Invitation to Mr McLea

[Ixion]

ACC are unhappy, it seems, about "misinformation being spread by certain biker groups".

So I've invited Dr McLea to publicly debate the changes. With us and other "affected stakeholders"

Copied to the Dom Post reported.

Dear Mr McLea

I note your comments in the Dominion Post this morning, regarding what you consider "misinformation" from biker groups, regarding proposed changes to ACC.

It is important that the general public have a clear idea of the changes envisaged to ACC (I note that ACC has already effectively turned itself into an insurance company).

BRONZ and the motorcycling community, together with other stakeholders likely to be affected by the changes, would be happy to debate these with you. I am sure that one of the television stations would be keen to give air time for such a debate.

Please let me know you response.

Best regards

Les Mason

[GOONR]

I'd hate to go to battle against you Ixion, your like a bulldog with a bone. Just won't let it go.

Good on ya and thank you for fronting up on our behalf.

[Azi Dahaka]

i completly agree with this he has made a statement and it needs to be countered. the statement clearly stated we have done something wrong and if we have we should fix it BUT if we havent then he needs to widthdraw said statement

[yachtie10]

Well done Les and thanks for your efforts

I would like to point out (I am sure you are aware anyway) that there has been misinformation been put about by bikers. This I blame on ACC anyway for not being forthcoming on how and why they calculate the information they have presented.

What I am trying to say is be careful you don't get blind-sided by ACC showing some of the calculations we have presented are incorrect.

I am happy to assist where I can
I am good at critiquing other peoples work (not so good at coming up with my own)

[Ixion]

Ah, but in any debate we would NOT be focusing on numbers. "Misinformation" covers a lot more ground than numbers. Like, "misinformation" about ACC truning itself into an insurance company by stealth!

It would be a fatal startegic mistake for bikers to get hung up on numbers and statistics.

We can ridicule their $77 number, because the basis of it is too complex for Joe Q to easily understand.

And we cAN pull their capacity distinctions apart - they're just wrong. But,as they say, if one biker pays less then another pays more - IF the basic numebrs be accepted.

We need to focus on principle.

ACC was not intended to be a user pays system.

[Ixion]

..showing some of the calculations we have presented are incorrect.

..

Far as I'm aware, they're not actually incorrect. Just looking at the numbers differently. Of course ACC will say their take is correct (which technically it probably is). But ours is also "sorrect" .

eg the $77.

ACCs calculation is based on complex acturial principles. Which may be right or wrong, but I'm certainly not going to get into an acturial argument about it. But, Joe Q is a simple soul , and struggles to understand why ACC want to charge $220million when they only pay out $62 million. Which is also correct.

[ManDownUnder]

Keep it simple as you say Les.

How much is spent each year?
How many motorcycles
Divide one by the other and voila... the ACC component of the license

I don't think it needs to get any more complex than that to be honest. Have ACC confirm the figures you quote (expenditure, number of motorcycles...) then do the maths for him there and then.

Take the position that they are using complexity to hide the simple truth, which you have laid out for every one at home to calculate for themselves.

I agree with fighting them on principle too. I won't add my 2 cents worth because I'll only be repeating what others have said. But take it to them on both fronts, keep it simple, and feed them enough rope...

By the way I took the liberty of contacting TV3 asking for aa public forum due to the ACC having huge amounts of funds available to them, while motorcyclists don't. Hope that was ok

[Mully]

Woo Hoo. Good luck.

If you get a reply (and that's a big "if") - it'll be "thanks but no thanks"

[riffer]

And we should publish his response too.

[StoneY]

Just sent Les the actuall total registration numbers as at 31st Oct 2009, courtesay of NZTA senior statician

Normally a 200$ fee for this query, she waved it

However its in SNP format, and I tried opening it with Access and failed...Les may need a cleverer IT geek than me to access the table provided (im a coordinator, been off the tools for ages now)

Its just ammunition, but has been given to us by a Govt Agency, and they broke their own rules giving it free...smack of 'clandestine support' to me


NZTA must like bikers!!!!!

[StoneY]

By the way I took the liberty of contacting TV3 asking for aa public forum due to the ACC having huge amounts of funds available to them, while motorcyclists don't. Hope that was ok

Been onto 20/20 regarding a post 'BIKEOI' segment.....have not been told no yet and a senior editor is having a chew on my proposed story

[mikeey01]

So I've invited Dr McLea to publicly debate the changes. With us and other "affected stakeholders" Copied to the Dom Post reported.

Your a good Barstard Les and there should be more like you in todays society.

[The Stranger:Me]

However its in SNP format, and I tried opening it with Access and failed...Les may need a cleverer IT geek than me to access the table provided

This may help

[Big Dave]

"misinformation being spread by certain biker groups".

OK - who said 'ACC is fair and reasonable', c'mon - who said it?

[StoneY]

This may help

It sure did
Would have thought this would be incorparated into my 2007 suite, full professional version blahdyblah

Friggin MS (gotta be carefull there works a platimum partner and im off to Seattle next year to certify)

Toys toys toys

Yes, I agree with you all Les is a bloody good bloke