Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation,and Compensation Amendment Bill

There is a certain irony about Part 3 being called “Consequential amendments”, because, clearly, here is a situation where my colleague Simon Power has noted an error that has taken away a lot of the consistency in terms of the true relevance of this bill.

The legislative history of this bill is one of absolutely untimely rush. We saw the tax grab introduced on 7 April 2003, and here we are, 6 weeks later, seeing the sort of mistake that this Labour Government is likely to make—and has made—because of the untimely haste with which it goes about grabbing levies from the New Zealand public. It is just an absolutely classic reflection of its inability to scrutinise things carefully, and to ensure that all the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. This is undoubtedly a classic example of the Labour Government’s lack of concentration on detail, and its untimely haste in taking levies from the New Zealand public. The Labour Government is on form once again. After all, we heard earlier in this debate that it was not only former Labour Prime Minister Mike Moore who called a levy a tax, but also the present Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen, who referred to this as a back-door tax.

Let us just have a look at Part 3, “Consequential amendments”, because there is no doubt that the amendments are more than consequential; they are hugely important to this unfortunate further tax grab perpetrated on the New Zealand public by this Labour Government. Let us just go through it. Clause 13(1) states: “Section 2(1) of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 is amended by adding to the definition of duty the following paragraph: ‘(e) levies imposed …’ ”. One of the most significant submissions came from the Automobile Association, which made the point—as did Paul Adams from United Future—that at present the 39c for fuel excise duty on petrol is comprised of 2.3c for the Accident Compensation Corporation, 18.5c for the National Land Transport Fund, and 18.5c for the Crown account. The Automobile Association and Business New Zealand quite rightly pointed out that there is no need to increase the excise duty from 2.3c to 5.08c, which is an increase of over 100 percent. They said it would be far more equitable and proper to take it from the amount that goes into the Crown account.

So we have a great difficulty here—not only with the untimely haste that the Government has used in bringing in this bill, but also with the way it has approached the equity of collecting a tax on motor vehicles and fuel. It has not only confined it to petrol and the vehicle, but it has forgotten about what real risk rating is, because it has thrown aside the very important competitive model that challenged the monopoly, and which brought about earlier rehabilitation.

I move, That the question be now put.

I would like to continue with Paul Hutchison’s substantial arguments regarding Part 3, “Consequential amendments”. Part 3 refers quite specifically to the schedules, which I assume we are debating next, and particularly Part B, where motor spirit with a Research Octane No. less than 92—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We are on Part 3.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In my introductory comments I was speaking on Part 3’s reference to Part B of the schedule, which I specifically said we would be debating later. Part B of the schedule refers to regular grade petrol with a Research Octane No. less than 92, which will be going up in cost per litre. That is what Part 3 is all about. It specifically addresses those grades of petroleum products that will have extra tax put upon them, and, of course, New Zealanders paying extra tax.

I, too, have sympathy for Paul Adams’ arguments. It is good to see him coming out of the blocks to debate this issue, which is close to his heart. We would like to see him debate other issues that he shies away from that we know are also close to his heart, but at least he has started with this one. The fact is that this part of the bill increases taxes for New Zealanders, including the Adams family, and we do not like to see that. I do not like to see colleagues having to dip into their pockets time and time again, but we are seeing it here. Clause 13 amends the Customs and Excise Act simply to allow for the levy rate—and let us be frank, the tax rate—to be increased without having to amend the Act. In other words, this particular part—and I know that members of the public are concerned about this, because they are going white—actually removes the checks and balances that we would normally have on a Labour Government that is determined to tax New Zealanders to death.

Earlier in the day, we went through other examples where this Labour Government has taxed New Zealanders to death. I do not have to mention them—the flatulence tax, and the tax on provincial roading of 4c or 5c. We know about the threatened health tax, and we know that the old people’s sherry and gin went up the other night. We now see the accident compensation levy going up from 2.3c to 5.08c—an over 100 percent increase; 8.5c goes to the Land Transport Safety Authority—we cannot argue with that—but 18.5 goes to the Crown account. I concur with Dr Paul Hutchison: why does the extra money for accident compensation come out of that? Why does the extra money that the Accident Compensation Corporation needs because of its burgeoning bureaucracy come out of that Crown account? I do not know. No one can answer that question for me, Paul Adams, or Paul Hutchison. No one can answer the question for members of the general public of New Zealand, who are being taxed to death.

I would like to move on to clause 13(2) in relation to section 75A of the Customs and Excise Act, which is being repealed. My colleague Simon Power could not even find it in the Statute book. I do not know who put that statute book there, but I call it the “ghost” section. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Speaker for coming in in relation to Part 3 and settling that issue with us. That particular statute book ought to be replaced as soon as possible, because we are very wary about voting on Part 3, knowing that the documentation that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition has access to out the back is incomplete or incorrect. I would appreciate that section being replaced.

I move, That the question be now put.