Fairbrother Russell: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16951] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to follow the speech of the Minister Clayton Cosgrove. I cannot come anywhere near to his level of rhetoric or enthusiasm but I have decided to take a more analytical approach as one is wont to do on subjects such as this one. I was particularly prompted into taking that approach by the speech of David Bennett from Hamilton who spoke about wanting to bring in retrospective legislation. As he was debating Part 2 I looked to see which part could become retrospective and looking at the bill led me on an interesting journey. What he wants to do is to impose retrospective levies on employers. I was thinking about how appropriate it is in this age for a right-wing party to want to bring in retrospective levies and penalty payments on employers. How did I get to that? Let us look at the bill itself which would be a refreshing change in this debate. 
Clause 34A starts out by stating: “Transitional provision for payment of levies and payment of penalties and interest due for unpaid levies”. Mr Bennett from Hamilton says that the payment of levies and the penalties for unpaid levies should be retrospective. Retrospectivity means that we date something back to a time before the start of the legislation. Mr Bennett is advocating the charging of levies in arrears so that levies that were not previously entitled to be charged could now be charged back to some uncertain date in the past. I was thinking about what that really means. What is Mr Bennett really saying? Is he saying that workers should be penalised as such as he is often wont to say in this House? No he does not say that because the levies referred to in this clause relate to sections 21 to 23 of the principal Act. So we go to clauses 21 to 23 of Part 1 of the bill in order to see which party they relate to—the worker or the employer. Clause 21 which Mr Bennett wants to make retrospective states: “Employers to pay levies”. So Mr Bennett’s speech which I presume has the authority of the leader of the National Party says that employers in this country should be liable for retrospective levies. 
That is a new policy. That is not in the list of National policies announced on 9 June at Fieldays where new policies were listed. No mention of that is made in the documentation so that clearly is a new policy that has slipped out from this member on his feet in the Chamber tonight in the Committee stage. So the National Party’s new way of raising money to pay for tax cuts is to bring in the concept of retrospective levies paid by employers. Either that is the case or Mr Bennett was speaking outside his party’s policy and therefore not addressing the Committee honestly on the matters before him tonight. We must assume that he is an honourable member and is acting on instructions from his leader to advance National Party policy in a debate on a matter as important as this is. 
Clause 34A does not address just clause 21; it also addresses clause 22 which states: “Private domestic workers to pay levies”. What does that tell us? The member for Hamilton East Mr Bennett not only wants to bring in retrospective levies on employers; he wants to get at domestic workers as well. 
Does it stop there? No clause 34A also refers to section 23 which relates to self-employed people having to pay levies and so on. 
Essentially the National Party is advancing tonight an argument not of backdating taxes but of imposing levies that did not exist before this bill was introduced. If that is the attitude of the National members then they must come clean. Perhaps that is why the National members voted against the tax cuts for business that came in this year. Perhaps it is because they have an agenda not yet declared. Perhaps they are not yet prepared to declare their policy on business because it would be so unpopular—it includes not giving tax cuts to business and imposing retrospective levies on businesses. This is new policy. This is absolutely stunningly appalling policy if one is interested in increasing the productivity of this good country. Part 2 of this bill makes what Mr Bennett was talking about crystal clear. 
I say once again—one needs to run through it in one’s head several times because the concept is so staggering—that Mr Bennett on behalf of the National Party is advocating the retrospective charging of levies under the accident compensation provisions. These matters will be taken up by many business interests throughout the country no doubt. No doubt the Insurance Council and the firm Mr Gallagher referred to—which may have had a big influence on Mr Bennett tonight—will not be taking issue with that but employers around the country will be concerned that they will have to pay retrospective levies. It is appalling.