Connell Brian: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Connell Brian: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6500] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I am a little perplexed when I look through Part 3—in fact at all the bill. I wonder whether the Minister could take a call and assist me. As I look through it I cannot see any reference at all to rehabilitation. I understand the title of the bill is the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill but I cannot see any reference to rehabilitation. That is a serious matter and maybe it is just a drafting error. I think that the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard should take a call and try to avert an error from taking place. Once this bill is enacted that will be the way it is. I leave that for your attention Mr Chairman. 
In particular I want to look at clause 13(1). I draw members’ attention to the Customs and Excise Act being amended so that “levies imposed by section 213(2)(c) of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001” are inserted in the definition of “duty”. There is no way that one can read that and not say it is a tax. I ask the Committee this: when is a duty not a tax when is a levy not a tax and when is a tax not a levy? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Good question. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It is a very good question. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: What’s the answer? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well Michael Cullen gave the answer to the House some time ago. He said that levies were just a back-door way of introducing taxes. 
People in the Government have said that this increased levy is just a small matter. As Mr Tisch has rightly pointed out the increase from 2.3c per litre to 5.08c per litre equates to a 120 percent increase. People who are listening to this debate out there might just say 2c or 3c a litre is not very much. But when we put it in dollar terms we find it adds up to approximately $155 million. The mums and dads out there are the ones who will be hit with this levy the hardest because they are on fixed incomes. They will not have the ability to change their incomes to pay for this increase. This is the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. We have just a little bit more on a little bit more on a little bit more until we reach a point where the levy is no longer sustainable. 
 I ask whether the increase is necessary. The answer clearly is no. If there was competition in accident compensation this bill would not be necessary. I challenge members on the Government side of the Chamber. Mr Peck is calling out. He is a guy who has a lot to say so maybe he will get on his feet take a call and explain in 5 minutes or so to this Committee why it is necessary to have a $155 million increase in taxation under the guise of a levy. I challenge Mr Peck to do that. 
Mark Peck 
: I am a big fella. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I wish Mr Peck would sit down when he calls out. Oh I am sorry; he is sitting down. I apologise to him. 
Does the Minister think that Kiwis are idiots? I want to pose that question to this Committee. Does he really think that the people of New Zealand will not recognise tax increases when he calls them levies? “Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalised robbery.” is a quote from Calvin Coolidge a former US President. “The reward of energy enterprise and thrift is taxes.” is another quote this time from William Feather a US author. I think the people of New Zealand need to understand that point. This Government is hell-bent on attacking people in this country—the mums and dads who cannot do anything to change their incomes when taxes are arbitrarily introduced. I tell the member to sit down because I was taking a deep breath and the next point is important. 
If the money was going where it is intended it should go I would be more relaxed about this legislation. But I say to the members of this Committee—and they may take issue with this if they like—that I do not have any faith in that.