Adams Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Adams Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6496] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 Part 2 proposes the increased accident compensation levy. As one who really enjoys using fuel I do not like any increases in the cost of the wonderful substance that keeps our machines going superbly on the road. But as my colleague Larry Baldock has already stated United Future accepts that the increased costs faced by the Accident Compensation Corporation do need to be met. We also accept that increasing the petrol levy is the most equitable way of achieving that—as opposed to increasing the vehicle registration fee. However I would challenge one aspect of the thinking in the bill that states that those who do the most mileage are those who might have the most accidents. I do not necessarily agree with that. 
However we think this increase should be absorbed into the total amount of excise duty taken by the Government rather than allow $785 million of the $1.7 billion collected in petrol excise duties road user charges and motor vehicle licensing fees to be siphoned off into the consolidated account. There is no guarantee that that money will be spent on accident compensation and rehabilitation roads or anything else directly related to transport. Clause 6 raises the accident compensation 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 the increase is not taken out of that amount. 
As far as the accident compensation levy is concerned United Future likes the idea of a tax being used in such a direct way for the purpose for which it was collected. Taking the levy increase out of the money that goes to the Government would support that principle leaving 15.7c to be diverted back to the consolidated account. Then at least a greater portion of the excise duty is guaranteed to be used for transport-related costs. 
Federated Farmers pointed out in the select committee that the diversion of 18.5c per litre of fuel excise into the Crown account was initially justified on the basis that it was required to fund the medical costs of road accidents. They submitted that the subsequent introduction of the motor vehicle account invalidated that justification—to which the Government replied that medical costs were not the only justification for the diversion of the excise citing a number of education enforcement programmes to which the excise duty contributed. But one would have to say that 18.5c for every litre of fuel purchased must buy a heck of a lot of educational programmes. In the meantime spending on Transfund was actually cut in this year’s 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 enough to show for the money they already pay.