Roy Heather: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Roy Heather: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6647] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this bill on behalf of ACT New Zealand which as I said during the second reading and throughout the earlier debates on the bill does not support it. ACT opposes the bill because it imposes an unnecessary tax on the motorists of New Zealand. If passed—and I presume it will be—it will create the third unnecessary increase in petrol levies since the Labour Government came to power. As we have been reminded at least once in the third reading debate Labour is the party that campaigned on the basis of no new taxes. Since that party came to power as we heard a moment ago the Government has introduced 15 new taxes and that almost became 16 with the proposal of the “fat tax”. Had it not been for the fact that ACT New Zealand raised that matter with the Government we might well have still been in line for that. Thankfully that proposal has now been squashed and the hard-working New Zealander who always foots the bill will not be subject to that tax at least. 
Unfortunately as we progress through the debate on the third reading of this bill it is becoming obvious that yet another petrol levy will be added. This legislation will increase the petrol levy used to fund the Accident Compensation Corporation from 2.3c per litre to 5.08c per litre. That is a massive increase in tax of 120 percent. Labour had hoped that motorists would not notice that; it has been snuck through as quickly as possible. We first heard about this bill in December of last year. The timing was perfect. It was Christmas time when everybody was too busy out doing the Christmas shopping to notice that yet another tax was about to be imposed. Then the bill was introduced to the House—with the proviso that the levy would start on 1 July which had already been predetermined before anything had come before Parliament—on 8 April in the middle of the Iraq conflict. At the time the oil prices were all over the place so our petrol prices of course were doing the same. They were fluctuating wildly and the Government timed the introduction of the bill precisely so that again nobody would notice it. Motorists did not know quite how much tax they were paying on their petrol at that time; it was not obvious from day to day. 
This is also the third petrol tax that we have had since Labour came to power. It comes on top on the Crown revenue petroleum excise tax increase on 1 July 2001 and the National Roads Fund petrol tax hike on 1 March 2002. Like the previous two increases this tax hike is totally unnecessary. We are talking here about injury prevention. Quite why we are I do not know. This tax has nothing to do with injury prevention as the National Party speaker said previously. The rate of serious injury and death over the past decade has steadily fallen by 30 percent and over the same decade the number of registered cars has increased by 30 percent. Taken in total we have had a drop of about 50 percent in the serious injury and death rate. So why exactly are we looking at this measure? It is just another excuse for a tax grab. 
If we look at the Accident Compensation Corporation’s motor vehicle account we can see it has run an underlying net surplus of more than $100 million per year before claim revaluation adjustments and changes in accounting treatments. Government members tell us that that is a way to cover rising health costs for road accident victims. Looking at the corporation’s annual accounts is also very instructive. We can see the corporation’s problems—or proposed problems—are actually due to the revaluation of the future cost of social rehabilitation which over the next 30 years will be $858 million rather than the $696 million that was stated. The accounts show that that is an estimate of future costs based on the assumption that social rehabilitation costs will rise by 20 percent annually. Quite how the corporation came to that figure I do not know but it is staggering. 
The submissions on this bill were interesting too and we should look at them. The bill suggests that it will be fairer to lift the excise duty on fuel rather than tacking the increased cost on to the registration fee. What that ignores is that the vehicles that use the least fuel often expose their driver or the operator to the greatest degree of risk of injury. Let me take for example motorcycles. They use considerably less fuel than cars but a motorcyclist is at a hugely greater risk of injury than a car driver or passenger.With small cars it is exactly the same situation. They use much less petrol—one can go a much greater distance on a small amount of petrol—than large cars yet when they have accidents the passengers and drivers of those vehicles often sustain much greater injuries because there is less protection for them. 
The New Zealand First member talked about privatising accident compensation and raised a very valid point. We should be looking at privatising that account. We saw great advantages when the employers account was opened to competition. [ 
Interruption 
] Why does Mr Benson-Pope not stand and take a call instead of muttering away? 
David Benson-Pope 
: What a good idea. 
HEATHER ROY 
: The member should do so. He should use his own time instead of the Opposition’s time. Privatising the employers account would bring great benefits. The submission from Business New Zealand actually suggested in relation to the fairness of this legislation that the Accident Compensation Corporation and the Government should investigate alternative options for setting premiums for the motor vehicle account that would take into account all aspects of risk including driver vehicle and road characteristics. What a sensible suggestion that was but it would be much too sensible for this Government to look at I presume. However privatisation would not have that problem. The private insurers would look at the fairness of the system. 
For those reasons and there is good support on the Opposition side of the House for those reasons—[ 
Interruption 
] Is Mr Benson-Pope going to take a call or not? 
Hon Member 
: Yes he is. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Good. Perhaps the member could be quiet. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Sit down and I will take a call. 
HEATHER ROY 
: My 10 minutes are not up yet. As I have already said ACT New Zealand opposes this bill which is just yet another tax from Labour which stated there would be no new taxes. How many times has it stated that now? We have had 15 new taxes to date. We see here an anti-motorist nonsensical tax hike that will hit every New Zealand motorist in the back pocket and we cannot condone that practice. For that reason ACT New Zealand opposes this bill.