Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6437. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I invite the member who has just resumed his seat to go out to his constituents and ask them whether they are aware that they will get a hike in their petrol prices and whether they are aware of the title of the legislation that will do that. The title of this bill is very deceitful. There is no New Zealand motorist out there who knows that that is occurring—at least very few of them do. 
I have asked people in the Tauranga area where I come from whether they knew that there was likely to be an increase in accident compensation levies through their petrol charges and they did not have a clue. When I told them the title of the bill that was doing it they said: “Why don’t you call it the ‘Increasing the ACC Levy Bill’?” I said: “Well that’s over to the Government. It is determined to do this. It wants to bring the legislation in overnight without anybody really knowing about it.” It is actually very very deceitful. If New Zealanders were made more aware of this measure I guarantee that there would be more submissions to the select committee. We received only three submissions and as I recall the most public of them all was the one from the Automobile Association. With due regard to the Automobile Association even it has not told the world that this bill is coming to pass. The average motorist does not have a clue. 
We will not be supporting this legislation—not because we do not agree that the Accident Compensation Corporation needs to address its commitment to full funding but because it is not being done fairly. We would be much more receptive to this legislation if the increase from 2.3c to 5.08c came out of the 18.7c that is taken from the petrol motorist and just hoicked into the consolidated account. If the 18.7c per litre were being used to fund this increase we would not have a problem. If even if part of it were being used to fund this increase we would look upon this legislation with more sympathy. But to just impose it on top of what the petrol motorist is paying at the present time is neither fair nor practical. Petrol prices are going up almost weekly. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: They are not. 
PETER BROWN 
: They are—they went up last week. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The exchange rate is knocking them down. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Cunliffe goes about in a Crown car—he would not have a ruddy clue what is going on out there. He sits there on his inflated salary then gets into a Crown car. He should have a look at the prices at the petrol station. Prices went up in the last few weeks. I can remember when the Hon Jim Anderton used to come into this House and raise merry Cain about the prices going up. As I recall at that time the prices were around 80c a litre. We never hear anything from Jim Anderton on that sort of thing now. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I can remember when the member was young. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am still a young member. 
Darren Hughes 
: You can’t mislead the House like that. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is the heart that counts—not the grey hairs on one’s head. I am still very much a young member. 
John Carter 
: Absolutely. 
PETER BROWN 
: Absolutely. This legislation shows no imagination. For example there is no provision for operating a car safely. If the Government had a mind to it could have reduced the proportion that the motorist pays in his or her registration fee—and I should perhaps add that that is $141.10 every year a car is registered—if he or she has an accident-free record. There is no provision at all for safe driving in this legislation. The Government had an opportunity to use some imagination and be a bit innovative. 
We recognise that in terms of accident claims the Accident Compensation Corporation has liabilities in the vicinity of $8.5 billion—give or take the nearest million. I believe it has approximately $4 billion in reserve which it invests. This bill will get through only with the support of the Greens yet only a week or so ago the Greens kicked up bobsy-die because the Accident Compensation Corporation invests in breweries. More of this money will go into investment and into breweries. The Greens might not mind about that now but they raised merry hell a few weeks ago. 
New Zealand First is not too comfortable with the Accident Compensation Corporation taking all that money and investing in breweries. On the other hand it is investing in “booze buses” and trying to scale down people’s drinking. It is certainly a firm advocate of controlling drinking and driving and we applaud that. But to get an increase in money and then invest it in breweries does not sit comfortably with us. I know it does not sit comfortably with the Greens but they will vote for this bill. They will push it through and add another 3c plus GST to the poor old motorist. This is “slug the motorist bigtime”. 
If there were a bit more imagination and innovation we could address the problems that the Accident Compensation Corporation has quite easily but to just say that it needs more money and that that will be put on the motorist come hell or high water is not acceptable to New Zealand First. We are not prepared to support this legislation.