

Mia Schlicht:

Absolutely. And it would continue until he had paid back his total debt to the community.

Ali Moore:

Which would be double what was taken plus the initial amount that had been repaid upfront.

Mia Schlicht:

That’s correct.

Ali Moore:

I suppose my question would be, how would you ensure that that was viable? Because if you’re going to allow someone to live in the community, you don’t want to push them into a situation where they can’t pay that back. I mean, if you take 75% of someone’s salary and they’re not earning very much to start with, how are they going to live?

Mia Schlicht:

So it would be an extension of programmes that are currently put in place by the court in the form of diversionary programmes, and it’s the logical next step for that, but it’s for financial offenders. So we’d be ensuring that these offenders secured some form of employment, which not only would ensure that victims are being repaid, but it would also act to address our labour shortage that our country is currently facing. So at the moment in Victoria, one in four businesses can’t find the workers they need. So these financial offenders could work for willing businesses who need more workers, and in those roles they could pay off this fine.

Ali Moore:

So how would they be supervised? I mean, you’re not suggesting that they live in some supervised accommodation, are you?

Mia Schlicht:

No. So there’d be a variety of conditions in place, and it would depend on the offender and what kind of crime they’ve committed. But it would ultimately be a sentencing option available for judges, and then it would be administered through the criminal justice system through an external programme.

Ali Moore:

Do you think that there are many crimes where this would be a more appropriate punishment?

Mia Schlicht:

Well, we need to look at … At the moment, jails are seen as the most serious form of punishment, however, the most expensive. So for nonviolent crimes where criminals do not pose a physical safety threat, we need to look at ensuring that we’re seeing the best outcome for the community. And if they don’t pose a physical safety threat, there are other ways that they can give back, which doesn’t see taxpayers paying for their crimes by incarcerating them.

Ali Moore:

And just tell us about the cost of incarceration again. Is that a … I’m just wondering whether it depends on what level of incarceration. I mean, for example, clearly in this particular instance, Russell Northe would be, and one would imagine, not a high security prison. So I imagine that the cost of incarceration depends very much. It just seemed very high.

Mia Schlicht:

So in Victoria, it currently costs approximately $200,000 per year per offender. And on top of that, we’re seeing capacity issues of prisons across Australia, which means new prisons are needing to be billed as we continue to incarcerate more and more people, which is a cost of billions of dollars to Australian taxpayers. Currently, in Victoria, 40% of our prisoners have actually been incarcerated for a non-violent offence, which is stacking up to millions of dollars per year for Victorian taxpayers.

Ali Moore:

And if you had any or done any research on what the cost would be of setting up a system around people should they be subject to this tax or levy instead, what would that system be in comparison from a cost perspective?

Mia Schlicht:

There would definitely be costs for imposing this system, however, it would be much fewer than the current cost of housing them in the prison. And what’s really beneficial about this programme is that instead of placing all of the burden on the taxpayer for basically housing them in a cell, these offenders are actually working in the community, working for businesses who can’t find the workers they need, and restitution the victim for their losses, which ultimately should be the goal of our criminal justice system.

Ali Moore:

How would you say that it should be decided who goes to jail and who gets a tax on them instead? Because surely there would have to be some element of ability to pay. I’ve got a text here saying, “I get caught for fraud. I go on the dole, you’ll never get any money back.”

Mia Schlicht:

So this would need to be a sentencing option which is available for judges, and it would depend on the character of the offender. And we recognise that this would not be appropriate for all offenders, but for those nonviolent ones who are low risk and posing limited physical safety threat, the system could help place them in a job for a business who cannot find the workers that they need. And in that way, there would be some guidance in ensuring that they maintain that employment and pay back their fines.

Ali Moore:

Would it be the ultimate decision of the court as to whether this happened?

Mia Schlicht:

Yes. It would need to be through the discretion of judges to ensure that it is appropriate and that community safety is still the utmost important upstanding value.

Ali Moore:

Thank you very much for talking to us. I suppose one other question I’d have is, should the perpetrator, the person who’s been found guilty, would they have the right to reject this and go to jail instead?

Mia Schlicht:

That’s something it would have to look at through the sentencing regime, but ultimately the goal should be ensuring that victims are restituted for their losses. So in that way, it would be preferable for victims to ensure that the money is returned to them. So if the offender is eligible to work, that should be the priority.

Ali Moore:

Mia Schlicht, thank you very much for talking to us.

Mia Schlicht:

Thank you.

Ali Moore:

Mia Schlicht there, she’s a criminal justice reform research analyst at the Institute of Public Affairs. I wonder what you think about the whole idea if someone is capable of paying a bank, is capable of working, is capable of earning some money, whether or not they should be subject to a levy or a tax, an offender tax, which is completely monitored, but as opposed to being put in jail.