Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6479] 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill for which Colin James suggested in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 a perfect title when he talked about the sneaky taxes we do not see coming. Indeed an apt name for the bill would be the “Sneaky Taxes We Don’t See Coming Bill”. This is one of a long list of the LabourGovernment’s stealth taxes that this nation has been subjected to. Even from the beginning when it started to raise the general tax it mentioned that but then it went on to the tobacco excise tax of over $110 million the alcohol tax the sherry tax on the elderly not to mention— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member; however the debate is on the title. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Quite right and indeed— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Just a moment please. I am speaking. The debate on the title clause in Committee is limited strictly to the elements of that clause—does the proposed title adequately describe the bill?—and I would ask members to keep to that please. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Thank you very much for reminding me. As I was saying I believe that Colin James aptly described what the title should be—that is the “Sneaky Taxes We Don’t See Coming Bill”. However there are other possibilities for the name of the bill and one that would be entirely appropriate would be the “Ruth Dyson Increases ACC Levies by 25 Percent This Year Bill”. The rationale behind the increase according to the Minister is that there are better ways to estimate the levy. It just so happens that the Government has discovered better ways to estimate the levy 3 years in a row. This year it has topped it off by a 25 percent levy increase. Undoubtedly the name the “Ruth Dyson Increases ACC Levies by 25 Percent This Year Bill” is also totally appropriate. 
But let us just look at the name of the bill as it stands: it is the so-called Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. We should look seriously at that title which encompasses injury prevention and what we do know is that while road deaths might have gone down marginally in the last few years serious and moderately serious injuries have gone up in the last few years under the Labour Government. It was quite clear— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Fewer people are dying. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That may be so. It may be because fewer people are dying but the actual figures are quite substantial. Under a National watch moderate to serious injuries were about 79000 in 1998-99. By 2000-01 they had gone up to 83900 and by 2001-02 they had gone up to 93800. It is a huge worry when the title ofthe bill focuses on injury prevention yet after almost 4 years of this tedious Labour Government we have seen that very serious increase in moderate and serious injuries in this country. 
However one other absolutely appropriate possibility for the title would be the “Labour Government’s Failure to Establish Relative Risk Rating Bill”. Because all the bill does and quite rightly so is spread the levy between the petrol tax and the registration. What it does not do and what this Labour Government has failed to do is acknowledge the fact that accidents are related to a whole variety of things and it has only that very narrow scope related to how much petrol one uses and to the type and size of vehicle. That is totally unrealistic and unlikely to do what the title of the bill suggests which is to achieve injury prevention because it does not give the signals to users that they should take greater care. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 In this Chamber we have tried to establish the principle that the title of a bill is meant to reflect the purposes of the bill. The title of this bill is Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. Anybody hearing that title would think that Parliament was debating a bill that would have measures to help the transport or the motor vehicle industry to lead them and to come up with an innovative way of how to prevent injury or to reduce injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents; or a bill that contained new health initiatives to be introduced to help people who are injured during motor vehicle accidents to regain their health. But actually this bill is all to do with enabling the following: first to “establish as a levy under the principal Act the portion of excise and excise-equivalent duty payable on motor spirit that is paid to the Motor Vehicle Account;” and second the bill states that because the Government does not want to come back and debate other legislation to adjust the rate of excise tax while it is passing one piece of legislation to increase excise it might as well adjust another one. Everything is to do with increased cost increased levy on to motor vehicle users. 
Also as my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison expertly pointed out the interesting thing is that this increased levy of course is due to better estimation. All it is saying is that every time we come back to debate this legislation it is nothing to do with how to introduce a measure to prevent or reduce injury: all it says is that the Accident Compensation Corporation probably has developed better models to estimate how much more it costs for the long-term rehabilitation costs of claimants under accident compensation. So once again the Labour Government continues to say there are no ifs and buts the Labour Government promises there will be no increase in tax no increase in levy. We have heard that again and again in this Chamber. It seems to me that every alternate bill introduced to this Chamber has some sort of increased cost relating to it. I think it would be appropriate that the title of this bill should be very upfront and be the “New Levy and Increased Excise Tax Bill”. There is much to be said for the title of a bill being upfront so the public would know—they might even agree—whether there needs to be an increased cost. The public might even say that at least this Labour Government is honest. 
Simon Power 
: It would never say that. 
PANSY WONG 
: That is my point I tell my colleague Simon Power. The point is that the public would not be able to say that when they look at this title: the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. When they follow this debate in the Chamber they will realise that it is another increase in levy another increased cost but with very little effort going into preventing injury—apart from the fact that we know that the police and traffic cops have a quota of speeding tickets. That might be about the only contribution this Labour Government is trying to make in terms of injury prevention—that when the public want the police to investigate burglary etc. it is low priority yet the traffic police seem to have a quota to catch people who are speeding etc. The Labour Government should demonstrate that it is open and upfront and change this title. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
): 
 This is a bill that the ACT party will be voting against all the way. This bill is all about another tax grab by Labour. That is all it is. This is the third petrol tax increase that Labour has put on to the citizens of New Zealand. We have to say to ourselves: “Is there a good reason for bringing in this tax increase?” and the answer is “No”. The Accident Compensation Corporation has millions and millions of dollars in its coffers. This is a way of getting more money from the motorists of today to fund a surplus into the future. It is an absolute disgrace that the Labour Party is putting yet another cost burden on to New Zealand motorists. It is an unnecessary cost burden and it just goes to show that this is a Labour Party that does not care about families’ and New Zealanders’ rights to be able to get on with their lives in a proper manner without having all these extra taxes shoved on to them. 
The title of any bill should reflect exactly what the bill is all about. The title of this bill gives us no idea at all that it is a bill that will increase levies and taxes. A better and more honest title from the Minister would have been something like the “Motor Vehicle Account Tax Increase Bill”. That would have said it exactly as it is. That would have told New Zealanders that when they went and got this particular bill out of the statute book they were looking at a tax increase bill. If the Minister did not like that maybe she could have just called it the “Increase in Accident Compensation Levy Bill”. Again that would have told consumers exactly what the bill is all about. It is a rise in levies which is a rise in taxes by stealth by this Labour Government. 
Another idea I had was to call it “Another Labour Party Stealth Tax Bill.” Again that would have told everybody exactly what it is—a stealth tax. People do not see it upfront; it just comes on quietly and every time people go to the garage and fill up their cars with petrol they have paid this extra money in tax which the Labour Party wants to grab off New Zealand motorists. This is a Government that is anti-business—every New Zealander knows that. It is anti-business and anti-worker and I think it is a shame that it has to go about doing this sort of stuff by stealth. 
This bill brings in a 120 percent increase in petrol taxes. They will go up from 2.3c in the litre to 5.08c in the litre. Again I say that that is the third petrol-tax increase by Labour since it has been in power and I ask what on earth that party has against motorists—to keep on socking it to them with more and more tax increases. That is why New Zealanders did not want the Accident Compensation Corporation to go into monopoly control. A monopoly can do what it wants; it does not have to look after consumers. This bill is a very clear example of a monopoly saying: “Let’s get more money. Let’s grab more money off the motorists. Let’s do it by a stealth tax.” So the Government is raising money from today’s motorists to fund its organisation into the future. That is completely unnecessary. 
I say to the Labour Party that the title of this bill is a lie. It does not tell New Zealanders what this bill is all about. The Government has a responsibility to be more honest to the people of New Zealand so that when people go to the library and get out this bill—which they think is all about accident compensation and somehow about helping to stop injuries or rehabilitate people—they will realise that it has nothing at all to do with those things. It is simply a stealth tax on every New Zealand motorist. So I ask Labour why it is not honest and why it does not come clean. Why does it not put that in the title of the bill so that it is being open transparent and accountable? 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The title of this bill is absolutely wrong. The average New Zealander reading it would think it was something about injury prevention something about rehabilitation something about compensation or something about all three of those attributes. In fact it is nothing of the sort. If we wanted to retain those references in the title this bill should be entitled the “Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation (ACC Levy Increase Amendment) Bill”. That would be far more honest. I believe that the public would then have made more submissions and there would have been submissions from individuals. I think we had three submissions all told. The most comprehensive of them was the Automobile Association’s submission representing some 950000 motorists but average motorists do not have a clue that this legislation will come into being and impose another 2.38c per litre of petrol on them. 
This bill could have been called the “Increased ACC Levy Bill” the “Increased ACC Petrol Levy Bill” or—along the lines of what the ACT member said—the “ACC Motor Vehicle Account Tax Increase Bill”. It could have had any title that reflected what it is all about. Personally I see the bill as another attempt to slug the petrol motorist and I would prefer it to be called the “Slug the Petrol Motorist Again Bill”. Under this Government and under Labour in particular the petrol motorist has had a really tough ride. That party does not give the motorist terribly much credence at all. 
The vast majority of motorists are concerned about the rising costs of running a motorcar which increase almost monthly under this Government. The cost of fuel is now going to go up a bit. The last increase in the cost of fuel was only 2 or 3 weeks ago when it went from 96c or 97c to nearly $1 a litre. The cost went down a little prior to that but it has gradually crept up—when this Government came to power I think it was 80c a litre—to $1 a litre and this legislation will put it up yet again. On top of that the levy contained in the registration fee has been increased significantly by this Government. 
We all know that the Accident Compensation Corporation has some very hefty liabilities—I think to the tune of about $8.5 billion—but it has something in excess of $4 billion tucked away in investments. Although the corporation has been mandated to become fully funded by the year 2014—I think from memory—that date is not essential and could be extended a little bit. Certainly as the economy dries up a little and becomes harsher the average person should be given some consideration. We should not just impose things on people because we have a commitment to a date or as the Labour Party has to an ideology. 
Whatever else we say about this title we say that it does not reflect what this bill does. In fact it is a long way short of giving anybody the impression that it will increase accident compensation levies. When this bill goes through—and I have no doubt that it will go through because I believe the Greens are committed 100 percent to supporting it—there will be an immediate increase in the cost of petrol and this bill will give a blank cheque sometime in the future to the accident compensation levy being increased even more. The title should reflect that sort of potential action. The present title gives the distinct impression that this bill is about some form of injury prevention rehabilitation and indeed compensation. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I guess the Opposition would not be the Opposition if it did not use every opportunity there is to jump up and down and make political capital when the cost of something goes up and to complain about new taxes. 
Simon Power 
: It’s called politics. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: Of course it is called politics and that is what the Opposition does. 
The title of this bill is entirely appropriate because it is about what the money will be spent on. This is not a new tax in the sense of gathering more Government revenue. It is not a new tax in the sense of the money going into the consolidated account. It is additional money to fund the cost of the accidents that occur this year and if motorists want the levy to go down all they have to do is have fewer accidents. 
The Opposition members who oppose funding the full long-term costs of the accidents incurred in a year never tell the House which of the two alternatives to that course of action they would prefer. Do they believe that there should be no long-term funding for full rehabilitation of accident victims? If they believe that we should stick with the present situation—which arose under a National Government that refused to fully fund the tail of long-term rehabilitation of accident victims—they should tell the House honestly that they do not believe there should be full rehabilitation of accident victims. Then motorists could decide whether they thought that was a sensible policy. Alternatively perhaps they think some other part of the economy—some other tax such as perhaps the general taxation fund—should fund the costs of road accidents in which case they should tell the country that as well. Then taxpayers could decide whether they wanted to be responsible for picking up the costs of people who injure themselves in accidents. Opposition members cannot have it both ways. 
The Greens are supporting this bill because we believe in fully funding accident compensation. We are disappointed that there has been no progress since the bill was introduced in terms of shifting the whole accident compensation component off vehicle registration and on to fuel. That would make it easier for young people and poor people to register their cars instead of driving unregistered cars and it would relate the payment to the risk. The car that sits in the garage all day is not having accidents; the car that is doing tens of thousands of kilometres on the road is at much greater risk and the owner should pay more. We believe that the cost of accident compensation should be on the fuel not on the registration. The bill goes some little way towards that in that the whole increase is on the fuel but the previous funding remains with the registration. 
We would also have liked to see a firm commitment to extend this levy to diesel rather than—as expressed in the bill—just having an opportunity to do so. It is quite iniquitous that petrol users should be paying this additional accident compensation levy and not diesel users. Although the bill makes it possible to do that it does not ensure that it will be done and we have a certain disappointment about that. 
GRAHAM KELLY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to raise a matter in the debate on this bill. I refer members to Standing Order 251 and to a whole series of rulings on pages 90 to 92 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. Members might well be advised to study the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings particularly in the context of this legislation. 
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that this bill is called the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. I want members to read this bill and maybe someone who takes the next call will be able to tell me where this bill talks about injury prevention. I have read it and I cannot find it. So if there is nothing about injury prevention in this legislation why is it called “Injury Prevention”? That is why I refer members to the Standing Orders and to Speakers’ rulings because the title of the bill should reflect the bill. Well I cannot find where this bill refers to injury prevention. 
I read on because I thought that although the bill did not talk about injury prevention it would probably talk about rehabilitation. So I went through the bill. I read and I read. Maybe there is something in the schedule and I have missed it; that is a possibility. Perhaps the next speaker will be able to point me to where the bill talks about rehabilitation because I cannot find it. Yet the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings—particularly the latter—say that amendments have to be relevant. In fact the rulings are very clear that an amendment can be ruled out if it is not relevant or if it is facetious. How can we then start off with a title that has no relevance to the legislation? 
The title goes on in its third part to state “and Compensation”. Again I read through the bill and I am sure the original legislation talked about compensation—indeed I know it did—but this bill does not. It does not refer to compensation. It talks about collecting money and it also talks about taking appeals to the High Court on a question of law. 
So this legislation does two things: it talks about gathering revenue and it talks about legal procedures. I would have thought then that if a bill talked specifically about two issues it would be named appropriately. The purpose of naming bills is so that when somebody in a court somewhere or a lawyer in an office up in Kaikohe or Kaitaia or Whangarei or wherever it might be— 
Phil Heatley 
: We’ve got lawyers in Whangarei. 
JOHN CARTER 
: We do not have many because we are good people in the north but occasionally we need them. The purpose of the title is for the lawyers or the people concerned to be able to pick up the Act and see that it is what they need that it will take them to the issue they are looking for. This title will absolutely confuse people. People who want to know about injury prevention who pick up this Act and read it will be confused. People will want to know about rehabilitation and what Parliament did on 24 June 2003. They will want to know what we said about rehabilitation. They will be awfully disappointed because the bill does not talk about rehabilitation at all and it certainly does not talk about compensation. This bill talks about levies. 
Brian Connell 
: What are they? 
JOHN CARTER 
: They are taxes. They are taxes by another name. I am sure I recall this Helen Clark - led Labour Government saying that it was not going to impose any more taxes. I am sure it said that on its credit card. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to take up the challenge of the member who has just resumed his seat in addressing this bill entitled the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. When he first made his rather elegant speech asking where the bill mentions prevention rehabilitation or compensation I thought that he could not be right that there was no way he could be right. I have to say I have read the bill which is quite short and he is absolutely right. 
 Under the heading “Aim of bill” the commentary on the select committee report states: “The principal change proposed is an increase to the excise duty on petrol sales to cover increased costs to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) of compensating motor vehicle injuries.” He is absolutely right; I am not disagreeing with him. It is not in the bill. I read from the commentary on the bill. One would have thought that the aim of the bill as stated there would be reflected in the purpose clause of the bill itself but it is absolutely not. 
When one reads the words of the bill itself it becomes quite clear that it is nothing less than a tax bill. Essentially the title says that this legislation is an amendment to the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act but it is a misnomer. This is a new tax bill. It is adding to the excise tax on motor spirits. We know that this Government has already increased the tax on motor spirits three times. We know that this Government has introduced a new tobacco tax and a new sherry and port tax. We also know that it is legislating for a carbon tax and that it is talking about a flatulence tax and even a fat tax—a food tax to try to address obesity. Yes there are papers out on that. 
Of course when we go back to this election campaign pamphlet— 
Simon Power 
: Who is that person? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: No one recognises her but I am told that it is an airbrushed photo of our Prime Minister. People often say: “Who’s the sheila on the front?”. It is an airbrushed photograph of our Prime Minister Helen Clark and no one recognises it so the member is excused. 
This is the  
We Will Deliver 
 pamphlet. What did Labour promise? It promised no new taxes and no increase in taxation. Well this is the fourth increase in the tax on motor spirits and we have had the other taxes that I have mentioned. We also know of the fiscal drag effect on income tax. We were told that only those earning over $60000 would go up to the 39c-in-the-dollar tax rate but with inflation 3 years later there are a helluva lot of people who have gone across that threshold and there are a lot of people who have gone across the $38000 threshold. That is the fiscal drag effect. So Labour's statement that no more than 5 percent of the population would pay this tax is no longer true. Up to 10 percent of the population is now paying increased taxes because of this Government—and the fiscal drag on income tax is the sneaky way that the Government has done that. 
The title of this bill sounds so innocent but the bill is nothing more than another tax. There is no better way to show that than to go the schedule of the bill as it relates to the title where we see the figures 36.2c per litre of motor spirits plus 8c per gram of lead. We know that a considerable amount of the excise tax does not go to the roading fund and it is the fungibility of money that is the problem. The Government is nominally saying that this money will go to the Accident Compensation Corporation as a direct levy but how would one ever actually know that? One does not know that. Nor do we know what the exact costs of accident compensation are. The point has already been made that we have enjoyed a reduction in the number of road accidents yet the Accident Compensation Corporation is saying that the costs are going up in spite of the reduced number of accidents. Does that not say more about the efficiency of the Accident Compensation Corporation and what it is doing than anything else? 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the so-called Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. I note regarding the commencement date that the major part of the bill is due to come into force on 1 July 2003. I think that the first reading of this bill was held under urgency on 7 April 2003 which reflects the untimely haste with which this Labour Government loves to bring in more taxes. It brought this tax grab in under urgency only about 6 weeks ago. As we reflect again on the importance of the original Act I suggest that surely more consideration was given to its commencement date than has been given to that of this untimely tax grab that we see this rapacious Labour Government presenting before us today. I compare it with the local government legislation on dog control for instance which the Government let languish for 4 years while there were 760 significant hospitalisations 60 percent of which involved children under the age of 18. Yet here the Government is after the money in a short 6 weeks or as fast as it can possibly get it. 
I guess that the important part of this bill is reflected in the purpose clause. The Government quite unashamedly states: “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) establish … a levy”. What is the difference between a tax and a levy? I think Colin James provided the answer for us in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 where he states: “ ‘A levy is a tax’ former Labour leader and Prime Minister Mike Moore used to say …”. That is what the Labour Government used to say but now the tables are turned. Labour is in Government and every possible moment where it can choose to collect yet another levy it does so. That is described absolutely clearly in the purpose clause of this bill which states: “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) establish as a levy under the principal Act the portion of excise and excise-equivalent duty payable on motor spirit that is paid to the Motor Vehicle account;”. 
 But one of the other things that is clearly missing from this purpose is whether it is an equitable levy or a fair tax. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that element of it. Surely from this so-called reforming Labour Government we would expect some degree of social conscience about this but there is none. This is an unashamed barefaced tax grab on the motorists of New Zealand. 
One might think a little bit further about the submissions. Very few submissions were put before the select committee. Both the Automobile Association and Business New Zealand made the very important point that the Labour Government just ignores the question of whether a tax is an equitable or fair tax. In fact Business New Zealand said more fundamentally that setting a motor vehicle levy solely on the type of vehicle and the amount of fuel consumed is a poor substitute for a system that takes account of all risk parameters. It stated that the Accident Compensation Corporation and the Government should therefore 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 in accordance with commercial actuarial practice. 
This is just classic Labour Government doubletalk. On the one hand there is to be no increase in taxes. A former Prime Minister of a Labour Government Mike Moore clearly equates a levy with a tax. Here is the Government once again unashamedly grabbing taxes in a matter of a few weeks. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I have listened with some interest to the contributions made by members on the Opposition side of the Chamber. Although I do not profess to be— 
Rodney Hide 
: What part was the best part? 
SIMON POWER 
: I think that probably Ken Shirley’s airbrush comments were the best part if I look back historically over those points. I have just finished listening to Dr Paul Hutchison. 
The one thing that leaps out for me with regard to the purpose clause is the fact that through this bill the Accident Compensation Corporation is able to take this action at all. The fact that the corporation is in a position to ask the Government for this or that the Government can make a decision to do this at all leads to what I consider to be probably the most subversive message in this bill—that is when one has a State monopoly one can do what one likes. It does not matter what the market says it does not matter whether motorists are travelling safely and it does not matter that it is probably the very people whom Labour purports to represent who will suffer the most from this increased tax. Those same people now pay more for sherry and cigarettes and if this Government has its way they will not now be able to have a durry in the Returned Services Association. That is an outrage. This Government is busy telling us that it looks after the working people of New Zealand when all that it is about to do in this legislation is to tax them more for getting from A to B while trying to earn a decent living and make a contribution to society. 
It astounds me that this Government has not got the message that when one gives an organisation monopoly rights abuse inevitably follows. If we had competition there would be no need to increase the levies at all. This is a tax grab and the Government is simply putting its hand up and saying it will use this mechanism to redistribute money between the peoples of this country. This bill will affect mostly the people whom this Government purports to represent. 
As my colleague Peter Brown has just whispered to me—and I will give him credit for this because it is not bad line—if people can insure a car privately why can they not insure the inhabitants of the car privately? That is a very very fair point. Let me just run through Mr Brown’s contribution again before he gets to his feet and no doubt makes a contribution in a much more eloquent way than I could. If members of the public can insure their cars privately why can we not see the occupiers of those cars insured privately? There is no good reason for this Government to allow the Accident Compensation Corporation under this legislation to get away with this type of blatant use of monopoly rights in a certain part of the insurance market. 
Rodney Hide 
: It’s theft! 
SIMON POWER 
: There is no question about that. If this Government understood half of what is involved in the model of competition in these areas of law it would have understood that these types of increases in levies are absolutely indigestible to the public of New Zealand. It is only because of the monopoly rights of the Accident Compensation Corporation that the Government is able to pass legislation like this. That will all change. When there is a change of Government all that will change because there is no way that we will allow levies to be increased under this type of legislation by virtue of the monopoly status of various Government departments. 
I listened carefully to Ken Shirley and various other members talk about the fact that this is a stealth tax. It is worth just spending a couple of moments on that. The original pre-election credit card that we all saw bandied around the country with that person on the front of it who is unrecognisable to most people as they walk around the street— 
Rodney Hide 
: She looked like a Hollywood starlet. 
SIMON POWER 
: She did not look like that when I saw her. That card specifically stated that there would be no more taxes other than the increase in income tax that this Government put through at the end of 1999. What have we seen? We have seen this Government put through a range of stealth taxes and this bill is just yet another example of how this Government blindingly disadvantages the people it purports to represent. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I challenge the Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia to take a call to explain in English or in Maori–we can get a translation so it does not matter which language he uses—the difference between a levy and a tax. I challenge the Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia to rise to his feet and show us what he is made of. He should take the call for the sake of what Parliament is about and make that explanation. He should explain why Ngati Porou has to pay an increased accident compensation levy for its motor vehicles and why the Maori people whom he represents have to pay more money on their vehicles. Is it because that is supposed to prevent injuries? Is it because it is supposed to help with people’s rehabilitation and therefore they have to pay the Government more money? I do not remember Labour promising that at the last election. I do not remember the Minister of Maori Affairs standing up on marae around the country to explain that. I do not remember the “Minister in charge of Te Kuni Porkery” explaining that that would be paid for by more taxes. 
What do we hear from this Government? We hear a deafening silence. Government members are not even prepared to come down to this Chamber to talk to Part 1 the purpose of this bill. Did we hear the Minister in the chair speak to it? No. Did we hear the Minister of Maori Affairs speak to it? Did we hear any back-bencher try to sharpen up his or her practice in Parliament by speaking to this bill? Did we hear any one of those members stand up in this Committee and say this is not a tax but a levy? Not once did we hear that. I say to David Parker who is trying to interject that he should take the next call to explain that. He will say that when a cow blows off we can put a levy on that and it is not a tax. We can ask this great farming nation of ours who would have believed that? Do members remember the jokes that used to go around about what Labour would tax next? I do not remember anyone saying that there would be a tax on cows and sheep blowing off but this Labour Government is doing that and calling it a levy. 
 I look forward to the Minister of Maori Affairs who is in charge of “Te Kuni Porkery” being ready to take the call. With Brian Edwards’ haircut and all the media training will he take the call and explain to Maori people why they have to pay more on their vehicles because of “improved estimates of long-term rehabilitation costs”? What is improved about them if people have to pay more money I ask the Minister? How can the Minister go onto marae and say the Government has improved accident compensation so therefore people have to pay more? I say to the Minister that in the real world when one improves something the price stays the same. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: It’ll pay for your salary. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The Minister wants to whack my salary. I am the man who is doing his job! I am the man who is doing his job and he stands up and tells the House that I am doing his job. I am the man who is finding out what is happening in his portfolio and he stands up in the House and tells us that. And when he gets stuck whom does he call on for help? The National Party’s former vice president! That is who is bailing that Minister out. I say: “Good on him.” I am very pleased that the Minister of Maori Affairs is being consistent and has stood up in this House and said people should vote National because that is the only way to get a Minister of Maori Affairs who will do the business. 
I say to that Minster that he should stand up because the Minister in the chair cannot and none of the Government back-benchers can either. I ask Minister Parekura Horomia to stand up and tell us the difference between a tax and a levy. The Minister should tell us why the Maori people have to pay more money on their cars and why this Government calls that an improvement. He should tell us why this Government and he in particular did not listen to the submissions that said this would happen. He sits still and does not take the call. Let the record reflect that. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It comes as quite a surprise that Rodney Hide would want Parekura Horomia to address the Committee on this particular issue a tax when Mr Horomia is not very coherent on his own portfolio. How could he ever be expected to speak about the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill? I would have thought that Mr Hide would go straight to the Minister of Health who is in the chair and ask her to explain to us the difference between a tax and a levy. I know that the Minister of Health is taking an interest in this bill only because she is enthusiastic about introducing a health tax. She is interested in introducing a health tax—a health levy. She has floated that idea; she simply wants to see how this accident compensation levy goes through. She wants to learn from the mistakes of the Minister who is in charge of this bill because she wants to introduce a health tax. 
I am also surprised about the commencement dates in the bill. This Government is so enthusiastic to boost up its coffers that I am surprised that this whole bill every clause of it does not commence immediately or as it states in the bill when it receives the royal assent. I am surprised that this Minister and the Labour Government are not trying to get this money in the coffers as soon as possible. I am delighted that the Government is not doing that; I wish the Government would put that off for ever. But I am surprised it has not done that because this bill is simply a money-collecting exercise. 
Clause 3(b) concerns me. It states that the purpose of this Act is to “avoid the need for an amending Act to consequentially adjust the rates of excise duty and excise-equivalent duty on the relevant fuel … whenever the levy changes;”. In other words this bill gives this Government an opportunity to change the levy at any time at a moment’s notice without warning the public before any general election and to slap another tax on the people of New Zealand who jump in their cars or ride their bikes. That is what it does. This bill simply breaks down the walls so that this Labour Government can tax and levy at will—and this is what the bill states: “to avoid the need for an amending Act” so that the Government can act quickly. The purpose of this bill makes it clear that this Government is enthusiastic to levy and tax New Zealanders. The Government is so enthusiastic that it is making it easy for itself to do so. 
Clause 6 refers to the rate of the levies. It adds subsection (4) to section 214 of the principal Act and that subsection states: “The levy payable … is payable—(a) at the rate or rates per litre or other unit prescribed by regulations … ”—as one might expect. But then it states: “(b) in the absence of regulations for the time being in force for the purpose … at the rate of 5.08 cents …’’. And of course it also states that the rate can be changed at any moment—at a moment’s notice. 
So we can add this tax to the flatulence tax which we have heard about and to the tax that has already gone on Northland roads. I think it was 4.7c a litre was it not? I ask John Carter whether he has seen Northland roads improve since that tax was brought in. 
John Carter 
: It’s taking a long time. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is taking an awfully long time to see Northland roads improve since that tax was brought in. We can add this tax to the tax put on the elderly of New Zealand every time they just want to have a quick glass of sherry to the tax on Northland—the tax on road-users—and the tax on cows and sheep. If we add all those taxes we have a formula for this Minister in the chair Annette King to introduce a health tax on every New Zealander. That is what we will see next. We will see the promised health tax. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: It will be a levy. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Yes it will be a levy. The member who hails from the north although we do not see him up there very much is quite right. It will be called a levy but it will actually be a tax. So there we have it: a road tax a petrol tax a tax on sherry a tax on flatulence this tax and a health tax. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 I am delighted to engage in this debate during what is drive time for most New Zealanders as they go home. I am delighted that they will hear the shocking news—and this will be the first time they hear it if they have not caught up with the news already—that another levy is coming their way. How did Dr Michael Cullen the Minister of Finance once describe levies to the public in this House? He described them as back-door taxes. That is what the Minister said. 
Rodney Hide 
: I don’t believe it! 
JOHN KEY 
: Absolutely! He described them as back-door taxes. There is not much “back-door” about this tax. This tax is right out front—5.08c. 
But what is of such great concern is not so much the levy itself although that is concerning because it is up 120 percent. What is really concerning is clause 3(b) which my colleague Phil Heatley referred to. In effect the Government will have the ability to change the levy whenever that is required. Why is that important? Why is clause 3(b) so crucial to this legislation? Let me explain to the Committee. 
The first reason is that this levy has to cover the amount owing. Why is it 5.08c a litre not less? Because this Government chose to renationalise accident compensation. The Government said that it did not want competition that it did not want the ability to have competing firms which would drive down the costs for New Zealand motorists. The Government said that competition is not a good idea. It said it would renationalise accident compensation and bring in all the inefficiency that one gets with a monopoly—unless one socks it to the poor hard-working motorists of New Zealand who are going home to their families in drive time. That inefficiency will come back to roost year after year as people pay greater increases in their levies. 
That is not the only concern. The second and probably most alarming concern is that the rate of long-term claimants which had been falling dramatically has stopped fallingIn fact it is increasing. Why is that of such great concern? Why does that make a . 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why? 
JOHN KEY 
: I will be happy to tell Mr Cosgrove. As the number of long-term claimants rises— 
Phil Heatley 
: Darren Hughes is on his knees to Annette King. 
JOHN KEY 
: Darren Hughes is on his knees proposing to the Minister in the chair the Minister of Health. This is ground-breaking stuff. I feel like an anchorman for one of those television shows—breaking the news to the country. I could be Paul Holmes breaking news. No wonder the member is blushing. 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague. I was wondering whether the Committee could have the Minister’s answer! 
JOHN KEY 
: Why is it important that the number of long-term claimants is rising? It is because the levy—the back-door tax being socked to the hard-working motorists of New Zealand—will increase if the number of complainants goes up and the cost to the commission goes up. That is a fact of life. If the number of long-term complainants rises and it is rising as we speak— 
Brian Connell 
: Why is that? 
JOHN KEY 
: Because we are back into a monopoly— 
Brian Connell 
: No competition. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is absolutely correct. So that is of great concern. But equally of great concern and in this respect I give a backhanded compliment to the ministry is the outstanding job it has done of managing the reserves—$3.6 billion worth. Last year the ministry earned 3.6 percent return on those investments. That is a tremendous return if we take into consideration the very poor investment conditions. Can such a stellar performance by the ministry continue? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Unlikely. 
JOHN KEY 
: There is silence from the Government and an “unlikely” from the Opposition benches. I say it is very unlikely indeed. If that return is poorer than it has been in recent years there will be less money to pump up the levy less money to help those wonderful New Zealanders who are in drive time going home to their families and less opportunity for them to defray the costs. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 There are a couple of important issues that have been alluded to but they need to be cemented in to be sheeted home. One of the things that— 
John Key 
: Did the Minister say “Yes” or “No”? 
Hon Annette King 
: I said “Maybe”. 
JOHN CARTER 
: What is more the young fellow is blushing in anticipation. He is going to ring his mother to see if it is all right. 
John Key 
: She has broken a lot of hearts in her time. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes he will have to watch that. It happens to all us young people! Shall we focus on the bill for a while? I have been listening closely and there is one issue that concerns me. 
Rodney Hide 
: Just one! 
JOHN CARTER 
: No there are a number but there is one that has not been mentioned yet and that we need to talk about in the context of this new levy. We have talked about the alcohol tax that was passed. We have talked about the flatulence tax which is coming up shortly. I think there is possibly the imposition of a levy on power. 
Brian Connell 
: Yes. 
JOHN CARTER 
: There is something along those lines. Then we have the levy in this bill. 
Phil Heatley 
: In Northland. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Not just in Northland but across New Zealand—4c extra. But members should not forget that there is a new one going on as well—the 10c regional tax. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair could stand and tell us what all these taxes mean for New Zealanders in dollars and cents terms. The levy in this bill is a quite significant tax for New Zealanders in dollars and cents terms. It is all very well for members in this Parliament to talk about levies and adjusting the rates of excise duty etc. but people listening to their crystal sets will want to know what that means in terms of their pocket. This is where we need the Minister in charge of this bill—the Minister of Health who is filling in for the Minister in charge—to take a call and just explain in dollars and cents terms what the levy means per litre of petrol or diesel or whatever fuel people use in their vehicles. Most people do not understand excise duty; they are not sure what it means. They just talk about an excise duty. We have a responsibility to explain to people the impact on their pocket. I want to hear somebody— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: This Government doesn’t worry about that. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is the problem. That is why I urge the Minister to take a call and tell the people of New Zealand what it will cost. A lot of them will be listening to their radios as they are driving home in the congestion in Auckland. As they are sitting in their cars on the motorway they will be wondering how this levy is going to impact on their pocket. 
John Key 
: It’s well over a dollar every time they fill up a medium-sized car. 
JOHN CARTER 
: This is the problem. The good member John Key is happy to have this information made available. 
Phil Heatley 
: He’s done the work. 
JOHN CARTER 
: He has done the work but the Minister in the chair should be doing this work and telling people that it is likely to cost them a dollar a tank of gas for an average-sized car every time they fill up. 
John Key 
: What about the boat? 
JOHN CARTER 
: We will not get into that. We will just talk about the motorist with an average-sized family car. When the motorist pulls into the gas station and fills up the tank another dollar will be added. The problem is what impact it will have on the ability of parents to give their schoolchildren money for their schoolbooks for example. People probably fill up their tank about two or three times a week on average. So that is $2 or $3 extra a week and maybe $5 extra. That all adds up. In dollar terms in terms of how it affects their pocket where will they get this extra money? The extra cost will outstrip the increase those people get in their wages. 
It concerns me that on legislation like this the Minister in the chair does not seem inclined to take a call. That is a pity. The only response she has given to anyone was to Darren Hughes when he was on his knees in front of her—and she still has a smile on her face; I am sure the people of New Zealand will want to know about that. But I am worried about the impact this levy is going to have. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to make a contribution to this debate. I shall concentrate on paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 3 “Purpose”. Paragraph (a) establishes as a levy “the portion of excise and excise-equivalent duty payable on motor spirit that is paid to the Motor Vehicle Account;”. We have already decided that a levy is a tax and we actually have had that confirmed by Mickey Cullen so I do not think we need to debate exactly what is intended. Paragraph (b) is to “avoid the need for an amending Act to consequentially adjust the rates of excise duty and excise-equivalent duty” whenever the levy changes. We need to ask ourselves why the Government would want to do that. I suggest it is because the rate will change and the Government will not want the fuss of having to amend the legislation every time. It is my confident suspicion that the rate will go up not down. That is what happened to that temporary petrol/roading tax. That was the temporary tax we were going to have for 18 months. It seems that it has now been extended. 
If I had been able to take a call in the debate on the title I would have suggested that it be “Injury Prevention Compensation and Pilfering Pockets of Petrol-users Amendment Bill”. I would have omitted the word “Rehabilitation” because the bill does not mention it. The motorists of Auckland who are listening to this as they drive home as they sit in traffic queues will have heard John Carter and John Key make the point that motorists will now be paying more for their petrol because what happened with the last petrol hike the road-user charge was the money went straight into the consolidated account. It did not go into roading. I challenge members of this House to tell me of one project that has been started to decongest Auckland roads or South Island roads for that matter. Maybe one of the members from the South Island could enlighten me as to what is happening in that regard. 
This is simply just another tax; it is the worst type of deception. Do members remember the words of the credit card promises? 
John Carter 
: What are they? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: There will be no more taxes. 
John Carter 
: Levies are not taxes though. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well according to Michael Cullen they are. 
John Carter 
: Are they? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Oh absolutely He said that levies are just a back-door way to introduce taxes. That is what he said. Mickey Cullen has been here longer than me so if he says it I assume it is right. 
John Carter 
: What did they say on their credit card? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well on the credit card Labour said there would be no more taxes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member should use the correct name for members. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Oh I apologise. Do you want me to take “Mickey” out? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member should use correct names. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I thank the Chair for that advice. Michael Cullen said that levies were taxes. That is a fact. They are back-door taxes. 
John Carter 
: And this is a levy? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: This is a levy. So I do not think there is any argument about that. It is almost Bill Clintonish is it not? “There will be no more taxes.” He was not telling the truth. 
John Carter 
: Is that what he said? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well he did not quite say that. I think he said something like: “I did not [something] with that woman!”. But my point is: would one believe him? Would one believe this Government when it says there will be no more taxes? Listen to this: in the last few months this Government has introduced a flatulence tax and that stinks; a reserved generational electricity tax; a petrol tax; and an accident compensation levy tax. For the farming community around Rakaia and I am sure across the rest of the country taxes have gone up by between 30 and 40 percent. Road-user charges have already been talked about. Drivers’ licences fees have increased. And we have heard about the sherry tax. Those poor old folks who were going to have a cold winter as it was could not even reach for a bottle of sherry without being slugged. A customs tax was introduced. Remember we were told there would be no more taxes! Fringe benefit tax went from 49c to 64c. “Corporations can carry that no problem at all.” said the Minister of Finance. This Government has an insatiable appetite for tax. 
This particular tax would not be necessary if there was competition in accident compensation. This Government has renationalised accident compensation. It was not necessary. It is a very clear market fact that if one does not have competition then there is no market leveller and prices simply go up. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 This so-called Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill in no way reflects its title because it is a tax on ordinary New Zealand motorists. Part 2 absolutely puts that to rest. Part 2 deals with the rate of levies the levy categories the collection of levies challenges to levies power in respect of small amounts of levy and on and on it goes to regulations relating to levies. 
We have indeed just witnessed a rare spectacle. It is excellent to see the Minister of Health here but it was somewhat extraordinary to see the member for Otaki Darren Hughes on his knees to her and one does question her motives for being here. As my colleague Phil Heatley quite rightly pointed out is she here because she really is looking at this bill not from the point of view of accident prevention and rehabilitation but from the point of view of bringing in a sneaky health tax? We do not know what her reply to Darren Hughes was but we are deeply concerned about it. 
This part of the bill is the one that deals with the rate of levies. It is quite sobering reading when one looks through the details. Clause 6 “Rate of levies” adds a new subsection: “(4) The levy payable … is payable—(a) at the rate or rates per litre or other unit prescribed by regulations made under this Act;”. Well we have seen a 25 percent increase this year. What will we see next year under this rapacious taxing Labour Government—the very Government that stated on its “credit card” that there would be no more taxes? Yet here is a classic example of a bill whose title totally fabricates the real meaning of this part which focuses on how that gathering of taxes will occur. 
But I do want to dwell for a minute on the technical aspects of the levy-gathering that the Government has confined merely to either fuel—which is bad enough—or the vehicle which many people would view as also pretty bad particularly in light of the view that this Government has encouraged a monopolistic framework instead of the competitive framework that was brought in several years ago by the National Government and which very sadly reverted to a monopoly under this present Labour Government. 
I say “sadly” because when the competitive element was brought in we saw an immediate shake-up within the Accident Compensation Corporation. We saw greater attention to case management; we saw huge attention to early rehabilitation and we saw a great focus on improvement in the workplace. It was as though the corporation was suddenly galvanised into action to look at how best this insurance could serve the people of New Zealand rather than the situation now where we have a monopoly very much prone to going its own way no matter what. There are no checks and balances on it. In this last year we have seen a 25 percent increase and who knows what we can expect next year? 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It is with great interest that I take the call and continue on with Paul Hutchison’s dissertation on the bill. It is interesting that the Accident Compensation Corporation is again levying the taxpayer—and a levy-payer is a taxpayer in this case. People who drive a car a boat or who ride a bike will pay more. Why is that? Why have costs within the corporation become so out of control that it has to look for more money in order to operate and pay its ever-burgeoning staff—the bureaucracy so to speak? That is the question before us today. 
The devil of course is in the detail and I can see little Lucifer right here in Part 2. Paragraph (b) in clause 6 states: “in the absence of regulations for the time being in force for the purpose of paragraph (a) at the rate of 5.08c per litre of motor spirit in respect of which excise duty … is payable under the Customs and Excise Act 1996.” 
Simon Power 
: Got it! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The member for Rangitikei has found the reference. This time the amount chosen to tax New Zealanders is 5.08c—an added tax that will go to the Accident Compensation Corporation to spend on an ever-burgeoning bureaucracy. 
But that is not what concerns me most. I noted when we were looking at subsection (b) inserted by clause 3 “Purpose” that this Government is legislating to avoid the need for anamending Act to consequentially adjust the rates of excise duty. In other words it is cutting through the red tape. We usually do not welcome that but in this case we welcome it in terms of slowing down this Government’s move to tax New Zealanders and rape their pockets. But subsection 3(b) inserted by clause 5 wants to avoid the need to go through due process and one could therefore say that this 5.08c is purely arbitrary. However it is not only arbitrary; it represents shifting sands when it comes to levying and taxing motor vehicle users in this country. I say that by way of a warning to members of the Committee. They should not be fooled that the amount of 5.08c is set in concrete for ever and a day because sadly Parliament is seeing this Labour Government make sure that there is no red tape. On a whim it will be able to change that rate and tax New Zealanders even more. 
I note that the levy payable under section 213(2)(c) of the principal Act is payable “at the rate or rates per litre or other unit prescribed by regulations made under this Act;”. I want to see what those regulations are because I am concerned that an even clearer passage may be cut in them to enable this Government to put up the rates at any time. I put that to you Mr Chairman. I see that you are raising your eyebrows and that you are changing your opinion on this bill. I will be interested to see you cross the floor on this matter. You know that rates for roading tax have gone up on a whim. You have sat in the Chamber until 3 o’clock in the morning and seen tax on sherry go up on a whim. You have watched the cows and sheep scatter in the paddocks as they see themselves being taxed to death every time they let out a bit of steam— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot bring the Chairperson into the debate. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 Part 2 proposes the increased accident compensation levy. As one who really enjoys using fuel I do not like any increases in the cost of the wonderful substance that keeps our machines going superbly on the road. But as my colleague Larry Baldock has already stated United Future accepts that the increased costs faced by the Accident Compensation Corporation do need to be met. We also accept that increasing the petrol levy is the most equitable way of achieving that—as opposed to increasing the vehicle registration fee. However I would challenge one aspect of the thinking in the bill that states that those who do the most mileage are those who might have the most accidents. I do not necessarily agree with that. 
However we think this increase should be absorbed into the total amount of excise duty taken by the Government rather than allow $785 million of the $1.7 billion collected in petrol excise duties road user charges and motor vehicle licensing fees to be siphoned off into the consolidated account. There is no guarantee that that money will be spent on accident compensation and rehabilitation roads or anything else directly related to transport. Clause 6 raises the accident compensation levy to 5.08c per litre but when we consider that 18.5c of the petrol excise duty collected from motorists at the pump already goes straight back into the Government’s coffers we have to wonder why the increase is not taken out of that amount. 
As far as the accident compensation levy is concerned United Future likes the idea of a tax being used in such a direct way for the purpose for which it was collected. Taking the levy increase out of the money that goes to the Government would support that principle leaving 15.7c to be diverted back to the consolidated account. Then at least a greater portion of the excise duty is guaranteed to be used for transport-related costs. 
Federated Farmers pointed out in the select committee that the diversion of 18.5c per litre of fuel excise into the Crown account was initially justified on the basis that it was required to fund the medical costs of road accidents. They submitted that the subsequent introduction of the motor vehicle account invalidated that justification—to which the Government replied that medical costs were not the only justification for the diversion of the excise citing a number of education enforcement programmes to which the excise duty contributed. But one would have to say that 18.5c for every litre of fuel purchased must buy a heck of a lot of educational programmes. In the meantime spending on Transfund was actually cut in this year’s Budget at a time when the Government is running Budget surpluses and the New Zealand transport infrastructure is in dire need of investment. 
United Future cannot condone a further unnecessary increase in the tax burden already borne by New Zealand motorists when there is enough to show for the money they already pay. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I have just noticed that the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard looks as if she is prepared to take a few questions on this part. I wonder whether she would be good enough to guide me through the reasons for the inclusion of the provisions relating to section 162 “Appeal to High Court on question of law” in clause 4. I see that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee chose to strike out the original appeal provisions and insert a somewhat larger set of provisions relating to appeals to the High Court on questions of law. I see that the usual leave provisions are there. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair would be good enough to take a quick call and let those of us on this side of the Committee know why a larger set of provisions has replaced the smaller set relating to questions of law. 
 I am not sure what the actual difference is. I am not sure whether Dr Paul Hutchison who sat on the committee has a view on that. However if the Minister does not know perhaps she could ask one of the officials and we could get a bit of a rundown as to why that clause has been replaced and why such a large new clause on questions of law is in there now. I shall let that matter lie on the table and come back to it if the Minister is prepared to take a call on it. 
My colleague Phil Heatley referred somewhat unusually to clause 6 “Rate of levies” as a sort of Lucifer clause. He did make one good point in his 5-minute contribution and it was that what the Government is doing here is introducing a non-negotiable bottom line for the levy rate whilst retaining the ability through those other subclauses to raise that rate at any time at all. This is not a concrete provision that sets the levy at a particular rate; rather the clause in question states that in the absence of any other regulation increasing the levy the amount of 5.08c will be the fall-back position for the levy. 
Mark Peck 
: Which clause number? 
SIMON POWER 
: Had the member been paying attention he would know that it is clause 6 which inserts subsection (4)(b)—otherwise known as the Lucifer clause. That clause states that the Government is not increasing the levy to any particular rate. All it is doing is creating a bottom line for that rate so it is a fall-back position. It is not a new rate; it is a minimum statutory inserted rate where the discretion remains to increase that rate at any time in the future. The motorists of New Zealand are in a less than satisfactory position when this Government can by regulation simply amend that rate at any time in the future. I represent a large electorate and I do not think that is in the best interests of— 
Rodney Hide 
: And a good one too. 
SIMON POWER 
: —I thank the member—motorists around New Zealand. Nevertheless to save the motorists of New Zealand clause 11 has been inserted and I predict that it will be the least used clause in this new amendment bill. That clause relates to refunds payable by the corporation and I am willing to wager that it will never be used. I want to state for the record now that the day the Accident Compensation Corporation refunds anything to anybody by way of levy or any other matters it collects under regulation will be the day that United Future makes sense in this House and finally decides not to vote with the Government on matters of confidence and supply. The member should not look so shocked. I am sure that there is more chance of that happening—and it will be pretty rare—than there is of the corporation ever refunding anything to anybody. 
But slipped in at the end is that wee clause 11. Perhaps when the Minister is explaining the reasons for the appeal to the High Court being changed she could help the Committee by perhaps giving it a smorgasbord of events where she envisages the corporation refunding money to people under clause 11. I cannot think of one. I have spent my fair share of time with constituents in Accident Compensation Corporation offices and they are not given to generous refunds. Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call to answer our two queries. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Today we are seeing an abuse of Parliament. Legislation is going through this House to put up the levy on motor spirits and not one Government member has taken a call. 
Simon Power 
: Or the Minister. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Or one Minister. It is whoever gets the short straw and now Judith Tizard has the short straw. She is just sitting in that chair. They may as well be knitting because they are not coming down here to explain— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: No that would be against the Speaker’s rules. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I did not complain about the Minister knitting. She can carry on knitting. My view was that at least she was doing something useful for a change. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Which is more than you have ever done in this House. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Ask the Minister Parekura Horomia who has been helping all these weeks with his portfolio. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I ask the member to come to the point. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: My point Mr Chairperson before I was rudely interrupted by the Minister in the chair whom you did not move on who is not allowed to sit there and interject is why will she not take a call? Why will not one member like Mark Peck take a call? I will tell members why. The ninth floor said: “Don’t speak to this bill. There’s nothing in it for us.” 
Simon Power 
: You do a radio interview you get pulled off half way through. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: A Minister is called off halfway through because the ninth floor says not to respect Parliament. 
Janet Mackey 
: What about the bill? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: We will tell that member about subsection (4)(b) in clause 6 which states that there will be a levy of 5.08 cents for every litre of motor spirits. We are prepared to talk about it. We are prepared to attack it. We are prepared to criticise it. Why is the Government not prepared to defend it? Why is the Minister in the chair not prepared to defend it? Why is the honourable Minister Parekura Horomia not prepared to ask the reason that his people the Maori people will have to pay 5.08 cents per litre of motor spirits? Why is that well-known petrol head the Hon Harry Duynhoven not prepared to ask why people who are petrol heads driving around in their cars should have to pay an extra 5.08 cents in a monopoly levy to the State? According to the bill the State has improved its estimates of long-term rehabilitation costs. What a load of rubbish! 
I can understand why the Government does not want to talk about this. It is indefensible it is wrong and it is contrary to what the Labour Party campaigned on. Why do those members not come down here to respect Parliament? Why can they not come down here and give one speech in defence of the reason that every New Zealander rich or poor Maori or Pakeha whether or not the treaty applies should pay 5.08 cents minimum as my fine colleague Mr Simon Power said extra per litre of petrol? Not one of those members will take a call. 
We have a bill going through Parliament that this Government is not prepared to explain defend or tell us why it has to go through. We know that the United Future party is against it. That is a good start. We know that the Greens will vote for it because they hate the motorcar. They hate freedom. They would put up taxes on motor spirits—$10 a litre would not be too much for them. I ask Mr Tanczos whether that is right. I think the answer is yes. He is still thinking about it. I ask the member whether $10 tax on a litre of gas is all right. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is that your suggestion? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He says that is a good suggestion. But old Harry Duynhoven will not go along with that. I say to this Committee— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Who’re you calling old? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well Minister young Harry Duynhoven. Why does he not take a call to explain to all the Volkswagen lovers of New Zealand the reason they will pay 5.08 cents more for petrol? 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
:  
Last week I had the opportunity to talk in the second reading of this bill and I said I was absolutely horrified that the Government talks about how it is fair yet it is to impose a levy that is nothing more than a tax on business on those with fixed incomes and on the professional drivers of vehicles. And this Government says that it cares! Members should remember that Labour members said in 1999 that we should watch their lips when they said there would be no increase in taxes. What have we seen in this legislation? [ 
Interruption 
] It is all very convenient for the Government is it not? 
What concerns me—I mentioned this in the debate the other night—is that by way of regulation which comes in under clause 6 this legislation simply imposes a provision that the rate of tax can go up without it coming back to this House for scrutiny. The Government is using that technique more and more. Those who have sat on the Regulations Review Committee will know that this Government wants to bring in by stealth all these taxes—no scrutiny by Parliament—and it does that by way of regulation. If we look at clause 6—Simon Power and other speakers mentioned this but I have not heard any Government speakers stand up and defend it—which relates to the rate of levies we see it states that the rate of the levy will go up from 2.3c to 5.08c per litre. 
Rodney Hide 
: How much? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: To 5.08c per litre. That is a 120 percent increase. How can the Government justify a 120 percent increase from 2.3c per litre to 5.08c per litre? That is absolutely disgraceful. 
This Government will hit all those people who are on fixed incomes. They have no way to recoup this tax. They will pay for this accident compensation levy to swell the coffers so the Accident Compensation Corporation will be able to pay for the accidents. Why is the 18c per litre that is collected now and goes into the consolidated account—this came up in an earlier debate—not going towards the accidents that the Accident Compensation Corporation has to account for? We are paying for that now in the registration of our vehicles. We are already paying it there and it has gone into the big fund. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member over there on the Government benches wants to stand up and defend that I would be really interested to know what he has to say. I know that in his electorate in Invercargill all the people who need to drive vehicles will be carrying the can on this levy. Maybe the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard can take a call on this measure because I find it quite disgraceful and unacceptable that we have this huge increase in compliance costs. Here it is—an increase of 120 percent with no justification for that. 
I wonder why at this stage diesel is not included. I know that diesel in the long term will be included but why do we not have diesel in the equation here? It will not be included at this stage; it is not subject to an excise duty. We say that if the Government is to be fair— 
Brian Connell 
: Ask Harry Duynhoven. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Yes the Minister over there on the Government benches might take a call. Why are we not including diesel at this present time? Why did the Government miss it out? We have a section of the community that has no way to recover these costs. If we look at the professional drivers we see that those people because of the nature of their work and the training that they have are not the ones who have the accidents—yet we are hitting those sorts of people with a 120 percent increase in the levy. I find that quite unacceptable. [ 
Interruption 
] It is. It is a 120 percent increase. Putting up a 2.3c per litre levy to 5.08c per litre—that is a 120 percent increase. 
Rodney Hide 
: They call that an improvement! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Yes that is right. What about these high compliance costs and regulatory regimes? If we look at this measure we see it is an extra 3c per litre and there is no chance of those people being able to recoup that. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Consequential amendments 
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. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I have just one question—the Minister in the chair has indicated to me she has an answer to it—about Part 3 and it is in respect of clause 13(2) which states: “Section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 is repealed.” Just happening to have a copy of that Act on hand I notice that in my version of this statute which is annotated to 1 January 2003 there is no section 75A— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That can’t be right. 
SIMON POWER 
: Well I do not know why that is so I ask the Minister whether I am right. I could be wrong; that has happened. I ask the Minister to take a call because if there is indeed a mistake in the annotation then there— 
Jill Pettis 
: Not allowed to. 
SIMON POWER 
: The whip interjects but this is quite an important point: either the annotated statutes in the lobbies are all wrong or the bill is wrong. So one of those two things has to get the attention of the Minister reasonably swiftly so that she can explain to the Committee why all the statutes in the lobbies are wrong— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Good question. 
SIMON POWER 
: —it is a good question because it is quite a serious question—or alternatively why the drafting of this small wee bill “Lucifer clause” and all refers to section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act. By my reading of the statute annotated to 1 January 2003 that section does not exist. There is a new section 73(2A) in the Act and a new section 73(5) but there is no section 75A. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Whose fault? 
SIMON POWER 
: This is what happens. The Hon Harry Duynhoven as I know is pretty concerned about procedure generally speaking and likes to get things right—to dot his i’s and cross his t’s. I can tell that beneath the mirth on his face he is concerned that we are seeing here a legislative process that requires a Minister to get up and explain to the people of New Zealand how this came about. Most people who looked at Part 3 would have thought the amendments were inconsequential but they are quite consequential when we find that bits of them are wrong or missing. I ask the Minister in the interests of clarifying this issue for the Committee whether all the annotated statutes in the lobbies are wrong or whether the drafting of this amendment bill is wrong. As members of the Committee I think we are here at least to facilitate the passage of this legislation in a constructive way so that—God forbid—we do not leave the judiciary to interpret this stuff. Let me now ask the Minister whether she will now take a call and explain to the Committee exactly how this hiccup occurred. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
:  
I assure the Committee that section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act does exist. I have already asked the Clerk to take the matter up with the firm doing the annotation because members must obviously have correct legislation available to them. Section 75A was inserted as from 1 April 2002 by section 337(1) of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001. It is absolutely clear that that provision relates to the levy payable and I would happily provide evidence to the member that it clearly exists. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You can see the quandary that we are now in when trying to debate the accuracy of these clauses. I have no reason to question the Minister’s word on this issue but clearly the annotations of the statutes in the lobbies are wrong. That raises a number of serious concerns not the least of which is that members in this Parliament are entitled to rely upon the accuracy of the annotations contained in the volumes in the lobbies of the Chamber. Members in the Committee who are debating various clauses in various bills could be—frankly—misleading the public over issues they are debating if those statutes are not correctly annotated. I note the Minister’s comments that she is prepared to follow this matter up with those people who are responsible for that annotation. Mr Chairman I ask for your view on that but I also ask the Minister—and this may be slightly out of order for which I apologise—to table a copy of that section so that the rest of the Committee has access to it; otherwise we are in a situation in which we are not dealing with accurate information. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the relevant page containing section 75A in Part 6 “Duties” from the copy of the Act—Brooker's Statutes of New Zealand Customs and Excise Act 1996—provided to me by the officials which they had from brookers.co.nz. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think we are in a predicament in this case. Although the copy of the legislation that the Minister has which her advisers have provided may well be right—and I am not questioning its validity—Mr Power has made the point that the statutes on which we rely and that are the means by which we can check references in this debate have not been forthcoming. I believe that the question should lie on the Table and that this debate should be adjourned. We cannot use the statutes as the highest document of authority the means by which we can check validity and can check off sections we are debating. I seek leave of the Committee that this debate lie on the Table. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for making— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have sought leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Standing Order 182: “A committee of the whole House may not adjourn its own sitting or the consideration of any matter to a future sitting.” We have a situation in which the information has been tabled and copies have been provided. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to interrupt you—I would certainly not think that I am known for that sort of thing—but the member has sought leave for the matter to be put. My understanding of Standing Orders is that in that environment the question has to be put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have read out Standing Order 182. The member cannot move that the House adjourn. [ 
Interruption 
] Will the member just hang on? Members can move that we report progress. That is an entirely different matter and can be done only on a call. I am going to call Dr Paul Hutchison now to give his 5-minute dissertation. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In view of the matters that we have just heard I move that the House report progress on this bill given that we have a difficulty with clause 13(2). 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has actually called a point of order. He cannot do that through a point of order. He must do that when he is called; as part of his speech he can ask that progress be reported. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. He did go for the call and you called him. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: He started and he has moved that the House report progress. He is doing what you suggested he do and he is in line with your instructions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry; I misunderstood. I thought he was doing it on a point of order. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Speaking to the point of order I think my colleague Lindsay Tisch is quite right. You suggested that the only thing we could do to draw attention to this matter was to have progress reported. I am moving that that happen. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I clarify why the member is seeking this? We need to be clear. Are you seeking to report progress to get the Speaker’s ruling? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Speaking to the point of order it is consequent upon your suggestion that because we could not do this through a point of order and could do it only through a member of the Committee calling for progress to be reported. I am doing it purely on your suggestion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection? 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that when my colleague Lindsay Tisch sought to have the matter lie on the Table you denied him the opportunity to do that because of Standing Order 182 and that is the reason my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison sought leave to report progress in order that the issue that Lindsay Tisch raised could be considered by the Speaker. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Are the members seeking to report progress to obtain a Speaker’s ruling or just to report progress? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: We want a Speaker’s ruling. If I just go back one step you may recall that I sought leave for the debate to lie on the Table and you said that under Standing Order 182 we could not and I accept that. I have no difficulty with that. You then went on to say that if we wanted to pursue this further someone would need to take a call which my colleague did. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I accept what the member is saying. I am now going to put the question that the Committee report progress to obtain the Speaker’s ruling. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want clarification. We still have much to speak about in Part 3 and also on the schedules. I want assurance from you that the debate will not be curtailed because we are reporting progress. There is still much to be debated in Part 3 and the schedules and with the process you are going through now I want to be assured that we still have that opportunity to continue the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is my understanding that if we get the Speaker’s ruling we can then move back to the debate. I am now going to put the question. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We in New Zealand First have not said much. Are we moving under Standing Order 183? If we are all we should be seeking is to move that the Committee report progress full stop not “to get a Speaker’s ruling”. That is a different motion. It is either one or the other not a hybrid and I ask whether the point could be clarified that Dr Hutchison is actually just seeking that the Committee report progress full stop. The additional words “for a Speaker’s ruling” are not required. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All right. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: We agree with Dail Jones. That is the procedure we would like to see followed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Committee report progress. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Motion not agreed to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We find ourselves on this side of the Chamber in a predicament about the— 
Jill Pettis 
: With the poll vote that member has I would too. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I am speaking on a point of order and the member is interjecting. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order while a point of order is going on! The member should know that it is certainly unparliamentary to interject when someone is making a point of order. Would the member please be silent so I can hear. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: We find ourselves in a predicament. The statutes that we rely on in the lobbies are incorrect. The Minister has tabled the correct statutes from the advisers and we accept that but we have to seek out our own definitions and understanding of what the statutes mean. If they are incorrect I am seeking a ruling on whether this debate can continue. Reluctantly the only way is to ask that the Speaker be recalled to rule on this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I suggest to the member that the document has been tabled copies have been provided and there is no reason that we should not proceed with the debate. Isuggest to the member that he might like to reconsider. 
Phil Heatley 
: I just want to convey to you the gravity of the situation in the sense that if the highest court in the land—and I believe Parliament is the highest court in the land—has access to incorrect statutes and we take the Minister’s word for that every other court in the land such as district courts and high courts and every legal library might be in the same situation. We want to establish whether the highest court in the land has the correct statutes and if they are incorrect what we are going to do about it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. Is he asking that the Speaker be recalled? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I move  
That the Speaker be recalled 
. 
Motion agreed to and House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON 
: Some confusion has arisen over a provision to do with the actual workings of the bill. The Minister has tabled the necessary parts to the bill for members to look at but members consider that that is not sufficient. They have therefore sought your ruling on this particular aspect of the legislation. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just seeking some guidance from you. When we were debating this issue the part of the bill that specifically referred to section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act was identified as having been repealed. When I went to that section in this volume of the statute book from the Noes lobby which has been annotated until 1 January 2003 it became clear that no reference to a section 75A was contained in that volume. I then sought assistance from the Minister who sought assistance from the officials and she was then able to separately table section 75A relating to the clause in question. The difficulty that my colleagues and I now find ourselves in is in respect of the reliability of those statutes held in the lobbies when we are debating quite detailed issues—such as the clauses brought about by way of repeal and amendment in the bills before the House. Your assistance on resolving that issue would be greatly appreciated. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Mr Power did bring this matter to my attention. I sought advice from the officials and they were able to provide me with a copy of the legislation including section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act. I have also provided the copy of the legislation from the Government caucus room which is indeed correctly annotated. So although there is obviously some mistake in the annotation of the statute book held in the Opposition lobby I have at least two copies of the correctly annotated amendments that were made to the Customs and Excise Act. I have also laid a copy of those on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contributions. Hard copies of statutes are annotated from time to time. If there is an error in a particular volume it is unfortunate and it will be investigated but members have had notice of this Committee stage since Thursday and have had an opportunity to conduct research. There is no reason that the Committee stage cannot continue. 
In Committee 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 There is a certain irony about Part 3 being called “Consequential amendments” because clearly here is a situation where my colleague Simon Power has noted an error that has taken away a lot of the consistency in terms of the true relevance of this bill. 
The legislative history of this bill is one of absolutely untimely rush. We saw the tax grab introduced on 7 April 2003 and here we are 6 weeks later seeing the sort of mistake that this Labour Government is likely to make—and has made—because of the untimely haste with which it goes about grabbing levies from the New Zealandpublic. It is just an absolutely classic reflection of its inability to scrutinise things carefully and to ensure that all the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. This is undoubtedly a classic example of the Labour Government’s lack of concentration on detail and its untimely haste in taking levies from the New Zealand public. The Labour Government is on form once again. After all we heard earlier in this debate that it was not only former Labour Prime Minister Mike Moore who called a levy a tax but also the present Minister of Finance Dr Michael Cullen who referred to this as a back-door tax. 
Let us just have a look at Part 3 “Consequential amendments” because there is no doubt that the amendments are more than consequential; they are hugely important to this unfortunate further tax grab perpetrated on the New Zealand public by this Labour Government. Let us just go through it. Clause 13(1) states: “Section 2(1) of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 is amended by adding to the definition of  
duty 
 the following paragraph: ‘(e) levies imposed …’ ”. One of the most significant submissions came from the Automobile Association which made the point—as did Paul Adams from United Future—that at present the 39c for fuel excise duty on petrol is comprised of 2.3c for the Accident Compensation Corporation 18.5c for the National Land Transport Fund and 18.5c for the Crown account. The Automobile Association and Business New Zealand quite rightly pointed out that there is no need to increase the excise duty from 2.3c to 5.08c which is an increase of over 100 percent. They said it would be far more equitable and proper to take it from the amount that goes into the Crown account. 
So we have a great difficulty here—not only with the untimely haste that the Government has used in bringing in this bill but also with the way it has approached the equity of collecting a tax on motor vehicles and fuel. It has not only confined it to petrol and the vehicle but it has forgotten about what real risk rating is because it has thrown aside the very important competitive model that challenged the monopoly and which brought about earlier rehabilitation. 
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to continue with Paul Hutchison’s substantial arguments regarding Part 3 “Consequential amendments”. Part 3 refers quite specifically to the schedules which I assume we are debating next and particularly Part B where motor spirit with a Research Octane No. less than 92— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We are on Part 3. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In my introductory comments I was speaking on Part 3’s reference to Part B of the schedule which I specifically said we would be debating later. Part B of the schedule refers to regular grade petrol with a Research Octane No. less than 92 which will be going up in cost per litre. That is what Part 3 is all about. It specifically addresses those grades of petroleum products that will have extra tax put upon them and of course New Zealanders paying extra tax. 
I too have sympathy for Paul Adams’ arguments. It is good to see him coming out of the blocks to debate this issue which is close to his heart. We would like to see him debate other issues that he shies away from that we know are also close to his heart but at least he has started with this one. The fact is that this part of the bill increases taxes for New Zealanders including the Adams family and we do not like to see that. I do not like to see colleagues having to dip into their pockets time and time again but we are seeing it here. Clause 13 amends the Customs and Excise Act simply to allow for the levy rate—and let us be frank the tax rate—to be increased without having to amend the Act. In other words this particular part—and I know that members of the public are concerned about this because they are going white—actually removes the checks and balances that we would normally have on a Labour Government that is determined to tax New Zealanders to death. 
Earlier in the day we went through other examples where this Labour Government has taxed New Zealanders to death. I do not have to mention them—the flatulence tax and the tax on provincial roading of 4c or 5c. We know about the threatened health tax and we know that the old people’s sherry and gin went up the other night. We now see the accident compensation levy going up from 2.3c to 5.08c—an over 100 percent increase; 8.5c goes to the Land Transport Safety Authority—we cannot argue with that—but 18.5 goes to the Crown account. I concur with Dr Paul Hutchison: why does the extra money for accident compensation come out of that? Why does the extra money that the Accident Compensation Corporation needs because of its burgeoning bureaucracy come out of that Crown account? I do not know. No one can answer that question for me Paul Adams or Paul Hutchison. No one can answer the question for members of the general public of New Zealand who are being taxed to death. 
I would like to move on to clause 13(2) in relation to section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act which is being repealed. My colleague Simon Power could not even find it in the Statute book. I do not know who put that statute book there but I call it the “ghost” section. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Speaker for coming in in relation to Part 3 and settling that issue with us. That particular statute book ought to be replaced as soon as possible because we are very wary about voting on Part 3 knowing that the documentation that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition has access to out the back is incomplete or incorrect. I would appreciate that section being replaced. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Schedule 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 There is a certain truth about the schedules. Here we have amendments to the third schedule of the Customs and Excise Act related to the so-called Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. The theme of this debate this afternoon has been whether this bill in any way reflects the ability to achieve what its title is all about—injury prevention rehabilitation and fair and adequate compensation. The schedules which are clearly and squarely related to the excise theme that runs throughout this bill—the tax—clearly show that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the parent bill’s basic aims or purposes. That is a hugely worrisome revelation. 
As I said earlier on in relation to the components of the 39c plus GST per litre that is taken from petrol it is very interesting that individuals such as Paul Adams of United Future have also picked up the key point that there would have been no need to alter those schedules in the first place if the modelling the Government had chosen was a competitive model because undoubtedly the costs—if any—would have gone down. Instead we have seen them consistently go up and we have once again seen the Labour Government use euphemisms when it is really taxing the people of New Zealand. 
More importantly the Government had the opportunity to use the 18.5c component that went to the Crown account to bring some degree of equity into the reasoning behind this bill. That option was very much backed by submissions from the Automobile Association Business New Zealand and I am sure from Federated Farmers. All of them are aghast that this Labour Government has increased the amount allotted to accident compensation by over 100 percent when the opportunity was there to take this motor vehicle excise duty across from the Crown account. 
Again that is an opportunity lost but it is even more of an opportunity lost that this bill has not used realistic relative rating in terms of assessing the amount. For instance the Government has totally ignored third-party risk. Mr Rennie a leading barrister involved with accident compensation reform pointed out that if for instance a bus driver drove over a bank and injured 40 passengers the funds would come from the employer’s levy but the funds for the 40 people injured would come from this part of the levy which is totally inappropriate. The signals this bill has perpetrated are totally inappropriate in terms of realistic risk rating and as Business New Zealand said they absolutely do not reflect commercial actuarial reality. That theme runs right throughout the bill that this Labour Government has perpetrated—a lack of reality and a grab for tax. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I too would like to move onto the schedules and I do have some questions for the Minister. I would like to commend the Chair Mr Ross Robertson on the way he is looking after the Committee. I recently spoke to pupils at the Ruakaka primary school and I promised them that members of Parliament would be on their best behaviour while in the House and you are certainly helping them to do that Mr Chairperson. I am glad that is now recorded in  
Hansard 
 as I promised. Thank you for that and for resolving the issue around the “ghost” section—section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act 1996. 
Part A of the schedule concerns goods manufactured in New Zealand.It concerns motor spirit with a Research Octane No. less than 92—that is regular grade. People will know that I am the member of Parliament for Whangarei and that the Marsden Point oil refinery resides in that electorate. I am well aware of what they are doing there to ensure that they produce petroleum products that do not hurt our environment but are still very good products for motorists throughout New Zealand to use. 
I have a question for the Minister about these rates of duty. Members will see the four columns the first being headed “Excise item number”. I am referring to Part A “Goods manufactured in New Zealand” and I am referring to excise item No. 99.75.15C. That particular number refers to motor spirit with a Research Octane No. less than 92. That is regular grade and the unit column is per litre—and we have been talking about the increase to 5.08c per litre tonight. The last column is the “Rates of duty” column and it states: “36.2c plus 8c per g of Pb”. I assume that that is lead. A litre of petrol I take it weighs less than a kilogram would that be right?Yes one litre of water weighs one kilogram. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: No! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Harry Duynhoven does not realise that one litre of water weighs one kilogram. He should be ashamed of himself. The Minister in the chair Judith Tizard should know that one litre weighs one kilogram at 273 Kelvin. Per gram of lead one litre of petrol would weigh roughly slightly less than one kilogram. 
What I want to know from the member is how many grams of lead per kilogram roughly are in one litre of petrol? If there is an additional 8c per gram of lead and there is substantial lead in one litre of petrol I would like to know—and I am sure other members would like to know—how much that puts up the price to consumers.I ask the Minister in the chair to answer that question. How many grams of lead are in one litre of petrol; therefore how much is contributed by the lead content? I assume that is some sort of penalty. I have already given the Minister a brief lecture on how much the petrol should roughly weigh. If she could work that out and report to this Committee I would very much appreciate it. 
Interestingly enough these levies or what we call taxes which have been increased by this Labour Government will contribute to accident compensation.When people read Part A and Part B of the schedule they might not realise that the Accident Compensation Corporation already has about $3.5 billion in reserves. It is worth questioning whether it would get a better return by investing some of that money in road safety initiatives—that is in the fence at the top of the cliff—rather than billing New Zealanders more levies. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
 This is the part of the bill that actually tells us the numbers—that is by how much the levies the rates of duty will be increased. Effectively it means that instead of paying 2.3c a litre tax on petrol everybody will be paying 5.08c a litre so this Labour Government is increasing the tax on petrol at this particular moment in time by 120 percent. Theoretically the idea is that it will go into helping to run the Accident Compensation Corporation. I say that this Labour Government has got this whole thing completely wrong. The Accident Compensation Corporation does not need the money now; the corporation has plenty of money to fund itself at the moment. The motorists of today are having to fund the tail of accident compensation in the future and that is very unfair on the families and small businesses that are struggling at the moment. 
What is worse about this particular bill is that it comes under the label of an accident compensation bill. This bill is a tax-increase bill and the Labour Government was elected on a bandwagon of saying that it would be open honest and transparent. 
Jill Pettis 
: Talk about the schedule. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I ask that member over there why the Government did not put into the title of this bill the fact that it is a tax-grab bill. That is what the bill is all about. 
The schedule tells small business that its petrol charges are going up. What we do know is that small business is finding it so hard to get by and the first thing it has to do is pass that cost onto the consumer. What it means is that the numbers in these schedules will simply be another cost on New Zealand families. Only an anti-business Government would actually consider that that makes sense when we have a downturn coming. Most of the people of New Zealand realise that a downturn is on the horizon and here we have a bill that is putting up the cost to motorists throughout the country—that is ordinary families with their ordinary cars. More important it is everybody who has anything to do with transportation so anybody who buys a loaf of bread will find the cost of bread going up because the cost of petrol is going up. That means that that cost will eventually be passed onto the consumer so we can expect price rises for bread milk cheese—for everything that consumers in New Zealand buy. 
The real problem with accident compensation is that it is a monopoly run and controlled by the Government so we get the Government in here today putting up the levies on petrol and accident compensation without any problem at all. It is one hand feeding the other hand; it is the two arms of the Government conspiring against the ordinary families and taxpayers of New Zealand. 
It is interesting to look at the issue of accident compensation. Labour has already increased levies for the self-employed by 40 percent since it has been in power. The wage-earners’ levy has increased by 10 percent motorbike levies by 57 percent and car ownership levies by 14 percent and now we have the third increase in the price of petrol. This increase is going to accident compensation and it is a 120 percent increase. I say to the members sitting opposite that that is shameful because it will hit the very families who are struggling harder than anyone else to get by and that is the group that the Labour Party tries to pretend it is representing. I say that this heavy-handed tax grab is not needed and it should not be taking place now. I think it is disgraceful that the Labour Party is once again increasing the taxes on New Zealand families. 
What did Labour say when it came into Government? It said no tax increases on anybody who earned under $60000 a year. What have we had? We have had 25 different tax increases since Labour became the Government. I say that that is an absolute disgrace because most of those tax increases have been by stealth. I wonder whether listeners realise that Labour has collected an extra $9 billion in stealth taxes since it was elected. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 This brings us to the end of the debate on a tax that the Opposition will not be supporting—for the reasons we have been articulating during the Committee stage. When we look at the schedules we see that it is nothing but a tax increase and a “tax by stealth” as the ACT member has just said. If we were to take into account how much money is collected now to meet the accident compensation levies it is 39c per litre plus GST. Of that 39c 2.3c per litre is going towards accident compensation. That amount will be increased under this bill to 5.08c per litre. That is a 120 percent increase and it cannot be justified at all. There is also the 18.5c per litre that goes to land transport funding and another 18.5c that goes to the consolidated account. The argument we have put up is simply that the tax has already been collected. If more money needs to go into the accident compensation account it should come out of the consolidated account and it can be moved across for that purpose. But no this Government has gone out and said: “ We’re going to increase the taxes.” 
What is very concerning about this bill—and it is a point I have raised in previous debates—is that it provides that the Government does not have to come back to the House to have future increases scrutinised. The Government can do it by regulation. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Very bad. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is very bad. It is absolutely intolerable that the Government can increase that tax in future without having to come back to this House for the matter to be scrutinised and debated. There is no transparency; no accountability. That is what this Government is imposing on everybody who drives a vehicle. 
This tax will hit those on fixed incomes—the mums and dads at home and people who are retired. They do not have the means to go out and earn extra income to be able to pay a 120 percent tax increase. We have seen this done before in the term of this Government. Other tax increases have come in and Muriel Newman alluded to some of them. The income tax rate for those earning over $60000 per annum went from 33 to 39 percent. The fringe benefit tax increased from 49 percent to 64 percent. The income tax for trusts in respect of minors went from 19.5 percent to 33 percent. We saw the tobacco excise tax increase from $7.30 to $8.20. 
We saw the increase in the petrol/diesel road-user charge and what a debate that was! We saw the alcoholic beverages tax go up and that was the issue we debated until 5 to 5 in the morning. The Government said that tax was supposed to target binge drinking and under-age drinkers. But once again it mostly hit those who like a port or a sherry at the end of an evening. The accident compensation levies for self-employed people increased. Then just the other day we heard about the flatulence tax that will bring in $8.4 million. In the schedule of the bill we see this tax increase in the accident compensation levy. National certainly opposes that increase. 
Interestingly in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today there is an article by Colin James under the headline: “Clobbered by the sneaky taxes we don’t see coming”. The tax we are talking about today is one of those sneaky taxes. 
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment.