Carter John: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Carter John: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6484] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to raise a matter in the debate on this bill. I refer members to Standing Order 251 and to a whole series of rulings on pages 90 to 92 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. Members might well be advised to study the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings particularly in the context of this legislation. 
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that this bill is called the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. I want members to read this bill and maybe someone who takes the next call will be able to tell me where this bill talks about injury prevention. I have read it and I cannot find it. So if there is nothing about injury prevention in this legislation why is it called “Injury Prevention”? That is why I refer members to the Standing Orders and to Speakers’ rulings because the title of the bill should reflect the bill. Well I cannot find where this bill refers to injury prevention. 
I read on because I thought that although the bill did not talk about injury prevention it would probably talk about rehabilitation. So I went through the bill. I read and I read. Maybe there is something in the schedule and I have missed it; that is a possibility. Perhaps the next speaker will be able to point me to where the bill talks about rehabilitation because I cannot find it. Yet the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings—particularly the latter—say that amendments have to be relevant. In fact the rulings are very clear that an amendment can be ruled out if it is not relevant or if it is facetious. How can we then start off with a title that has no relevance to the legislation? 
The title goes on in its third part to state “and Compensation”. Again I read through the bill and I am sure the original legislation talked about compensation—indeed I know it did—but this bill does not. It does not refer to compensation. It talks about collecting money and it also talks about taking appeals to the High Court on a question of law. 
So this legislation does two things: it talks about gathering revenue and it talks about legal procedures. I would have thought then that if a bill talked specifically about two issues it would be named appropriately. The purpose of naming bills is so that when somebody in a court somewhere or a lawyer in an office up in Kaikohe or Kaitaia or Whangarei or wherever it might be— 
Phil Heatley 
: We’ve got lawyers in Whangarei. 
JOHN CARTER 
: We do not have many because we are good people in the north but occasionally we need them. The purpose of the title is for the lawyers or the people concerned to be able to pick up the Act and see that it is what they need that it will take them to the issue they are looking for. This title will absolutely confuse people. People who want to know about injury prevention who pick up this Act and read it will be confused. People will want to know about rehabilitation and what Parliament did on 24 June 2003. They will want to know what we said about rehabilitation. They will be awfully disappointed because the bill does not talk about rehabilitation at all and it certainly does not talk about compensation. This bill talks about levies. 
Brian Connell 
: What are they? 
JOHN CARTER 
: They are taxes. They are taxes by another name. I am sure I recall this Helen Clark - led Labour Government saying that it was not going to impose any more taxes. I am sure it said that on its credit card.