Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6643] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for giving me the opportunity of speaking on this so-called Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. I say “so-called” with reason because undoubtedly that is one of the most deceptive titles. One cannot call it a euphemism; it is outright deception because this is a levy a tax on the people of New Zealand. There is nothing to do with injury prevention associated with this bill. 
I call upon the Government to remember what its members said when they were in Opposition and bandied around their credit card. They said: “No more taxes.” yet we have had 15 different taxes since Labour has come into power. There have been 15 and this bill is all about introducing another one. It is very interesting also to recall that a former Prime Minister Mike Moore said several years ago while he was indeed at the forefront of this Labour Party: “A levy is a tax; a tax is a levy.” Undoubtedly this so-called injury prevention bill is nothing more than a tax grab. 
But more important this Government says it is focusing on economic growth to bring New Zealand into the top half of the OECD. This bill absolutely epitomises why the Prime Minister has had to admit that her Government’s policies have no date attached as to when New Zealand might ascend into the top half of the OECD. As I said before this tax is just one in a series of 15 increases in taxes that this Government has introduced after Labour had stated on its credit card that it would not do that. 
This bill’s 5.08c per litre increase comes on top of two other increases—one the year before and one the year before that. On 1 July 2001 the Crown revenue petrol excise tax increased from 17.8c per litre to 18.5c per litre. Then again on 1 March 2002 the road fund petrol tax was hiked from 13.5c to 17.7c a litre. This Government which said it would not increase taxes has introduced an increase for 3 years in a row. This measure is probably only the beginning. Members should remember that this was the Government that said it would focus on accident prevention. 
Let me go back a step. Let us look at how it has rationalised bringing in those taxes for 3 years in a row and this time round. The Government said it was because it had “better methods of calculating the costs of long-term injury claimants”. Well in actual fact just as it has brought in new taxes for 3 years in a row it has said for 3 years in a row that it has better methods of calculating the costs. How long will that go on? How good is the Government getting or how hopeless is it getting? Every year time and time again we hear: “Oh no we’re going to have to revise the costs to the poor old New Zealand motorist. We haven’t quite done our calculations right. We’re going to have to up the taxes a bit.” That is what the Government has done not only once but three times in a row. 
Let us again focus on this Labour Government’s record on accident prevention. It is not very good. Let us look at consequences at what accidents are doing to New Zealanders. Although it is true that the road death toll has come down marginally over the last few years and so it should in actual fact it is still shockingly high. It is in the order of 50 percent higher than that in the UK. But more salutary is the fact that moderate to serious injuries went up significantly between 1999 and 2002 under this Labour Government which says it is focusing on accident prevention. 
Darren Hughes 
: Prove it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I hear the member from Otaki saying: “Prove it.” Well I tell Mr Hughes that the figures are in front of him in  
Consequences 
 a publication brought out by the Accident Compensation Corporation. Just to let him know I say that under the National watch the figures actually reduced from in the order of 82000 to 79000 over a few years and since then they have increased by 14000 extra moderate-to-serious cases. So yes I can prove that and it is an indictment on this Labour Government that despite its rhetoric of wanting to focus on realistic accident prevention policies it has failed. On the other hand there is no doubt that when it comes to collecting taxes this Government is absolutely rapacious. 
One of the other big questions relating to accident compensation is whether it is an effective efficient model. One of the very impressive records that we saw under the previous National Government when competition was brought in was an immediate effect on early case management and early rehabilitation and the galvanising of the corporation into working incredibly hard to improve workplace safety. It was an extraordinary effort of focus in terms of accident prevention in New Zealand and it was very successful—unlike the ideology of this Labour Government which when it came in carried out the absurdity of removing the competitive model taking competition away. Its old instincts of monopoly shone through and once again we are going to see in the long run a lack of efficiency and efficacy. Because of that in this bill we are seeing—not for the first time in 3 years not for the second time in 3 years but for the third time in 3 years—an increase in petrol excise tax. This Labour Government out of pure ideology has taken the competitive model away. There would have been a great deal of sense—and all the serious commentators say this—in continuing that model for at least 5 to 10 years in order to ensure that the big gains that had already started would continue. Sadly purely because of ideology that model has been taken away. 
I want to comment on two other points which come from the submissions made during the select committee process. Submissions came from the Automobile Association from Business New Zealand and from Federated Farmers. The most powerful I believe came from Business New Zealand when it made a fundamental recommendation. Business New Zealand submitted that setting the motor vehicle levy solely on the type of vehicle and the amount of fuel consumed was a poor substitute for a system that should take account of all risk parameters. It said that the Accident Compensation Corporation and the Government should therefore investigate alternative options for setting premiums for the motor vehicle account that would take into account all aspects of risk including driver vehicle and road characteristics in accordance with commercial actuarial practice. That has been absolutely ignored by this Labour Government with a consequence being the bill before us which grabs more taxes from the unsuspecting motorist of New Zealand.