Baldock Larry: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Baldock Larry: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:5054] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 First I think that members in the House should focus their attention on the member Peter Brown because he will probably have a heart attack when he hears my first statement in this speech. United Future will not be supporting this bill. United Future will not be propping up the Government on this measure. If the Government wishes to raise new taxes it will have to look to the Greens for support because we do not support this measure to increase the levy for accident compensation. The reason we are not supporting this bill is that we cannot condone a further unnecessary increase in the tax burden borne by New Zealand motorists. New Zealanders already pay more than $1.7 billion in petrol excise duties road-user charges and motor vehicle licensing fees. However more than $785 million of that is diverted straight back into the consolidated account. It is not spent on accident compensation roads or anything that is directly transport-related. That $785 million is siphoned straight out of the regions and now the Government is asking motorists to cough up even more. 
United Future is not against providing more funding for the transport-related costs borne by the Accident Compensation Corporation; members should not get us wrong on that. We believe motorists should have to pay for the rising costs of treating the people who are injured in car crashes. Accident compensation levies at the petrol pump may be a simple way to collect that funding—the more one drives the more one pays. Perhaps that might be considered common sense but we have to ask whether it is fair. There is no compensation for or consideration of the individual motorist who takes care of his or her own safety who may purchase a safer vehicle and therefore should not be bearing the costs that are spread across the whole driving public. However if that is the measure we are to follow then the extra funding should come from the revenue already collected from road users—as has been said already on a number of occasions by different speakers in the House—rather than taking the form of yet another extra cost for motorists. 
Of the excise duty that is currently collected at the pump 2.3c per litre is already ring-fenced for the Accident Compensation Corporation. Given that so much of that excise duty goes directly into the consolidated account why not ring-fence a further 3c per litre of that for the Accident Compensation Corporation and give the long-suffering motorists a break? The fact that 2.3c per litre is already ring-fenced proves that the Government can designate the funds to the proper source when it chooses to do so. Given the fact that the Government expects to have significant surpluses this year it would be reasonable for the Government to put its hand into its pocket to meet those needs on this occasion. We support the Government’s common-sense approach of not spending all that surplus before we are sure of it being there and— 
Hon David Carter 
: So you’re supporting a tax increase now? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: No. We are supporting a prudent approach to any potential windfall. But that would have been a very small step in the right direction. 
United Future has consistently called for the revenue that is collected directly from road users to be spent on roads and other transport-related expenses including the Accident Compensation Corporation. We understand that the initial fiscal impact of that would be considerable so in order to give the Government’s finances time to adjust we have argued that it should be phased in over a 5-year period. Perhaps the increase of 3c per litre for the Accident Compensation Corporation could be used by the Government to make a start on such a policy rather than passing this bill which does the complete opposite of that. 
At a time when New Zealand’s economic growth is coming under increased pressure from both external factors and deficiencies in our national infrastructure—especially roading—is this really a good time to siphon another $75 million out of the regions and businesses of New Zealand? This extra Accident Compensation Corporation levy will cost Canterbury an extra $10 million per year the Bay of Plenty $7 million Otago $4 million Wellington over $8 million the Waikato $10 million and Auckland a whopping $28 million—and those are just conservative estimates. How does that support the Government’s much-publicised priority of encouraging regional development and economic growth? How can it be fair to take all that revenue from regions that are already paying almost twice the amount they receive back from the Government for transport-related expenditure including that relating to the Accident Compensation Corporation? 
I urge the Government to reconsider its support for the measures in this bill and instead to support United Future’s policy of spending all revenue already collected from transport users on transport-related matters. That would address the need for increased Accident Compensation Corporation funding and at the same time it would benefit road users and encourage economic growth at both the regional and national level. The Automobile Association’s director of public affairs George Fairbairn has said that some members of the association accept the need to cover skyrocketing medical costs but that they want to know when the levies will stabilise. When will we see the increasing cost of medical expenses resulting from accidents on our roads begin to stop climbing and reach a plateau? I believe that will be when we begin to build roads that provide a safe environment for motorists to travel on. 
It has been clearly pointed out by Ministry of Transport officials—even as far back as 1999—that 15 percent of the fatalities and injuries on our roads are a result of the road conditions themselves. It would therefore make much more sense to invest more of the finance that has already been gathered into building better roads and to have a net gain from a reduction in the expenses that come from accidents and injuries that result from poor roads. 
I reiterate that United Future will not be supporting this bill.