ACC Levies - A resource thread

**Mom** · 14th October 2009, 16:10

No doubt you will have heard about the new ACC levies that we are about to have imposed upon us. I thought this thread might be useful to use as a resource.

Here you will find the details of what is happening

Motor vehicle Policy

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...4&postcount=22

This is where you go to make a submission about your thoughts - closes November 10th.

http://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/le...2011/index.htm

This contains a list of MPs contact details

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...2&postcount=10

BRONZ Meeting details

21st October - 7:30pm

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d.php?t=109889

I see Ixion has already started a thread for this but none the less, here are the details of the BRONZ meeting to be held next week.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...7&postcount=69

Mods, would it be possible to have these threads sticky on the forum for a bit? No doubt there will be other things to add to this.

We need someone to write us a "good, pithy" letter to include with our submissions. This can be added in here too.

**Brian d'marge** · 14th October 2009, 16:36

in the mean time here is a report about ACC

Stephen

> BLOOD ON THE COAL: THE ORIGINS AND FUTURE OF NEW ZEALAND'S ACCIDENT COMPENSATION SCHEME

Sorry cant load it up too big

Web site

http://www.hazelarmstronglaw.co.nz/reports.php

**Mom** · 14th October 2009, 16:58

A couple of useful email addresses here

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...&postcount=243

**kewwig** · 14th October 2009, 19:38

ACC figures show 54,400 motorcycles over 600cc, double the number for those 126-600cc. More and more riders returning to motorcycling (as distinct from the scooter brigade) are males over 35, who ride predominantly on weekends, carry passengers and luggage and generally use the bikes for pleasure. Typically this group has more disposable income and will purchase larger machines. Weekend rides usually involve rural roads and higher speeds. As many writers point out, getting into trouble on a bike for going too fast is just as easy on a 500cc machine (arguably the smaller bikes have budget brakes, tyres and suspension) , and we all know how the typical 1500cc cruiser will fare lined up against a GSXR600.
The under 125cc group have lower risk, simply because those machines are typically used in a lower speed urban environment – primarily for transport and not so much for pleasure. Whilst the likelihood of a crash is higher, injury severity is generally lower.
The point I am making is that the crashes are not necessarily because of the capacity of the machine, but simply because there are a hell of a lot more older riders out there on bigger machines , thus more exposed to risk. If we all moved tomorrow to 599cc bikes, my view is that the risk profile will be the same. Age, errors, other vehicles and exposure to risk are not cc dependent.
Linking engine capacity to the argument is specious – in fact it is really a differential rate that correlates just as well with age and disposable income (again, generally a factor of age). The same linkages could be applied to bike prices – the more expensive bikes would correlate to a greater claim rate. Again, ccs are not causative. It could be argued that this is discrimination on the basis of age – a breach of Section 21(1)(i) of the Human Rights Act 1993.
If they are going to screw us, they should apply it evenly across the group, not single out the older riders by virtue of machine choice.
Any lawyers out there have a view on this?

**beyond** · 14th October 2009, 20:07

Can anyone verify if we still have to pay for overseas visitors and tourists when they have an accident. I believe the costs involved in this are horrendous and if they want to save money, knock that on the head for a start! Hell, we have to get insurance when we travel overseas.

I heard a case where an overseas skier broke his leg and the total cost before he arrived at his home in Canada, was $80,000. I also believe that because the accident happened here that all the after care is still being paid by NZ'ers???!!!@@#$##@!!

Can we verify that this still stands cos if so I'll be writing to my local MP to have something to say about it and the tax on tax on tax to all us bloody hard workers that want some pleasure in life riding our bikes.

**tri boy** · 14th October 2009, 20:16

Originally Posted by beyond

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can anyone verify if we still have to pay for overseas visitors and tourists when they have an accident. I believe the costs involved in this are horrendous and if they want to save money, knock that on the head for a start! Hell, we have to get insurance when we travel overseas.

I heard a case where an overseas skier broke his leg and the total cost before he arrived at his home in Canada, was $80,000. I also believe that because the accident happened here that all the after care is still being paid by NZ'ers???!!!@@#$##@!!

Can we verify that this still stands cos if so I'll be writing to my local MP to have something to say about it and the tax on tax on tax to all us bloody hard workers that want some pleasure in life riding our bikes.

Yes it does.
A very free hospital for USA tourists that would of faced $100k bill at home for the equivalent surgery.

**PZR** · 14th October 2009, 20:34

Here is a current list of all members of Parliament. Can this be added to the resource near the top. Their email addresses are on there. Perhaps someone email savy can compile them so people can copy and paste and send letters flooding the MPs with their complaints. Beyond my meager skills sorry

**Genestho** · 14th October 2009, 21:48

"To make a submission, you need to write to us advising us what you think. As well as commenting on the proposed levy changes for the year, you can comment on all aspects of the ACC Scheme.

Your submission must include:

Your name
Your address
Your contact phone number(s)
You can send your submission:

By post:
Levy Consultation
ACC
PO Box 242
Wellington 6140

By fax:
04 918 4395

By email:
consultation@acc.co.nz"

Submissions are best in your own words, if you find a good argument, make it yours - don't copy it.
If you state a fact, cite your resource directly.
If you have a proposal think it right through to the end, and again cite your resource or research, if you search media, don't use media quotes, find the info yourself, that the media is quoting.

Emails to MP's are better if you wish to impart how this affects you personally as a rider. It is something affective and something anyone can do RIGHT NOW.

ACC FAQ's Any questions regarding ACC's works
Also How are we Funded - address the different accounts

**Genestho** · 14th October 2009, 22:12

12 Requests(1) Any person, being—

(a) a New Zealand citizen; or

(b) a permanent resident of New Zealand; or

(c) a person who is in New Zealand; or

(d) a body corporate which is incorporated in New Zealand; or

(e) a body corporate which is incorporated outside New Zealand but which has a place of business in New Zealand,—

may request a department or Minister of the Crown or organisation to make available to him or it any specified official information.

(1A) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a request made, on or after the date of commencement of this subsection, by or on behalf of a natural person for access to any personal information which is about that person shall be deemed to be a request made pursuant to subclause (1)(b) of principle 6 of the Privacy Act 1993, and shall be dealt with accordingly, and nothing in this Part or in Part 5 shall apply in relation to any such request.

(2) The official information requested shall be specified with due particularity in the request.
(3) If the person making the request asks that his request be treated as urgent, he shall give his reasons for seeking the information urgently.

Information Act -Your Right to Know a guideline

Link to Directory of Official Information

ACC link to Fact sheet for requesting Information under Official Information Act

I wonder if we (or BRONZ) can use this to gain the figures? I recon first you have to break it down so you can see what ya dealing with.

**Exodus** · 15th October 2009, 09:01

The facts on Motorcycle crashes can be found here (assuming that ACC used these for their policy):

http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...clecrashfacts/

**Genestho** · 15th October 2009, 09:13

This thread is gathering good stats.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d.php?t=109976

And I dragged out this petition from a thread (thanks to Ninja 750

)

**Warren** · 15th October 2009, 16:49

I have created a page on the kiwi biker wiki to put some of the factual information which may be of help.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/2009_ACC_levy_proposal

**Brian d'marge** · 15th October 2009, 18:04

Conclusions on implementation and delivery of ACC
accounts
Employers
For the employers account, we can observe the following:
• ACC under its current structure performs comparatively well in
terms of overall cost, administrative cost and return to work
measures, with relatively high benefit levels.54
• Comparisons elsewhere indicate that privately underwritten
workers compensation schemes as a group have higher levels
of administrative cost on average than government monopoly
schemes, likely driven the need to cover profit margins and
marketing expenses.54,52 The especially long financial tail of
the ACC would be expected to further increase any required
level of private underwriting profit margins.55
Motor vehicle
For the motor vehicle account we can make the following
observations:
• There are few motor vehicle schemes in the world which share
the key features of ACC (full or largely no-fault coverage;
periodic benefits; comprehensive case management with
coordination of a full range of benefits and services; and a
focus on qualitative claimant outcomes of participation and
independence). These schemes are presented in more detail
in Chapter 4.
• The few schemes which are comparable to ACC are all
delivered through government monopoly schemes.
• When compared with other no-fault motor vehicle injury
schemes, ACC has relatively high benefit levels but very low
levels of overall cost.
xxviii | PricewaterhouseCoopers
Executive summary
• The motor vehicle account is the largest contributor of serious
injuries to the scheme accounting for 43% of total serious
injury claims and costs.
• A change to private competitive underwriting of the ACC motor
vehicle account would require significant operational
regulation in order to ensure delivery against the Woodhouse
Principles.

Attached it the report

Stephen

**Spratt** · 15th October 2009, 20:03

I've been doing a bit of searching and made a start at pulling together some information on other ACC claims amounts, etc. My thoughts so far ...

ACC claim that their proposed levy restructuring more fairly shifts the costs to those of most ‘burden’ to the system. This could not be further from the truth! Once again, a minority group is being targeted by the Government, this time to offset debt incurred by the poorly managed ACC system. To begin with, ACC Board chairman John Judge is incorrect in his statement that ACC “paid out $62 million for accidents caused by motorcycle riders …”. In fact, Ministry of Transport data (Motorcyclists Crash Factsheet 2008) shows that only around 51% of motorcycle accidents were actually caused by the rider. Motorcycle riders will know who caused the other 50%! He also failed to mention that ACC paid out over $208 million to drivers and passengers of car accidents.

The Ministry of Transport’s report ‘Motor Vehicle Crashes in New Zealand 2008’ makes for interesting reading, perhaps ACC should have a closer look. It shows that injuries to motorcyclists and pillions in 2008 are at same level as 1957 (1397 vs 1396), but the number of car drivers injured has almost trebled (2964 vs 8536). What about passengers of motor vehicles? They do not pay an ACC levy to be in the car, yet last year there were 3365 motor vehicle passengers injured. Note as well that motorcycle injuries made up only 9% of all motor vehicle related injuries in 2008. While not all injuries may result in an ACC claim, these numbers point to an unbalanced view from ACC in apportioning blame to motorcycle riders.

And what about all the injuries that occur to other people who do not pay an ACC levy for the activity that resulted in their injury? Examples include car passengers as noted above, as well as the 939 pedestrians and 895 cyclists injured in motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) in 2008. Should there be an ACC levy to walk down the street or own a push bike to cover the cost of treating these accidents? Aside from MVAs, how about all the other people injured in non-ACC levy paying activities? In the 12 months from July 2007, ACC paid out almost $35 million to people who suffered a serious injury related to recreational or sporting activities (note this is just serious injuries, not all). People injured just walking down the street (pedestrians) cost ACC $24 million alone! And what about the most common place for an accident to occur in New Zealand – the home. ACC paid $439,507,000 for injuries that resulted from an accident at home. Should there be an ACC level based on the size of your house? And of course we could not forget our national sport. Combined, injuries from rugby union and rugby league cost ACC over $50 million in the 07-08 year. Netball injuries cost them $11.5 million. And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to sport related injury claims. Where does the money come from to meet these claims? (see ACC injury statistics 2008 for more interesting facts)

**Bend-it** · 15th October 2009, 22:36

Here's a submission I wrote, short and to the point. Feel free to use it for ideas, but please write yours in your own words...
==========================================
Hi,

I'm writing to protest the proposal to increase ACC levies for motorcycles, and not for other higher-risk activities, like rock climbing, rugby, bicycling etc. This penalises motorcyclists unfairly for the increased risk that all these other groups pose as well. Motorcyles are just an easy target.

1. If we are going down the route of higher risk pays higher ACC levies, then it should be applied uniformly, as opposed to just one high-risk activity.

2. If ACC premiums are linked to injury risk, then paying multiple premiums for multiple vehicles is not right, as one can only operate one vehicle at a time. A large number of motorcyclists have multiple vehicles and so are further penalised by this.

3. Motorcyclists should also then be creditted for benefits like easing congestion, parking and having a smaller carbon footprint.

My suggestion is that people's overall risk profiles get assessed individually, and ACC premiums charged on that, just like how insurance comapnies do it, which is what ACC is, at the end of the day.

Name:
Address:
Tel: