Power Simon: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Power Simon: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6497] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I have just noticed that the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard looks as if she is prepared to take a few questions on this part. I wonder whether she would be good enough to guide me through the reasons for the inclusion of the provisions relating to section 162 “Appeal to High Court on question of law” in clause 4. I see that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee chose to strike out the original appeal provisions and insert a somewhat larger set of provisions relating to appeals to the High Court on questions of law. I see that the usual leave provisions are there. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair would be good enough to take a quick call and let those of us on this side of the Committee know why a larger set of provisions has replaced the smaller set relating to questions of law. 
 I am not sure what the actual difference is. I am not sure whether Dr Paul Hutchison who sat on the committee has a view on that. However if the Minister does not know perhaps she could ask one of the officials and we could get a bit of a rundown as to why that clause has been replaced and why such a large new clause on questions of law is in there now. I shall let that matter lie on the table and come back to it if the Minister is prepared to take a call on it. 
My colleague Phil Heatley referred somewhat unusually to clause 6 “Rate of levies” as a sort of Lucifer clause. He did make one good point in his 5-minute contribution and it was that what the Government is doing here is introducing a non-negotiable bottom line for the levy rate whilst retaining the ability through those other subclauses to raise that rate at any time at all. This is not a concrete provision that sets the levy at a particular rate; rather the clause in question states that in the absence of any other regulation increasing the levy the amount of 5.08c will be the fall-back position for the levy. 
Mark Peck 
: Which clause number? 
SIMON POWER 
: Had the member been paying attention he would know that it is clause 6 which inserts subsection (4)(b)—otherwise known as the Lucifer clause. That clause states that the Government is not increasing the levy to any particular rate. All it is doing is creating a bottom line for that rate so it is a fall-back position. It is not a new rate; it is a minimum statutory inserted rate where the discretion remains to increase that rate at any time in the future. The motorists of New Zealand are in a less than satisfactory position when this Government can by regulation simply amend that rate at any time in the future. I represent a large electorate and I do not think that is in the best interests of— 
Rodney Hide 
: And a good one too. 
SIMON POWER 
: —I thank the member—motorists around New Zealand. Nevertheless to save the motorists of New Zealand clause 11 has been inserted and I predict that it will be the least used clause in this new amendment bill. That clause relates to refunds payable by the corporation and I am willing to wager that it will never be used. I want to state for the record now that the day the Accident Compensation Corporation refunds anything to anybody by way of levy or any other matters it collects under regulation will be the day that United Future makes sense in this House and finally decides not to vote with the Government on matters of confidence and supply. The member should not look so shocked. I am sure that there is more chance of that happening—and it will be pretty rare—than there is of the corporation ever refunding anything to anybody. 
But slipped in at the end is that wee clause 11. Perhaps when the Minister is explaining the reasons for the appeal to the High Court being changed she could help the Committee by perhaps giving it a smorgasbord of events where she envisages the corporation refunding money to people under clause 11. I cannot think of one. I have spent my fair share of time with constituents in Accident Compensation Corporation offices and they are not given to generous refunds. Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call to answer our two queries.