Salesa Jenny: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSalesa Jenny: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6817. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you for the call on the Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill. Labour supports this bill but with some reservations.As this House has heard from other members this bill is designed to reform how levies are set as well as to ensure that the residual levy is not over-collected. It is about time that there is more transparency about setting ACC levies. It is also time for more fairness for businesses as well as fairness for our workers with regard to ACC levies. They have borne the burden of overly high levy payments over a number of years. Businesses and ordinary workers have paid this for too long and this Government has rejected the proposal that this funding should go back to businesses and ordinary workers. I commend especially the concerted pressure that my colleagues have brought to bear on this issue particularly my colleague Sue Moroney who is Labour’s spokesperson on ACC. Sue Moroney has been tireless in exposing the facts and realities around the Government’s attitudes to the levies and in her strong defence of businesses and workers who have been overcharged for too long.This is a Government of broken promises on moving into surplus not yet realised broken promises on wage and unemployment targets not yet reached and broken promises on no new taxes and no more asset sales. There are no plans for addressing the long-term challenges facing New Zealand at this time. The attention of this Government has been on trying to make the books look good by hook or by crook: by putting band-aids over cracks by stripping New Zealand’s assets and by hoping that the proceeds from their bargain bin sales will make the books look good as well as by taking a $118 million dividend from Housing New Zealand that should be better invested in improving our State houses so that they are more fit for our most vulnerable and our children to live in. Now the Government is looking at ACC levies and at making sure that the cause of the books looking good is actually addressed.This bill does absolutely nothing to address the overcharging of businesses and workers in respect of ACC levies to the tune of $300 million a year. The bill simply codifies the criteria that ACC has already got in place requiring it to take into account the recommendations on the level of levies. In practical terms the Government should not be waiting. It should acknowledge that businesses and workers have been overcharged and bring some relief to both businesses and workers by cutting ACC levies immediately. The National Government has ignored the authoritative recommendations about ACC levies for several years. Treasury ACC and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment have all been advising this Government to cut ACC levies but it has never cut them to the extent that the advice has told it to. It has preferred instead to keep a firm grip on the overcharged cash.It must be made as clear as day that National cannot keep collecting ACC levies to prop up its failed attempts to get the accounts into surplus. When a Business New Zealand economist came to give his oral submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee he stressed that the Government’s fiscal position should not be a consideration when setting ACC levies. Labour has a Supplementary Order Paper to address this issue. Last year the Government held levies much higher than recommended by the ACC board and it has overtly used the levies to improve its Budget numbers. The Minister for ACC admitted in answers to written questions that she has not sought Crown Law advice on the legality of collecting ACC levies for the purpose of getting into surplus. Why then would the Minister claim she has the legal right to do this but not test her proposition with Crown Law? It is probably because she knows that it is not in fact lawful. Labour supports this bill but with reservations. Thank you.