Just an open question out there to ask.
Sorry for adding another thread to an already busy forum but I think it is important when directing energies etc that the true culprits are recognised.
From lots of reading here and everywhere I have identifed three main culprits:
National Government (Nick Smith/ John Key)
ACC board (John Judge)
ACC motoring pool advisor (Automobile Association)
Now if I try and work out what their objective is (in either privatising ACC or at least causing public displease at the notion of ACC) then I, personally, come up With the following:
National Government - dislike the idea of ACC. Are very business group friendly. The privatisation of ACC would please their business contacts and may lead to a significant pool of funds which they can then access to sort out a lot of their financial conundrums (here I mean the ACC reserves which are about $11bn or so - these may become available to the government war chest if the ACC no longer needs them). They are quite happy for the public to not like the idea of ACC as it would make it easier to privatise.
ACC board John Judge - Now even though this guy obviously has his own mandate (which is pretty hard to work out) I just see him as a middle man. Has nothing to gain from ACC privatisation that I can see. Has been seen to attack Nick Smith in the press but doesn't seem to be on the side of motorbikers either.
Regardless of that though he does just come over as a puppet. I have seen this type of executive management before - people below him have the details and he only has a very high level grasp on the issues/detail. This is why he comes out so badly when challenged on the figures. He doesn't really understand them and is just repeating what he has been advised.
ACC advisors - Predominantly the Automobile Association as far as I have read - they advise the ACC on the levy setting for the motorvehicle pool.
Now these guys/ girls are supposed to provide the view of the road using public. I presonally think that they do not particularily like motorbikes, and I personally beleive it is them that put the ploy in place to whack motorbikes with larger increases than cars. I presume that this is because of the far larger backlash they expect from solely car drivers.
But, when it comes to privitisation of the ACC, I see AA being very interested in this happening. In the UK the AA is a major provider of car insurance. I am assuming that the AA here and the AA in the UK are associated so if the ACC is scrapped/ privatised or reduced then the AA would be well placed to profit from the situation (well known brand and can easily leverage of overseas operations to provide private insurance).
I must point out though that these are just the thoughts of one person. Even as I am typing this I feel like a carzy conspiracy theorist.
I just think it is very important that efforts/ protests are directed accurately to get to the cause of the problem. It's like the art of war book. Know your enemy etc..
Everyone is gunning for Nick Smith (who I reckon will have a nervous breakdown before this all ends and be replaced with another generic minister who will be instructed to do the exact same thing) and John Judge (who I am pretty sure has a hand up his backside which operates his mouth). For me I am a bit mistrusting of the AA in all this. Why should a group who would benefit from the dissapearance of a scheme be an advisor to that same scheme?
Feel free to correct me or give your own slant on this - have I missed any significant players in this whole sneaky dirty scenario we all find ourselves in?
But for me the AA is behind the silly bike increases and the government is behind the larger issue of the ACC being privatised.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by wild_weston
...it is better to live 1 day as a Tiger than 1000 years as a sheep...
Bookmarks