Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation,and Compensation Amendment Bill

I am a little perplexed when I look through Part 3—in fact, at all the bill. I wonder whether the Minister could take a call and assist me. As I look through it, I cannot see any reference at all to rehabilitation. I understand the title of the bill is the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill, but I cannot see any reference to rehabilitation. That is a serious matter, and maybe it is just a drafting error. I think that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Tizard, should take a call and try to avert an error from taking place. Once this bill is enacted, that will be the way it is. I leave that for your attention, Mr Chairman.

In particular, I want to look at clause 13(1). I draw members’ attention to the Customs and Excise Act being amended so that “levies imposed by section 213(2)(c) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001” are inserted in the definition of “duty”. There is no way that one can read that and not say it is a tax. I ask the Committee this: when is a duty not a tax, when is a levy not a tax, and when is a tax not a levy?

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Good question.

It is a very good question.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: What’s the answer?

Well, Michael Cullen gave the answer to the House some time ago. He said that levies were just a back-door way of introducing taxes.

People in the Government have said that this increased levy is just a small matter. As Mr Tisch has rightly pointed out, the increase from 2.3c per litre to 5.08c per litre equates to a 120 percent increase. People who are listening to this debate out there might just say 2c or 3c a litre is not very much. But when we put it in dollar terms, we find it adds up to approximately $155 million. The mums and dads out there are the ones who will be hit with this levy the hardest, because they are on fixed incomes. They will not have the ability to change their incomes to pay for this increase. This is the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. We have just a little bit more, on a little bit more, on a little bit more, until we reach a point where the levy is no longer sustainable.

I ask whether the increase is necessary. The answer, clearly, is no. If there was competition in accident compensation, this bill would not be necessary. I challenge members on the Government side of the Chamber. Mr Peck is calling out. He is a guy who has a lot to say, so maybe he will get on his feet, take a call, and explain, in 5 minutes or so, to this Committee why it is necessary to have a $155 million increase in taxation, under the guise of a levy. I challenge Mr Peck to do that.

💬 Mark Peck: I am a big fella.

I wish Mr Peck would sit down when he calls out. Oh, I am sorry; he is sitting down. I apologise to him.

Does the Minister think that Kiwis are idiots? I want to pose that question to this Committee. Does he really think that the people of New Zealand will not recognise tax increases when he calls them levies? “Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalised robbery.” is a quote from Calvin Coolidge, a former US President. “The reward of energy, enterprise, and thrift is taxes.” is another quote, this time from William Feather, a US author. I think the people of New Zealand need to understand that point. This Government is hell-bent on attacking people in this country—the mums and dads who cannot do anything to change their incomes when taxes are arbitrarily introduced. I tell the member to sit down, because I was taking a deep breath and the next point is important.

If the money was going where it is intended it should go, I would be more relaxed about this legislation. But I say to the members of this Committee—and they may take issue with this if they like—that I do not have any faith in that.

I have just one question—the Minister in the chair has indicated to me she has an answer to it—about Part 3, and it is in respect of clause 13(2), which states: “Section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 is repealed.” Just happening to have a copy of that Act on hand, I notice that in my version of this statute, which is annotated to 1 January 2003, there is no section 75A—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: That can’t be right.

Well, I do not know why that is, so I ask the Minister whether I am right. I could be wrong; that has happened. I ask the Minister to take a call, because if there is indeed a mistake in the annotation, then there—

💬 Jill Pettis: Not allowed to.

The whip interjects, but this is quite an important point: either the annotated statutes in the lobbies are all wrong, or the bill is wrong. So one of those two things has to get the attention of the Minister reasonably swiftly, so that she can explain to the Committee why all the statutes in the lobbies are wrong—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Good question.

—it is a good question, because it is quite a serious question—or, alternatively, why the drafting of this small, wee bill, “Lucifer clause” and all, refers to section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act. By my reading of the statute, annotated to 1 January 2003, that section does not exist. There is a new section 73(2A) in the Act, and a new section 73(5), but there is no section 75A.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Whose fault?

This is what happens. The Hon Harry Duynhoven, as I know, is pretty concerned about procedure, generally speaking, and likes to get things right—to dot his i’s and cross his t’s. I can tell that, beneath the mirth on his face, he is concerned that we are seeing here a legislative process that requires a Minister to get up and explain to the people of New Zealand how this came about. Most people who looked at Part 3 would have thought the amendments were inconsequential, but they are quite consequential when we find that bits of them are wrong or missing. I ask the Minister, in the interests of clarifying this issue for the Committee, whether all the annotated statutes in the lobbies are wrong or whether the drafting of this amendment bill is wrong. As members of the Committee, I think we are here, at least, to facilitate the passage of this legislation in a constructive way, so that—God forbid—we do not leave the judiciary to interpret this stuff. Let me now ask the Minister whether she will now take a call and explain to the Committee exactly how this hiccup occurred.

I assure the Committee that section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act does exist. I have already asked the Clerk to take the matter up with the firm doing the annotation, because members must, obviously, have correct legislation available to them. Section 75A was inserted, as from 1 April 2002, by section 337(1) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001. It is absolutely clear that that provision relates to the levy payable, and I would happily provide evidence to the member that it clearly exists.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You can see the quandary that we are now in when trying to debate the accuracy of these clauses. I have no reason to question the Minister’s word on this issue, but, clearly, the annotations of the statutes in the lobbies are wrong. That raises a number of serious concerns, not the least of which is that members in this Parliament are entitled to rely upon the accuracy of the annotations contained in the volumes in the lobbies of the Chamber. Members in the Committee who are debating various clauses in various bills could be—frankly—misleading the public over issues they are debating, if those statutes are not correctly annotated. I note the Minister’s comments that she is prepared to follow this matter up with those people who are responsible for that annotation. Mr Chairman, I ask for your view on that, but I also ask the Minister—and this may be slightly out of order, for which I apologise—to table a copy of that section, so that the rest of the Committee has access to it; otherwise, we are in a situation in which we are not dealing with accurate information.

I seek leave to table the relevant page containing section 75A, in Part 6, “Duties”, from the copy of the Act—Brooker's Statutes of New Zealand Customs and Excise Act 1996—provided to me by the officials, which they had from brookers.co.nz.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think we are in a predicament in this case. Although the copy of the legislation that the Minister has, which her advisers have provided, may well be right—and I am not questioning its validity—Mr Power has made the point that the statutes on which we rely, and that are the means by which we can check references in this debate, have not been forthcoming. I believe that the question should lie on the Table, and that this debate should be adjourned. We cannot use the statutes as the highest document of authority, the means by which we can check validity and can check off sections we are debating. I seek leave of the Committee that this debate lie on the Table.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for making—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have sought leave.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I refer the member to Standing Order 182: “A committee of the whole House may not adjourn its own sitting or the consideration of any matter to a future sitting.” We have a situation in which the information has been tabled and copies have been provided.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to interrupt you—I would certainly not think that I am known for that sort of thing—but the member has sought leave for the matter to be put. My understanding of Standing Orders is that, in that environment, the question has to be put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have read out Standing Order 182. The member cannot move that the House adjourn. [Interruption] Will the member just hang on? Members can move that we report progress. That is an entirely different matter, and can be done only on a call. I am going to call Dr Paul Hutchison now to give his 5-minute dissertation.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In view of the matters that we have just heard, I move that the House report progress on this bill, given that we have a difficulty with clause 13(2).

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has actually called a point of order. He cannot do that through a point of order. He must do that when he is called; as part of his speech he can ask that progress be reported.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. He did go for the call, and you called him.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I did.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: He started, and he has moved that the House report progress. He is doing what you suggested he do, and he is in line with your instructions.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry; I misunderstood. I thought he was doing it on a point of order.

Speaking to the point of order, I think my colleague Lindsay Tisch is quite right. You suggested that the only thing we could do to draw attention to this matter was to have progress reported. I am moving that that happen.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I clarify why the member is seeking this? We need to be clear. Are you seeking to report progress to get the Speaker’s ruling?

Speaking to the point of order, it is consequent upon your suggestion that because we could not do this through a point of order, and could do it only through a member of the Committee calling for progress to be reported. I am doing it purely on your suggestion.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection?

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that when my colleague Lindsay Tisch sought to have the matter lie on the Table, you denied him the opportunity to do that because of Standing Order 182, and that is the reason my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison sought leave to report progress, in order that the issue that Lindsay Tisch raised could be considered by the Speaker.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Are the members seeking to report progress to obtain a Speaker’s ruling, or just to report progress?

💬 Lindsay Tisch: We want a Speaker’s ruling. If I just go back one step, you may recall that I sought leave for the debate to lie on the Table and you said that under Standing Order 182 we could not, and I accept that. I have no difficulty with that. You then went on to say that if we wanted to pursue this further, someone would need to take a call, which my colleague did.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I accept what the member is saying. I am now going to put the question that the Committee report progress, to obtain the Speaker’s ruling.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just want clarification. We still have much to speak about in Part 3, and also on the schedules. I want assurance from you that the debate will not be curtailed because we are reporting progress. There is still much to be debated in Part 3 and the schedules and, with the process you are going through now, I want to be assured that we still have that opportunity to continue the debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is my understanding that if we get the Speaker’s ruling, we can then move back to the debate. I am now going to put the question.

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We in New Zealand First have not said much. Are we moving under Standing Order 183? If we are, all we should be seeking is to move that the Committee report progress, full stop, not “to get a Speaker’s ruling”. That is a different motion. It is either one or the other, not a hybrid, and I ask whether the point could be clarified that Dr Hutchison is actually just seeking that the Committee report progress, full stop. The additional words “for a Speaker’s ruling” are not required.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): All right.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: We agree with Dail Jones. That is the procedure we would like to see followed.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We find ourselves on this side of the Chamber in a predicament about the—

💬 Jill Pettis: With the poll vote that member has, I would too.

I am speaking on a point of order, and the member is interjecting.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order while a point of order is going on! The member should know that it is certainly unparliamentary to interject when someone is making a point of order. Would the member please be silent so I can hear.

We find ourselves in a predicament. The statutes that we rely on in the lobbies are incorrect. The Minister has tabled the correct statutes from the advisers, and we accept that, but we have to seek out our own definitions and understanding of what the statutes mean. If they are incorrect, I am seeking a ruling on whether this debate can continue. Reluctantly, the only way is to ask that the Speaker be recalled to rule on this matter.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I suggest to the member that the document has been tabled, copies have been provided, and there is no reason that we should not proceed with the debate. I suggest to the member that he might like to reconsider.

💬 Phil Heatley: I just want to convey to you the gravity of the situation, in the sense that if the highest court in the land—and I believe Parliament is the highest court in the land—has access to incorrect statutes, and we take the Minister’s word for that, every other court in the land, such as district courts and high courts, and every legal library, might be in the same situation. We want to establish whether the highest court in the land has the correct statutes, and if they are incorrect, what we are going to do about it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member. Is he asking that the Speaker be recalled?

I move, That the Speaker be recalled.

Motion agreed to, and House resumed.

Speaker Recalled