Shirley Ken: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6485] 
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?