Each year more than 10,000 offenders are ordered to pay their victim reparation, with the highest single amount since 2019 $900,000. 

But as one offender pays a paltry 65 cents per week and with reparations debt ballooning to $35 million in the past three years, an agency supporting victims of crime says the penalty scheme is no longer working. 

Victim Support spokeswoman Dr Petrina Hargrave said an overhaul was needed to make sure victims received what was owed. The courts currently collected money from offenders once sentenced, and sent it to victims. 

"The current system is not fit-for-purpose," said Hargrave, who believed the responsibility to ensure victims could recover from crime belonged to the state. 

Victim Support spokeswoman Dr Petrina Hargrave said an overhaul of the reparations scheme was needed to ensure victims were compensated. Photo / Supplied 

She said financial reparation was seen as one essential part of a victim's recovery from crime and trauma, for which the cost extended beyond loss or damage to property – victims might have to take time off work to recover, attend appointments and go to court. 

But getting the money was often not straightforward and could sometimes prolong a victim's recovery. 

Often offenders committed crime through financial hardship, which meant they were unable to pay, or were only able to drip-feed payments over many years. 

"Seeing those little payments appear in your bank account every week is both an insult and a painful reminder of the crime and trauma you've suffered," Hargrave said. 

Jeremy was still receiving reparation payments almost a decade after his motorbike was stolen from outside his flat. 

"The thief only managed to get it about 20 metres down the road though. 

"I dragged it to my mechanic who then called the police because he'd found blood on the bike from when the thief tried to hotwire it." 

Jeremy said the offender was "pinged" for breaking into about 30 cars on the same night. 

Jeremy was among a number of victims of an offender who broke into vehicles one night. He was still receiving reparations almost 10 years on. Stock Photo / 123RF 

"I wrote a victim impact statement to the court because I was a student at the time and wanted reparation for the $600 worth of damage he did by shoving a screwdriver into the ignition." 

Because of the number of victims who also demanded reparation for the damage to their vehicles, the process had been glacial. 

"Ten years later I still receive random, tiny deposits into my account from the Ministry of Justice, on his behalf." 

Jeremy said the pitiful contributions were less a reminder of how he had been victimised than how the offender must be feeling – 10 years on. 

"To be honest, I just feel sorry for the guy." 

Since 2019, and up to the end of March this year, 35,408 people had been ordered by a court to pay reparation at sentencing. 

Research showed that victims were more likely to receive reparation [including financial and practical help] as a result of the restorative justice process, which brought victims face to face with an offender. 

The voluntary scheme, to which referrals were made during the court process leading up to sentencing, guided the victim and offender through the often difficult terrain of what happened and helped to find a meaningful way to right a wrong. 

However, a study showed the least motivating factor in taking part in this process was to seek reparation. 

According to a restorative justice victim satisfaction report last year by the Ministry of Justice the majority simply wanted an explanation. 

Te Ngāpara Centre for Restorative Practice at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington said any agreement on reparation must be what a victim wanted. 

Associate Professor Jane Bolitho is the Diana Unwin Chair in Restorative Justice for Te Ngāpara. 

Associate professor Jane Bolitho said research showed victims preferred offenders and not the state to be responsible to reparations. Photo / Supplied 

She said reparation agreements don't always come down to money but could also include practical ways to help repair harm such as building a mountain bike track, helping to replace a motor vehicle, or fixing damage to a building. 

Bolitho said studies showed that less bureaucracy or state enforcement of reparations was the preferred route among those who went through restorative justice. She said having a victim engaged with the court payment process was not always appropriate. 

"Furthermore, it might make reparation feel like something the state delivers rather than the responsible party." 

The Ministry of Justice said reparation payments could be enforced, the same way as a fine, but the tools in the kit were limited. 

If an offender did not pay, money might be deducted from wages or a benefit, property could be seized and sold, or the offender could end up back in court again. 

Hargrave said there were examples overseas to follow where the state paid the reparation and collected it from the offender. 

"There has been talk about the government paying the full reparation to the victim first and then recouping it from the offender. 

"This is what's happening in the EU and it would make a huge difference to victims in New Zealand. If we are sincere about putting victims at the heart of our justice system, we should be looking at this too." 

Newly appointed Justice Minister Kiritapu Allan did not respond to questions. 

Opposition Justice spokesman Paul Goldsmith said poor enforcement of reparations payments was part of a wider failure across the justice system and was also symptomatic of a wider neglect of victims of crime. 

He said the current priority was to focus on the needs of our most serious repeat offenders, such as the repeal of the Three Strikes Legislation, when it should be focused on the needs of the victims of crime.