Moroney Sue: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6839. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Labour): I want to use my further contribution on Part 1 to clarify what Labour’s voting position is going to be and to also respond to some of the issues that have been raised by the Minister in the chair the Minister for ACC when she spoke and also the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee Jonathan Young when he spoke. The first thing that I want to clarify is that during the Committee stage of the Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill the Labour Party would love to support Part 1 and would love to vote for Part 1 but that will be dependent on the Government’s response to the amendment that I have proposed. The reason for that is I think hearing all of the contributions—well the members seem to have kinds of—I do not know whether to describe them as smirks or frowns. Maybe they are “smowns” or “frirks”—I am not sure which one it is—on their faces. But it is simply this: if what both the Minister in the chair and the chairperson of the select committee have said in their contributions is correct then they should easily be able to support my amendment because what my amendment simply does is give certainty to the New Zealand public—to the businesses to the workers to the motorcar operators of the country—that they will not be overcharged ACC levies for a purpose that is not related to ACC. That is simply what it does.I think that should be an easy amendment for the Government members opposite to support but I have not heard them make any response on the amendment yet. I would like to hear a response on it because I want to hear a commitment today via the vote on my amendment—or if the Minister chooses via simply getting up and saying it in the Chamber. I want to know that the Minister believes that the bill in its current form would stop any Government from using ACC levies and the levy-setting process for any other purpose but reducing injuries and accidents. I want that commitment because if the Government cannot give that commitment in this debate then it is not being financially responsible and transparent when it comes to ACC matters. One thing that I can say about Judith Collins—and I do not agree with her a lot of the time—is that in a funny way when she was the Minister for ACC she was absolutely transparent about this. She got up in the House when she set the levies in 2013 and specifically said—and her press statement said—that one of the factors she took into account in rejecting ACC’s recommended levies was to get to surplus. She was very transparent about it. What I want to know from the Government today is whether it believes that this bill would still allow it to do that. If the answer is yes then that is not financial responsibility when it comes to ACC and it is not transparency when it comes to ACC.I want to clarify for the members opposite that the objection from the Labour Party is not necessarily that “must” has been changed to “should” because we see the need for that level of flexibility. Sitting here today and discussing ACC levies we see the need in that we might not be able to foresee everything that is going to happen. That is not our objection. We agree with those sets of amendments around the guiding principles but only if there is the backstop to make sure the flexibility is not so large that it allows the Government to mislead the levy-setting process and use it for something that it was not designed for—to artificially hike up ACC levies for purposes that are not to do with accident compensation and for purposes that are not to do with reducing the incidence of injuries and accidents in our workplaces. I want that commitment from the Government today because its past performance tells us that it believes it should be used for that.However there is one rider that I will put on it. When I asked the Minister whether she had sought Crown Law advice on whether it was lawful under the current Act to use the ACC levies to get to surplus she said that she had not even asked Crown Law for advice. There is only one reason why in my view a Minister would assert that she had the legal right to do that but would not ask for Crown Law advice and that is because she probably knows that what has already happened is unlawful. If that is the case then I am kind of comfortable with the bill as it is. If we know that what the Government has already done was unlawful then there is no need for my amendment because the law as it stands is perfectly good. But if the Government does believe that it has got the lawful right to do what it has done since 2013—and that is by its own admission use the levy-setting process reject the recommendations made by ACC and have higher levies in place in order to get to surplus—then my amendment is absolutely needed.My amendment is needed because of what Business New Zealand said when it came to the select committee. I am going to read directly from its submission because people might not believe it. I mean it is hard sometimes to believe that the Labour Party and Business New Zealand are singing from the same song sheet but absolutely in this instance we are and the Government is on the wrong side of the equation. Business New Zealand said: “The state of the Government’s fiscal position (as expressed in the Government’s accounts) should not be a consideration when setting ACC levies.” I asked Business New Zealand when it came to the select committee whether it would support an amendment such as the one that I am proposing in Supplementary Order Paper 123 to ensure that the Government could not do that and it said that it would. It wanted to see a legislative fix to this to stop it from happening again and the Labour Party is offering exactly that legislative fix. So I want to hear from the Minister an assurance about that and her view as to whether in the new funding policy statement she can actually set out getting to surplus as a reason for ACC levy setting—that it could be one of the things that she asks for in that funding policy statement. I want to know from the Minister whether in fact it is her view that that is allowable or not under the law as it would exist without my amendment because that is going to be important for our vote going forward.I want to speak to new section 166C “Consultation publication and amendment of funding policy statement” set out in clause 5 in Part 1 of the bill that we are debating. This is because there will be a consultation on that and that is good for transparency. I accept that there are many parts of this bill that will add to transparency. But I want to know that when that consultation happens the people who are giving the information—the stakeholders who are consulted with—will be listened to. We had the shambolic situation probably early this year when the Minister for ACC went out for consultation on ACC levies. A number of people have told me that during that consultation process they told her that she was about to make a big mess of the ACC motor vehicle levy process. They told her of exactly the models that were in the wrong categories and they told her of exactly the problems that she was about to bring on by changing the model and she ignored all of that advice. She ignored all of that advice and look what happened next: I think 24 models—about 115000 motor vehicles—had to have their ACC motor vehicle levy reclassified and changed and reduced because that Minister did not listen when the stakeholders told her and warned her of the mess she was about to make of that new model coming in for the motor vehicle levy. That should have been a good news story for the Government; it has turned into a complete and utter shambles.With new section 166C and its consultation process being put forward again I want to seek an assurance from the Minister that when she puts out her funding policy statement first and foremost she accepts that one of the funding policy statements that she cannot require of ACC is for it to make a provision to help the Government out with getting its books in surplus. I want that assurance from the Minister. I equally want an assurance from the Minister that in consulting with the stakeholders over the funding policy direction she will listen to what people are telling her because she certainly did not when it came to the levy-setting process earlier this year. She was given specific information—and I have seen Minister the specific information that you were given—by stakeholders during that process that was utterly and completely ignored and that is the reason why you have got yourself in the mess that you are in now.