Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9173] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to address the Committee and indeed the nation this morning on the very important matter before us the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. When we began the debate on Part 2 last night my friend and colleague the Hon David W Parker was busy outlining the direction Labour will be taking during this debate. We are strongly opposed to Part 2 of this bill because it means a very simple thing for accident compensation: New Zealanders will be paying more and getting less. If members of Parliament in the Committee this morning vote to approve Part 2 they will ensure that Kiwis out there facing a rising cost of living and economic uncertainty will be paying more for accident compensation in New Zealand and getting less. We in the Labour Opposition do not believe that that is a fair deal for anybody at all. That is what is at stake as we debate clauses 45 to 59 of this bill. 
We are very interested this morning to hear from the Associate Minister for ACC Pansy Wong who has taken over from Dr Nick Smith as the Minister in the chair for a variety of reasons no doubt. We are very keen to hear her views as to whether she contests the contention by Labour that people will be paying more and getting less as a result of the clauses that are in front of us. One of the areas I will look at first of all is the first clause of Part 2 clause 45 “Validation of disclosure of information for assessment of levies”. The issue of how levies are set has become hotly contested. People earning average amounts of money have faced an increase in their accident compensation levies. Of course the small tax reduction they may have received last year was well offset by the increase in accident compensation levies. Those same workers on average incomes will face an increase in their GST to 15 percent this year as well as further increases in accident compensation levies. 
We want to hear a justification from the Minister in the chair of the way levies are being set in respect of clause 45. If we take one group of levy payers in our country motorcyclists we see that it is pretty clear that the disclosure of information for assessment of their levies has been subject to the grossest political manipulation by Nick Smith Pansy Wong and the National-led Government. They have run the line that motorcyclists in New Zealand are somehow an incredibly dangerous group of people who should be socked with massive massive levies. The Government wants political congratulations for the fact that it reduced the proposed levy increase for motorcyclists from many many hundreds of dollars to just several hundred dollars. The approach the Government is taking is inequitable and unfair because it is not applying the same principles that it is socking the motorcyclists with to other groups in society. 
I want the Minister in the chair to try to explain to us why that it is fair. If it is fair to misrepresent the effect that motorcyclists are having on our accident compensation scheme why is she leaving other groups out of that assessment? The only assumption that members of the Committee can make this morning is that this bill is just one in a tranche of several bills which can only lead us to ask who will be the next to pay unfair accident compensation levies when that disclosure of information for assessment of levies is made under clause 45. 
What are the levies now paid by pedestrians and pushbike cyclists for their accident compensation? What level of assessed risk is taken into account for people in that category in the same way that the Minister is now doing for motorcyclists? I think that the Minister needs to come clean on those matters because it seems to me that we are being asked to change accident compensation for one group of people to move it away from the no-fault system to make an assumption about the risk that they have on society and to take into account no other factors. For example Government Ministers have been going around claiming that motorcyclists are 16 times more likely to have an accident than other road users.