Adams Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Adams Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6645] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 As I have previously stated to the House United Future accepts that the increased costs faced by the Accident Compensation Corporation do need to be met and we also accept that increasing the petrol levy is the most equitable way of achieving that as opposed to increasing the vehicle registration fees. However we think this increase should be absorbed into the total amount of excise duty taken by the Government rather than it allowing $785 million of the $1.7 billion collected in— 
Dail Jones 
: He’s agreeing with New Zealand First. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: —I am agreeing with New Zealand First—petrol excise duties road-user charges and motor vehicle licensing fees to be siphoned off into the consolidated account. There is no guarantee that this money will be spent on accident compensation and rehabilitation roads or anything else directly transport related. 
In Part 2 clause 6 raises the Accident Compensation Corporation 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 this increase is not taken out of that amount. That is in reality the purpose for which it is collected. Taking the Accident Compensation Corporation increase out of the money that goes to the Government would support this principle and would leave 15.7c to be diverted to the consolidated account. Then at least a greater proportion of the excise duty would be guaranteed for use for transport-related costs. That measure would I believe earn a lot of respect from the motoring public. 
During the select committee process Federated Farmers pointed out that the diversion of 18.5c a litre of fuel excise into the Crown’s account was initially justified on the basis that it was required to fund the medical costs of road accidents. Federated Farmers submitted that the subsequent introduction of the motor vehicle account invalidated this justification to which the Government replied that medical costs were not the only justification for the diversion of the excise. It cited a number of educational enforcement programmes to which the excise contributed but we would have to say that 18.5c for every litre of fuel purchased is right over the top of what could be called reasonable. In the meantime spending on Transfund was actually cut in the 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 not enough to show for the money they already pay. 
The purpose of this bill is to bring into effect announced changes in the petrol levy because petrol use takes into account the amount of time the vehicle is being driven. It roughly corresponds to the consequent degree of exposure to risk of injury. The Government announced in December 2002 that for the 2004-05 levy year the petrol amount will be raised by 2.3c per litre to 5.08c per litre. The reason for the increase is that the Accident Compensation Corporation motor vehicle account has recently faced a significant cost increase. It is legally required to collect enough levy to meet those costs. Although the number of fatalities has declined this has had the perverse effect of increasing the medical and rehabilitation costs for those who survive but sustain serious injuries. The other practical option for raising the necessary levy is to increase the annual vehicle-licensing fee. However the Government considers that it has already reached a level whereby any further increase could have adverse social consequences. So in the Government’s view the only practical and equitable solution is to increase the petrol levy. 
United Future does not fault the Government’s reasoning. We accept that the increasing costs faced by the Accident Compensation Corporation need to be met. We also accept that increasing the petrol levy is the most equitable way of achieving this. However this runs counter to United Future’s view of the wider transport policy as expressed on many occasions by my good colleague Larry Baldock. United Future cannot condone a further unnecessary increase in the tax burden already borne by New Zealand motorists. We already pay more than $1.7 billion in petrol excise duties road-user charges and motor vehicle licensing fees but $785 million of this is siphoned straight back into the consolidated account. As I said it is not spent on accident compensation and rehabilitation roads or anything else directly transport related. As I asked previously at a time when the New Zealand economy is said to be under pressure from external factors and from national infrastructure deficits is this really a good time to siphon an extra $75 million out of the regions? That is what this bill does. The poor old New Zealand motorist gets hit again especially those who use our roads more often for their work. Many in my opinion do incredible mileage often with no accidents. The poor old employer with his salesperson on the road gets hit again. United Future will not be supporting this legislation.