Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:5053] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Clearly the member who has just resumed his seat has no connection with accident victims because he would not be singing the praises of the Accident Compensation Corporation if he had a great deal to do with them. I think the member should stay silent talk to some accident victims and hear what the dickens is going on. 
Darren Hughes 
: As a constituency MP I know what I’m talking about. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is a debatable matter at the very least. There are accident victims out there who are suffering immensely. Accident compensation is missing the mark completely in many many areas and this might well be one of the areas where it is missing the mark. 
We are not necessarily against the Accident Compensation Corporation increasing the 2.3c per litre excise duty to 5.08c per litre but we say that money should come from the levy that goes into the consolidated account already. The motorist is paying plenty to run his or her motorcar and to be covered by accident compensation. That is where the Government should have taken that money from in the first instance—from the 17.5c per litre or thereabouts that goes into the consolidated account. This is another slug at the motorist. This Government has slugged the motorist in this country more than Mike Tyson was by Lennox Lewis. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Very droll! 
PETER BROWN 
: I thought that was pretty good. That member can sit there and say the motorist should be slugged for this and that and slugged here again but not every motorist will pay this duty—only the petrol guy and not the diesel guy or the truck guy. Do they not get involved in accidents I ask that member? [ 
Interruption 
] That is quite right; they do. 
Hon David Carter 
: He doesn’t know. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Benson-Pope is silent now. I can tell members that if the Government wants to increase the levy for accident compensation it should put it right across the board. Accident compensation is meant to be a “no-fault no-blame” structure. But what happens is that only the people whom we think are vulnerable enough to pay are targeted. The others are left alone. Ruth Dyson knows that what I am saying is true; she knows that she has put the diesel people into the too-hard basket. She almost acknowledged that in her opening speech in this debate. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You would put a tax on diesel? 
PETER BROWN 
: We would put the whole thing across everything but we would take it out of the tax that is already being paid. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What would you take it off? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am almost positive that this bill will go to a select committee. The Minister has done her numbers so she knows that the Greens or United Future will prop this bill up and get it through its first reading. I will tell the select committee exactly how to solve the problems of this country in terms of accident compensation exactly as New Zealand First is telling the select committee how to solve the transport problems. 
Hon David Carter 
: The Greens would put us on bikes and skateboards. 
PETER BROWN 
: Bikes and skateboards! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am trying to hear as are other members. 
PETER BROWN 
: I could not even hear myself. I read in a press release that if this excise duty goes up Shell New Zealand will also impose extra costs of collecting it on the motorist plus there will be GST on top of that. I might be a simple sailor but would someone tell me how the extra cost of collecting 5.08c per litre is dearer or amounts to very much more than collecting 2.3c per litre? I fail to understand that. The oil companies are accounting for paying 2.3c per litre into the Accident Compensation Corporation’s coffers and accounting for paying 5c per litre will not in my estimation add any cost to the oil companies. But like the Government they are climbing on to the motorist again. I hope that the other oil companies show a good deal more responsible attitude than Shell New Zealand. 
The Minister referred to a legal requirement to fully fund the motor vehicle account. That all sounds very sound and sensible; we have no argument with that. However there is also a legal requirement for the Accident Compensation Corporation to provide accident compensation to accident victims. Daily in my office I receive letters—and I have no doubt that National Party Opposition members also get letters—from accident victims who state the accident compensation system is failing them. If this bill goes through this House as it is will the Minister give the House an assurance that accident victims will be better looked after? I do not think so. I think that much of that money will be absorbed in administration costs and goodness knows where else. As this bill stands New Zealand First will not be supporting it. We will not be supporting it to a select committee and we would urge the Minister to rethink the whole thing properly.